Question for God believers

[mik1111]

the clever thing about religion is it requires you too believe

like you know how to derive every conclusion in science or mathematics.
someone tells you so and so and you absorb it like a religious person.

such stress for nothing, lol

[avxo]

like you know how to derive every conclusion in science or mathematics.
someone tells you so and so and you absorb it like a religious person.

There's just one super-teeny-tiny difference. In science, it's possible to independently examine the evidence and verify the conclusions others have reached. Not that that's important at all... 

[galeniko]

in heaven there seems to be no phones.

or has anyone received calls from heaven?

weird enough, same seems to be true for hell.

could it be these 2 concepts are just made up, much like the theories about how the universe came to be?

haha@sciene, so there was ,before time came into existence, some hot soup of photons, yeah right, i see.

and afterwards,everything was created.

totaly makes sense.

again, not defending the religious, but their claims are not further "out there" than what science tells us,with the self made rules.

i read plenty of svcientific work on this issue,got more than 10 books laying around, and in all them i had to call "stop,i smell bs" repeatedly.

they "eloquently" overstep a line and then start to make up things.

out of all books, 1 from a professor was honest, he was critial about both science and religion.

[avxo]

haha@sciene, so there was ,before time came into existence, some hot soup of photons, yeah right, i see.

Yes, "time" is a property of the Universe, and, as we understand it, is a meaningless term when divorced from that concept.

and afterwards,everything was created.

"created"?

totaly makes sense.

And just wait until you read about quantum mechanics, what with wave functions and quantum tunneling and entanglement!

i read plenty of svcientific work on this issue,got more than 10 books laying around, and in all them i had to call "stop,i smell bs" repeatedly.

Wow! More that 10 books? Is it even legal to own that many books you prodigious bookworm you! You, Sir, are a true polymath and what scientists strive to become. Just one question: how do you even find time to train with all the sciencing you do?!

[galeniko]

yeah i read about quantum mechanics and "string theory", the writer himself said its all very much random still.

comeon 10+ books is better than nothing, as far the big bang theory(yes,i know this did happen theres no arguing there)goes,theyre all consistent.

i just cant accept that "time" came into being after BB, and that there was no space, yet there alegedly was a hot soup(how did it get hot?) of photons, i can see how they had no mass, therefore no matter.right?thats what they say?but energy was there and doesnt just get "created",tis is a rule of science isnt it?

come on,theres many things still unexplained.

[avxo]

yeah i read about quantum mechanics and "string theory", the writer himself said its all very much random still.

I don't know that "random" quite describes it.

i just cant accept that "time" came into being after BB, and that there was no space, yet there alegedly was a hot soup(how did it get hot?) of photons, i can see how they had no mass, therefore no matter.right?thats what they say?but energy was there and doesnt just get "created",tis is a rule of science isnt it?

Well, first of all, "hot" doesn't refer to temperature as in "I like my coffee hot - at least 110°C."

Yes, the principle conservation of energy is a fundamental concept. However, remember, that all these concepts only have meaning within the contextual framework of the Universe. But outside of the Universe? Who knows. That's not a topic that science tries to - or even can answer.

come on,theres many things still unexplained.

I agree. A lot of is still unexplained. I don't see this is a flaw or a fault.

[galeniko]

yes, because temperatture didnt really exist as we know it now.

just like the sun sounds mute to us, despite permanent explosions.

btw,i find ihe topic highly interesting, enjoy reading about it, but jusr dislike when some scientists make up things, or try to pass unproven things as "widely accepted fact".

im full aware that the questions will eventualy be answered by science, not by the pope

but wh dont they as where the photons came from?

is it possible to create photons artificialy?

then the origin would have to be a similiar process.

and something else, the claim of black holes sucking up everything within event horizon, which was recently proven untrue, theres some matter that gets "refused" by the black holes, and the claim they dont even let light escape, when some of them explode into supernovas.

i know,im bit cherrypicking here, and othen its not the same scientists who claim conflicting things.but gets confusng if one claims something dogmaticonly to be proven wrong by other scientist later on.

the dogmatic tone,i dont like, science should be always dynamic and ready to adapt to new findings.some have problems admiting "this is currently our best guess".
its not a problem with scince,its more few personalities of scientist who dont like admiting there might be other explanantion.

cheers

[mik1111]

There's just one super-teeny-tiny difference. In science, it's possible to independently examine the evidence and verify the conclusions others have reached. Not that that's important at all... 

I was pointing to the supposed difference in the attitude between religious people and those who have strong faith in science.

And if you needed to add more interesting matters to the discussion, paradoxes in the foundations of thought, boundaries of human knowledge,... could be mentioned.
but what would be the point?
all I see here is parroting...

[Mr Nobody]

[Pet shop boys]

Where did God himself come from, who made him, did he make himself?How? What are Gods origins? And none of this Gods always been there and always will be there shit, he had to start somewhere.

Life it self is a mystery.

both (God and life) are difficult or impossible to understand or explain



Next question.


WoooSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HH

[Gonuclear]

Life it self is a mystery.

both (God and life) are difficult or impossible to understand or explain



Next question.


WoooSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HH

To theists perhaps, but not necessarily to those who rely on science alone for knowledge of reality.

[Man of Steel]

You didnt call out anyone specifically, huh? You wrote:

Getbig has helped me develop quite a thick skin and I'm now rather immune to the comments such as "blah, blah, blah", "flying spaghetti monster", "god botherer", "book of fairytales", etc.....and these are the nicer comments.

And I said, "Blah, blah, blah" in a few posts up. So, yes, indirectly you did call me out, even if not specifically.
And yes, everything I have said to you on here, I would say to you in person (even the blah, blah, blah). Because lets be honest, if that offends you, then you have no backbone.  

Come on now, I'm not gonna argue with you over "blah, blah, blah".  If you said it great, if you didn't great.  

Just stick that expression "blah, blah, blah" in the search feature and see how often it comes up.

None of these petty comments bother me anymore LOL.  Of course I don't prefer them, but I dwell on them about as long as it takes me to read and process them.  Still when they stockpile over time I like to stop and call a spade a spade.

My point was simple: no one would use those petty phrases in a face-to-face, but behind the safety of a monitor everything is fair game.  Anonymity brings out true colors.  Sure, in a face-to-face people will disagree, but non of the jabs would be there because the shield is gone.  How do I know this?  Simple, I have never had a face-to-face discussion with a believer or nonbeliever in which even the slightest insult was hurled my way, but online....LOL.....differ ent story.  In fact, I've had face-to-face discussions that were completely civil that were later continued online and suddenly those I'm speaking to are "bolder and braver" LOL.

I'm not quite certain if the keyboard causes folks to say things they don't really mean or if the keyboard actually reveals who people truly are.

[OTHstrong]

yes, because temperatture didnt really exist as we know it now.

just like the sun sounds mute to us, despite permanent explosions.

btw,i find ihe topic highly interesting, enjoy reading about it, but jusr dislike when some scientists make up things, or try to pass unproven things as "widely accepted fact".

im full aware that the questions will eventualy be answered by science, not by the pope

but wh dont they as where the photons came from?

is it possible to create photons artificialy?

then the origin would have to be a similiar process.

and something else, the claim of black holes sucking up everything within event horizon, which was recently proven untrue, theres some matter that gets "refused" by the black holes, and the claim they dont even let light escape, when some of them explode into supernovas.

i know,im bit cherrypicking here, and othen its not the same scientists who claim conflicting things.but gets confusng if one claims something dogmaticonly to be proven wrong by other scientist later on.

the dogmatic tone,i dont like, science should be always dynamic and ready to adapt to new findings.some have problems admiting "this is currently our best guess".
its not a problem with scince,its more few personalities of scientist who dont like admiting there might be other explanantion.

cheers

great post gal, you just described avxo and ekul, they both are so hard headed that they can not accept the fact that science can not explain the origins of time, space and matter. Then they say, ''science'' they hi-jack the word like it is suppose to stamp the acceptance automatically.

clustering all the energy of the entire universe in a singularity or a tiny little dot does not tell us where the energy comes from.

Then the same old argument by these 2 lunatics that we have not read books, yayaya, we know, if we do not believe nothing created everything then we are stupid.

[Teutonic Knight]

Mein Kampf outsells Bible on Amazon.com
what more evidence is needed 

[MoralMan]

Religion is shit but i believe in God, hear me out. Look at the universe, how intelligent it all is, look how complicated yur brains is. Someone designed that. It did nt happen because some rocks blew up in space!

[Natural Man]

you guys are retards; because science and evolution theory leads to the conclusion that ultimately we will become gods, God. Science proves God exists; an almighty life form that is eternal and creates life from scratch. Now maybe we wont be able to reach god status if we destroy ourselves or are destroyed by some random event. Now what is random and what isnet. God probably created random stuf and stuff that isnt random.

[Gonuclear]

Agreed.  Yet they will keeping claiming they are smart and the rest of us must all be ignorant since we don't believe the way they do about nothing exploding into everything. 

I believe the issue is that many atheists demand scientific evidence for the existence of G-d.  But there is no scientific evidence.  It really is a different conceptual framework - the theist versus the atheist viewpoint. The existence or non-existence of G-d cannot be established by science. 

I accept all the truths that we have discovered through science, and I absolutely agree that science is mankind's best method for understanding nature. 

But I don't believe that what can be decided by science exhausts reality.

[Radical Plato]

YOU are claiming the big bang is true.  You are also claiming there is no God.  Verify your claims for us pseudo-scientist!

Where did the matter come from to make the dot that began spinning faster and faster until pooof it exploded and we all got here?  Where did the energy come from to make it spin and explode?  Where did the space come from to put the matter in?  Where did the laws of the universe come from?  Where did time originate?  Why are some planets, moons and galaxies spinning in different directions, I mean after all, if we all came from a big bang, then according to the laws of science they would all be spinning the same direction.  Where did the elements come from?  Where do stars come from, we see them die, but no one has ever witness a star forming, yet there are trillions of them.  There isn't even a decent theory on how they got here.  


You are a desperate individual trying to prove to yourself and others what you BELIEVE about where we came from.  But at the end of the day, it is just that...what YOU BELIEVE.  Science is NOT on your side in this issue, and if you believe it is, then you are more blind than I thought.  

The Big Bang Theory doesn't explain everything, nor does it claim to. It merely suggests a theoretical account of the origin of the Universe based on scientific principles.  It merely posits that through the fixed laws of nature (probably gravity) a singularity exploded causing rapid expansion that still continues today.  The laws of Nature may have been introduced by a GOD, but it certainly isn't the God of the bible or one who intervenes in human affairs.  Such intervention would require that the fixed laws of nature be broken.

Why are God Botherers so insecure?  Is it because science threatens their small worldview?  Personally, I found the idea that there is NO GOD tremendously liberating and this can only add to the quality of life.  It unlocks the shackles that religion has placed on humanity, and expands an individual's mind potential to no end.  We are for the first time FREE!  Free to think as we please, masters of our own fate.  How Wonderful. There is NO GOD and we are free.  No longer captive to a wrathful deity who created us imperfect and demands worship under threat of condemnation to an eternity of misery.  Yes,  NO GOD means I am FREE, like a prisoner released from prison after being condemned to a life sentence.

Religion and belief in GOD has only limited humanity, closed it's collective mind and pushed us to the brink of madness.  Belief in GOD and religion is almost certainly a byproduct of some inherited trait that actually serves an evolutionary purpose.  Unfortunately humans are burdened still with many unwanted evolutionary byproducts, so religion may remain for some time yet. But for those who didn't suffer the abuses of indoctrination, they are truly free, they have offered a helping hand to their enslaved neighbours, but as of yet they seem content to remain imprisoned.

Friedrich Nietzsche was right, God is dead and we killed him.  But for those who have embraced it, rather than the Nihilism Nietzsche predicted, such a revelation only adds meaning to life, not takes it away.

[arce1988]

read plenty of svcientific work on this issue,got more than 10 books laying around, and in all them i had to call "stop,i smell bs" repeatedly.

they "eloquently" overstep a line and then start to make up things.

out of all books, 1 from a professor was honest, he was critial about both science and religion.
   

^

[Natural Man]

I believe the issue is that many atheists demand scientific evidence for the existence of G-d.  But there is no scientific evidence.  It really is a different conceptual framework - the theist versus the atheist viewpoint. The existence or non-existence of G-d cannot be established by science.  

I accept all the truths that we have discovered through science, and I absolutely agree that science is mankind's best method for understanding nature.  

But I don't believe that what can be decided by science exhausts reality.

science just like everything that exists is a way to control, dominate nature, not simply "understand it"... we want to understand it to control it. We are animals and everything we do is underlied by animal impulses and goals; improve, adapt, control, survive, dominate. it Every single thing we enjoy doing we enjoy it because makes us feel dominant and controlling, dominating. When we learn stuff as teens we want to control them in order to flee the domination o our parents and to become independant and dominate others ourselves. We develop skills etc in order to take control of our lives, others. in order to flee the control of our parents.

[OTHstrong]

The Big Bang Theory doesn't explain everything, nor does it claim to. It merely suggests a theoretical account of the origin of the Universe based on scientific principles.  It merely posits that through the fixed laws of nature (probably gravity) a singularity exploded causing rapid expansion that still continues today.  The laws of Nature may have been introduced by a GOD, but it certainly isn't the God of the bible or one who intervenes in human affairs.  Such intervention would require that the fixed laws of nature be broken.

Why are God Botherers so insecure?  Is it because science threatens their small worldview?  Personally, I found the idea that there is NO GOD tremendously liberating and this can only add to the quality of life.  It unlocks the shackles that religion has placed on humanity, and expands an individual's mind potential to no end.  We are for the first time FREE!  Free to think as we please, masters of our own fate.  How Wonderful. There is NO GOD and we are free.  No longer captive to a wrathful deity who created us imperfect and demands worship under threat of condemnation to an eternity of misery.  Yes,  NO GOD means I am FREE, like a prisoner released from prison after being condemned to a life sentence.

Religion and belief in GOD has only limited humanity, closed it's collective mind and pushed us to the brink of madness.  Belief in GOD and religion is almost certainly a byproduct of some inherited trait that actually serves an evolutionary purpose.  Unfortunately humans are burdened still with many unwanted evolutionary byproducts, so religion may remain for some time yet. But for those who didn't suffer the abuses of indoctrination, they are truly free, they have offered a helping hand to their enslaved neighbours, but as of yet they seem content to remain imprisoned.

Friedrich Nietzsche was right, God is dead and we killed him.  But for those who have embraced it, rather than the Nihilism Nietzsche predicted, such a revelation only adds meaning to life, not takes it away.

where did the energy that was in this singularity come from? if you do not know then you do not know the origins of space time and matter, all you did here is convert the energy to a singularity and claimed this is its scientific origins when reality is you do not know where the energy contained in the singularity came from, which is why you are stupid for arguing with me for 2 pages when at the end you just end up with the conclusion I came up with and that is no one knows.

[avxo]

great post gal, you just described avxo and ekul, they both are so hard headed that they can not accept the fact that science can not explain the origins of time, space and matter. Then they say, ''science'' they hi-jack the word like it is suppose to stamp the acceptance automatically.

Please refrain from explaining my position on my behalf, especially when I'm around to do it myself and when you seem to not only be completely unfamiliar with my actual position but, also, completely incapable of articulating what position is despite the fact that I've explained it in several other threads on here.

My position has, consistently, been that the word "time" and the concept of time and temporal causality as we understand it is meaningless outside of the framework of the Universe. If you disagree with this position, please proceed to provide a definition of time that is independent from the Universe. Please do the same for "space" and "matter". And... three... two... one... go!

clustering all the energy of the entire universe in a singularity or a tiny little dot does not tell us where the energy comes from.

I never claimed it did, and you are welcome to try and find a single quote from me that contradicts that. Take your time.

Then the same old argument by these 2 lunatics that we have not read books, yayaya, we know, if we do not believe nothing created everything then we are stupid.

Who's the lunatic here? The guy who says "well, here is a theory, which attempts to explain these observations. The theory makes these testable predictions which, so far, seem to hold. So we feel pretty good about this theory right now, but if new evidence comes to light that contradicts it, oh well! We'll go back to the drawing board."

Or the guy who says: "The magical sky creature created everything because everything needs to be created, except the magical sky creature. It created everything perfect, but the silly snake tricked the perfect beings into becoming imperfect by eating a fruit. So perfection became imperfect, and that's why you're born a sinner and will burn in hell, because the magical sky creature has decreed that the wages of sin is death. But, luckily, this magical sky creature loves you so much so he will sacrifice himself to himself so as to satisfy his bloodlust, thereby stripping you of your sin and sanctifying you. That way you can live after death as some kind of disembodied spirit up in the sky, and you will spend eternity worshipping the magical sky creature and you will be really happy, because sky creature! I know all this because a book, that is supposedly immutable (despite containing multiple revisions) and inerrant (despite containing multiple errors) told me so. And the book is the word of the magical sky creature. Which created everything because everything needs to be created, except the magical sky creature and we're back at the beginning. Amen."

It's rich that a man whose worldview revolves around gaining knowledge in unknowable ways through unknowable means and is based on fairy tales written by sheep herders and compiled into a grimoire that has plagued mankind for centuries calls others lunatics. So take a step back and reconsider asshole; you know, the whole throwing stones in glass houses and whatnot.

[O.Z.]

'God is life. Life is everything'

Barry Long

[avxo]

'God is life. Life is everything'

Barry Long

As nice as this sounds, it's meaningless. What does it mean to say "God is life"? How is "God" like "life"? How is "life" "everything"? How is this different than saying "God is a potato. Potatoes are tasty!"?

[O.Z.]

As nice as this sounds, it's meaningless. What does it mean to say "God is life"? How is "God" like "life"? How is "life" "everything"? How is this different than saying "God is a potato. Potatoes are tasty!"?

God is potato as well.