Do you believe in God?

#1
In fact, I don't. I've never actually believed in God. I've read the bible in the past, just because of curiosity. I wanted to find out what the bible teaches the ppl. There's too much **** in this world, so I cannot think that there even might be a God.

Do you think that God exists? If you do think he exists, do you think he can help you with your SA?
 
Last edited:

hoddesdon

Well-known member
#2
Yes.

If there were only slight differences in the laws of physics, the way the universe is structured etc., then life would be impossible.

Apparently if water were not the only substance lighter as a solid than as a liquid, then life would be impossible. Furthermore, the essential element of water is really versatile. If everything is a big accident, then it is really convenient that something like water exists. If everything is a big accident, did gravity have to exist? The universe would be unworkable without gravity.

Life itself is a miracle - is there any other example of the whole being so vastly greater than the sum of the parts? Any creature can be reduced to a small pile of chemicals plus water. How do these raw materials create something so complex? Not the least of the complexity is consciousness. Has anyone ever analyzed consciousness, or isolated it in a test tube? This suggests that more exists than just the physical universe.
 

Kinetik

Well-known member
#3
Not in the strictest sense of the word, but I do believe that everything has a purpose and a reason behind it, and that there is some kind of guidance, spirit world, and a form of life after death, even if it's only a kind of energy that continues to exist somehow. I also think there are more dimensions than the one we know.
 

planemo

Well-known member
#4
Yes.

If there were only slight differences in the laws of physics, the way the universe is structured etc., then life would be impossible.

Apparently if water were not the only substance lighter as a solid than as a liquid, then life would be impossible. Furthermore, the essential element of water is really versatile. If everything is a big accident, then it is really convenient that something like water exists. If everything is a big accident, did gravity have to exist? The universe would be unworkable without gravity.

Life itself is a miracle - is there any other example of the whole being so vastly greater than the sum of the parts? Any creature can be reduced to a small pile of chemicals plus water. How do these raw materials create something so complex? Not the least of the complexity is consciousness. Has anyone ever analyzed consciousness, or isolated it in a test tube? This suggests that more exists than just the physical universe.
Very well said. :)
 

AGR

Well-known member
#6
I am open to something people can not understand might exist,if you want to call God so be it,but I dont belive in the God who creates things with purpose and a being who is concious or whatever,certainly I dont believe in any religion or their Gods.
 
#7
If he does physically,he will be very tiny and insignificant by now,a bug or an unnoticeable fleck maybe.

In the abstract sense he exists.It doesn't matter if he is conjured up through private wishes and ceremony,he becomes real in the world.

Whether or not god exists is not up to me and it never has been.I had no say about the existence of Barbie or Darth Vader,so it seems a bit unfair to ask me whether or not I believe in god....I have no choice but to.
It is a default recognition....of a thing,a phenomenon.
 

lunarla

Well-known member
#9
I don't believe in god, or any god as a being or entity that has created any of this. I don't oppose it either, but it has absolutely no substance for me.

...more exists than just the physical universe.
This, on the other hand, makes a lot of sense to me.
 
Last edited:

Mickery

Well-known member
#10
If there were only slight differences in the laws of physics, the way the universe is structured etc., then life would be impossible.
That is an inevitable truth, as we do not know the number of other universes, if any, and whether they were capable of supporting life, if any. Nor do we know about any other life in the current universe. Life may have failed to arise many trillions of times over, and it may be that the fact it has seems miraculous to us is because we are only able to observe the single successful event.

To put it another way, if you played the lottery 150 million times and won on your 150 millionth try, and only told people you played the lottery upon your successful instance, people would naturally assume your astounding luck.

Apparently if water were not the only substance lighter as a solid than as a liquid, then life would be impossible. Furthermore, the essential element of water is really versatile. If everything is a big accident, then it is really convenient that something like water exists. If everything is a big accident, did gravity have to exist? The universe would be unworkable without gravity.
Same goes for water, gravity, hydrogen, you name it. A single perfect instance or endless failed efforts, there's no way to know.

Life itself is a miracle -
A miracle is something that cannot be explained, currently there is no way to know if that will ultimately hold true. A great many mundane things have been labelled miracles throughout history; something like an eclipse was once fantastic, without any understanding even of what it was, let alone how it worked.

is there any other example of the whole being so vastly greater than the sum of the parts? Any creature can be reduced to a small pile of chemicals plus water. How do these raw materials create something so complex?
I'd say you're using an example right now. With just two digits: 1 and 0, the breadth of human experience can be represented without limit. Extreme complexity from extreme simplicity is something we have already observed and reproduced ourselves, a more pertinent question would be whether something like computing could arise spontaneously or evolutionarily through naturally occurring 1s and 0s.

One could argue that, from humble beginnings with limited tool use, the formation of language, the discovery of numbers, through mathematics, mechanics, industry, silicon, connectivity, it's as clear an example of unlikely wonders beyond primitive imagination evolving from absolutely nothing as you could wish for.

Not the least of the complexity is consciousness. Has anyone ever analyzed consciousness, or isolated it in a test tube? This suggests that more exists than just the physical universe.
Consciousness is easily isolated. At it's simplest, it can be easily controlled with anesthetic. It can be lost entirely through severe bodily trauma, emotions can be altered with stimulants, personalities changed through surgery, specific functionality observed with brain scanning. There is no doubt that consciousness physically exists in the brain and is supported by the rest of the body. To a very limited extent some of the mechanism is known as well.

That is no conclusion that the origin of consciousness cannot be supernatural, but since you again say it's a matter of complexity I don't understand your point, or why it cannot be an extreme incidence of the complex physical.
 
Last edited:

Mickery

Well-known member
#12
The existence of suffering does not prevent the existence of God, only some of His traditional attributes. If God were not all good, or all powerful, or there were many Gods, then evil and it's natural equivalents may still persist.
 
#13
Originally Posted by hoddesdon
If there were only slight differences in the laws of physics, the way the universe is structured etc., then life would be impossible.
That is an inevitable truth, as we do not know the number of other universes, if any, and whether they were capable of supporting life, if any. Nor do we know about any other life in the current universe. Life may have failed to arise many trillions of times over, and it may be that the fact it has seems miraculous to us is because we are only able to observe the single successful event.
This.

.....
 
B

Beatrice

Guest
#15
Interesting. I just "lost" my faith about a year ago. Went through some intense research. Crazy stuff.

I guess I'm agnostic on the matter. I find hard, outspoken atheists to be obnoxious. Can't stand the preachings of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, et al.

Sure, fundamentalists can be loony, but it truly angers me to witness people ridiculing someone JUST because they claim a religious title.

Anyway, tangent over.
 

gazelle

Well-known member
#16
Yes.

If there were only slight differences in the laws of physics, the way the universe is structured etc., then life would be impossible.

Apparently if water were not the only substance lighter as a solid than as a liquid, then life would be impossible. Furthermore, the essential element of water is really versatile. If everything is a big accident, then it is really convenient that something like water exists. If everything is a big accident, did gravity have to exist? The universe would be unworkable without gravity.

Life itself is a miracle - is there any other example of the whole being so vastly greater than the sum of the parts? Any creature can be reduced to a small pile of chemicals plus water. How do these raw materials create something so complex? Not the least of the complexity is consciousness. Has anyone ever analyzed consciousness, or isolated it in a test tube? This suggests that more exists than just the physical universe.
Well said!
Mickery said:
That is an inevitable truth, as we do not know the number of other universes, if any, and whether they were capable of supporting life, if any. Nor do we know about any other life in the current universe. Life may have failed to arise many trillions of times over, and it may be that the fact it has seems miraculous to us is because we are only able to observe the single successful event.

To put it another way, if you played the lottery 150 million times and won on your 150 millionth try, and only told people you played the lottery upon your successful instance, people would naturally assume your astounding luck
So you’re saying that if the other universes can’t support life they’re totally purposeless and considered a failure? How could you be sure that they aren’t created for other purposes like maybe supporting some other kind of energetic form of life maybe the life after death(I’m not saying this is true just a guess) or maybe having a major role in the equilibrium and dynamic balance of the universes? There could be many other possibilities. As you said an accident surely can happen in a single successful event out of trillions of times but taking a good look at everything around, it is noticeable that there is far more than only one successful event.
From what I’ve seen, everything has a reason behind its creation some we know of and some we don’t.
 
Last edited:

idealist77

Active member
#18
I'm an atheist in that I don't believe a god exists. I'm also an agnostic in that I don't claim to know whether or not a god exists.

I used to simply consider myself an agnostic and I derided atheists for being irrational and strident until Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot analogy (quoted below) sank in.

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
 
Top