Did a God or Gods create the universe? EDITED
-
@unknownuser said:
He said He'd rather believe and be wrong than not believe and be right.
That's practically a simplified version of Pascal's wager. I don't really understand his stance.
-
@tig said:
Getting this back onto the topic...
The existence of [a] God [and that's 'any god', not just the Christian version] is a separate issue from the exact question in hand - although if you were to define God as "the being who created the Universe" then they do get uncomfortably close!
...So, what evidence do the 'believers' have that would withstand the tests of evidence of a court of law?
I have seen nothing presented thus far that has not been a regurgitation of entrenched opinion, dogma and cant; without any proper evidential 'proof' or reasoned 'argument'!...so sometime in the future opinions might have changed, and we might all accept that, "The Universe came into existence as a result of supernatural intervention." BUT there are really no indications of this; except from the extreme-believers' side, but they always fail to provide any concrete, testable evidence anyway...
I'm not sure the conversation ever veered off topic, as you are still talking about beliefs and evidence, etc. My opinion is that science and religion are two separate spheres that can (and should) co-exist. To ascribe the creation of the universe to the Christian God based on the Bible I think is quite far-fetched. I have no idea if there is a supreme being/ intelligence/ or what have you that created the universe. If there is, that "God" sure doesn't seem to be much involved in the day to day running of this planet.
-
@marian said:
@unknownuser said:
He said He'd rather believe and be wrong than not believe and be right.
That's practically a simplified version of Pascal's wager. I don't really understand his stance.
hehe - it's called suspension of disbelief...
-
@unknownuser said:
He said He'd rather believe and be wrong than not believe and be right.
I can entirely sympathise with that, because that was me for a long time. Eventually, I just kind of let go...but not entirely; I still occasionally enjoy a trip to church, for social reasons as much as anything. And I am still sitting on the fence as an agnostic; most probably because I just hate to entirely rule out any possibility.
-
@unknownuser said:
Facts don't change, Jason. Our model for interpreting those facts might change along with, perhaps, our perception of those facts...but facts themselves are immutable.
Um, that's an interesting statement. I read it several times before it hit me: the logic is circular. You can't establish a "fact" based on a mutable set of rules. "Facts" per se, are based on observation and interpretation, which are in turn based on our current ability to accurately test, measure, reason, etc. If the methods of determination are flawed, so are the "facts" ... ie; you can't establish absolutes from mutables ...
Merriam's Dictionary defines one use of the word "fact" as "a piece of information presented as having objective reality."
I maintain that it's "subjective" and what is "reality" anyway? If our model for interpreting "facts" changes, then "facts" aren't "facts" at all.
To wit, Einstein established the "fact" that the speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s. In September of last year, a group of scientists found subatomic particles that move faster than the speed of light. So the "fact of the speed of light" is not a fact at all, only the interpretation of data constrained by our current level of understanding, which encompasses our ability to test, observe, etc. Of course, the new findings are subject to change as well ...
I assert that what we know currently as "facts" are nothing more than mutable conditions that we evaluate and call "facts" until proven otherwise.
Cheers.
-
I'm the same. I was raised Catholic and sent to a Christian Brother school for all my school life. I turned/walked away from religion at about 20. Mainly 2 events.
[1] Clerical abuse as youngster (not sexually) made me question religion.
[2] Lack of answers to my questions
That coupled with a thirst for knowledge led me to educate myself on subjects I had an interest in. I didn't go to college/uni I just became a blue collar worker and enjoyed life minus religion. I raised my son as non denominational which means he's free to do as he wishes. I won't be disappointed if he asks to get baptised or choses to remain a non believer or enters any other religion. He's choice not mine. I won't place him in the Atheist bracket as he can decide when he's ready to.
I will admit this discussion, especially the believers responses to a degree, have at least sparked some old memories of having belief that someone is watching. Remembering as a youngster praying in bed at night for certain troubles to pass. Ironically, praying that Brother X wouldn't be angry in the morning. But that feeling of comfort is something that remains with me. At least I understand what faith feels like when you don't understand the larger world around you. It's a fuzzy feeling like a sort of 'everything will be ok' hug.
Now, I'm no mititant Atheist who challenges others religion beliefs. Each to their own as far as I'm concerned.
To get back on topic because TIG's getting grumpy
What makes me so sure that God doesn't exist?
Just the sheer order that exists around me and that everyday we can explain a bit more about why this happens or that happens. I don't need to know everything now but if every few years we make another leap forward because of science then it just fortifies my current belief. I love the universe. I love to know a storm just raged on Jupiter. That we've robots on Mars trundling along taking samples. Or satellites zipping out at the very edge of our galaxy. I don't need to see or learn of aliens as I understand the distances involved that it's unlikely I'll meet one. But finding some form of life on Europa will mean I die a happy man.
Currently the rings around Saturn are just for us. They slowly disappear with time. Andromeda is gonna collide with us eventually. Our sun will die. These are all facts. Wonderful facts.
If you ask me now what I want to happen when I die...
I want to be downloaded onto a satellite and shot off into space to forever scoot around at tremendous speed. When the missus dies I hope she can be uploaded too. I want see a star explode. Witness a black hole. Hopefully with time I can be recalled to wherever mankind is and be uploaded to a new body to start again.
If I just die as normal I'll still die happy knowing that I existed and did the best I could with what I have.
-
@unknownuser said:
What I do notice about this thread is that non believers are very supportive of others statements. Whilst believers are largely left unsupported or have separate ideas. Understandable considering the amount of variants to follow.
right... of the ~38,000 denominations of Christianity out there, which one should I follow??!
you would think, if the bible and such were so pure/factual/etc there would be no way 38000 different religions would stem from it..
this fact alone would make me stop and really consider my position on believing.. sigh.. -
I don't follow that reasoning at all, Jeff. The speed of light is a fact, irrespective of whether we've measured it accurately or whether there are some things capable of travelling faster than it. It is what it is.
Any scientist worth his salt will admit that science is not in the business of uncovering facts, it's in the business of developing better models to understand and explain those facts.General Relativity explains gravity better than Newtonian physics, but no one is claiming it's the end of the line....just more accurate (if longer-winded).
Scientific progress tends towards discovering 'facts'...in the same way that a property can tend towards zero, but with no real guarantee that it will ever get there.
In the words of Dara O'Briain, "If science thought it knew everything, it would stop." -
@unknownuser said:
I must say that Jesus guy does seem like someone I'd like to know, not worship.
One of the best pieces of advice I ever got was from a friend of mine long ago. He told me, "just read the Gospels like any other book you might read..."
That would be my advice to you as well.
Cheers.
-
@unknownuser said:
you would think, if the bible and such were so pure/factual/etc there would be no way 38000 different religions would stem from it..
this fact alone would make me stop and really consider my position on believing.. sigh..Doesn't matter how many denominations are out there,just believing that Jesus died for our sins and he is our God and creator is the best start. All other falls in to place.
-
@unknownuser said:
@unknownuser said:
you would think, if the bible and such were so pure/factual/etc there would be no way 38000 different religions would stem from it..
this fact alone would make me stop and really consider my position on believing.. sigh..Doesn't matter how many denominations are out there,just believing that Jesus died for our sins and he is our God and creator is the best start. All other falls in to place.
Where did I say that?
-
-
@unknownuser said:
As long as you ignore the old testament then.
You know, for the most part I do. I use it for reference to some of the things spoken of in the New Testament Gospels, especially Isaiah and Daniel.
The Old Testament was really a history of God's interaction, if you will, with Israel, the Jews. As a gentile, I'm more concerned with New Testament teachings because it was at that time that God's promise was extended to us ...
Cheers.
-
@idahoj said:
Einstein established the "fact" that the speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s. In September of last year, a group of scientists found subatomic particles that move faster than the speed of light. So the "fact of the speed of light" is not a fact at all, only the interpretation of data constrained by our current level of understanding, which encompasses our ability to test, observe, etc. Of course, the new findings are subject to change as well ...
You have your facts awry!
Your argument is thereby not logical or based on truth.
The speed of light was established long before Einstein got involved with anything.
Over the years the accuracy of its value has be carefully remeasured and adjusted.
In essence what Einstein did was shown that the speed of light was a kind of barrier: objects couldn't accelerate up to near the speed of light without paradoxical results of unlimited energy and mass, and minuscule size.
The logic behind the 'light-limit' is that if objects or information could travel faster than light then they would in effect be in the existence twice, and cause and affect fail !
I common parlance, it's 'you can't travel faster than the speed of light' - BUT what his ideas actually said was that you can't do that, because to get up to that speed is in effect impossible. His ideas do NOT preclude objects traveling faster than the speed of light. However, these can't come from/into our day-to-day world, as they'd never slow down to the 'light-barrier' let drop alone through it. Indeed 'tachyons' are olde theoretical particles that can travel faster than light, BUT we can never interact with these or observe them as they would need to slow down into our 'realm' and the converse is true on the other side of the light-barrier - to slow down towards the speed of light results in paradoxes too.
So it is possible for objects to travel faster than light, BUT we should not be able to observe them doing it.
The OPERA scientists you quote have indeed found an anomaly - some 'muon neutrinos' from CERN that arrive several hundred miles away just a tiny-tiny bit sooner than they should. They announced it so it could be tested by others as they themselves were at a loss to understand what was happening [they didn't hide it away because it was embarrassing to the current theories!]. The jury IS still out on this, although it is perplexing. There are so many variables that could account for it - how accurately is the start/end position measurable? how well do they guesstimate which few neutrinos in a batch leave, arrive and are detected [99.999% pass straight through the detector!] using a pulse pattern that they have as they leave and they might keep as they travel and finally show as they arrive [all but instantaneously]; the 'target' only needs to expand thermally by the tiniest amount from the impact energy for the result to appear superluminal - as the target a smidge nearer the transmitter than they suppose. So perhaps there is no anomaly at all - some experts argue for mistakes in the experimenters logic or setups [see Juergen Knobloch, or Shlomo Dado and Arnon Dar at Cornell - NO another place/guy!]... BUT then perhaps there is and the speed of light needs to be adjusted slightly, or more likely is that we change or understanding of how subatomic particles can behave. At the subatomic level weird things are sometimes found to happen, perhaps these neutrinos are momentarily leaving this universe and coming back having skipped a zillionth of a mm or so through another dimension... Whatever the final outcome scientists will adjust their theories or become better observers, and an ever better approximation of the truth should emerge. Scientists are unlike theists, who seem to ignore anything that might mean they have to change one iota of their dogma. Scientists love to find they got it a bit wrong, as it means they can get nearer to a truth. -
-
I keep watching this thread closely to see if Alan or TIG logically explain themselves out of existence.
-
i'd rather see Socrates comes back to live. [ed] oh, yes. Aristotle too, if he would like to
and asking people of what they really know, one term at a time.
whether it's technically, literally or even philosophically
-
@tomsdesk said:
Maybe it's time to stop.
No, it will stop when the posts get further and further apart, resulting in a heat-death that will see it slip slowly down the listing. Until one day, the quantum flux of the forum will result in some new member resurrecting it and it will burst forth once again in the glory of a new Big Bang.
Eric, In the words of the Moody Blues " I think, therefore I am....I think."
-
@unknownuser said:
You have your facts awry!
It's quite possible TIG! But I assure you, it's from ignorance and not malice ... Thank you for the corrections.
@unknownuser said:
Scientists are unlike theists, who seem to ignore anything that might mean they have to change one iota of their dogma. Scientists love to find they got it a bit wrong, as it means they can get nearer to a truth.
I'm sure (subjectively, as I lack proof) that not all scientists are happy to get something wrong, and not all theists are resistant to change. Faith, like science, does not seem to reveal itself "all at once" to those who seek truth. Scientists and those of faith are similar in this regard, we both seek "truth", the difference being the answers we seek lay in different domains. Scientists test empirically, I test spiritually.
As far as dogma, well, the Christ gives ample warning about it in John and Luke. Those are my guidelines and I'll leave it at that ...
Cheers
-
@unknownuser said:
.
I want to be downloaded onto a satellite and shot off into space to forever scoot around at tremendous speed. When the missus dies I hope she can be uploaded too. I want see a star explode. Witness a black hole. Hopefully with time I can be recalled to wherever mankind is and be uploaded to a new body to start again.If I just die as normal I'll still die happy knowing that I existed and did the best I could with what I have.
Reminded me of a movie idea I wrote once.
Earthquakes everywhere and all oil is gone. People are turning their backs on God everyday left and right. Then the unthinkable great nuclear war breaks out. After a while they start to see that there is no saving this world we all have destroyed. They gather a great team of the world’s smartest scientists “the ones that are left”, kind of like the Manhattan project in the forties. They figure out a way to transfer your conscious into a server or big computer like the matrix. The fighting forces realize that there will never be a winner in their war so they combine their forces to make this project happen before the effects of their war makes it impossible. When complete they plot a course into space for this server type thing that will take them on a ten billion year trip with an unlimited solar power supply. In case an asteroid or something destroys earth, the server will still survive. So in the server when one conscious dies it’s just replayed into someone else kind of like a digital version of reincarnation or reborn to someone’s personal criteria. To make a mockery of the few Christians left they come up with biblical like rules to choose who gets to be placed into the server before the effects of their war kills off everyone, proclaiming its God ending the world not the effects of the war. What they don’t realize that it’s really God’s final straw that forces him to end the world. In his final act before the great glory in the true heaven, God grants them a thousand years of peace in their server heaven before he turns it into the hell we read about today in the bible and only takes the Christians that stayed behind waiting for God to return and he welcomes them to the true Heaven.
Advertisement