The Existence of God

[MandelSoft 2,775]

"Science is proof without certainty;

Religion is certainty without proof..."

 

 

 

I highly doubt you could find a reputable scientist who would describe it that way. The Big Bang is nothing like any god I've ever heard of.

 

Actually you're also wrong. The big bang is an event not a thing. It is when the God created all whole universe.

 

There is no way to tell if God created the universe or if something else did. You may believe God did it, go ahead. But saying that all other views are therefore wrong is not acceptable, since there's no way to proof nor falsify this hypothesis, as it goes for all religion aspects...

[timmie 988]

Heliocentrism (as an example) was accepted because it is correct, not because it was practical. In fact it was very un-practical given the way religious parties tried to stamp out anything and anyone that contradicts their teachings, besides which from our frame of reference earth-centrism does make things simpler.

It might just be the way you worded it, but it sounds like you're saying that reality is dependent on a majority consensus?

 

There is of course a certain 'reality' out there, but it is not easily observable, since people have certain presuppositions. Thinking is a cultural activity, even thinking in science. We don't just observe, we interpret, we give meaning. That's where the possibility of distortion of reality lies. We never see reality 'as it is', but we see a certain idea of reality (colours are an example, depending on your culture, you look at colours in a different way, the perception is different). I am not saying there is no such thing as 'reality' (like Jacques Derrida did, for example). There certainly is a reality, it influences our thinking, but our thinking also influences (what we see as) reality.

 

There are certain ideas in science about what is right and what is not right, and often, the thinking of people fits nicely within the existing structures (paradigms). Of course, there are always scientists who have a different outillage mental ('mental tools') so they can better escape this dominant line of thinking. It is when it becomes obvious that the paradigm is wrong that all of a sudden science progresses.

 

Geocentrism certainly does not make things simpler. It is a very complex system (the gif hereunder clearly shows that). Heliocentrism is much more straightforward, and that is the reason why it was gradually adopted (in other words: by consensus). Only later came the observation that it was indeed how the planets moved.

 

 

I am in no way saying science is impossible, but it is not as objective as you might think. There is a clear difference between fiction and science (science follows rules), but it is not a razor-sharp distinction. Culture and consensus play an important role in science (although this is of course less pronounces in exact sciences than in social sciences). This is a powerful observation that can lead to better science, the idea of fallibilism makes sure that people are more careful and that they realize how their mind also influences the outcomes.

[ROFLyoshi 1,760]

 

We are God.

No we are just tiny little creatures on a small planet in the universe.

 

I think Mark_Kochan was referring to God in the Saganian sense; the astrologist quipping "The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God."

(He basically used God as a concept to encompass everything that exists).

 

 

I highly doubt you could find a reputable scientist who would describe it that way. The Big Bang is nothing like any god I've ever heard of.

 

Actually you're also wrong. The big bang is an event not a thing. It is when the God created all whole universe.

 

Please don't say that people are "wrong". We are happy for this debate to flourish, as long as everything is said is of an opinion and not asserted as fact.

Anyhow, my two cents!

Take the universe. Everything has happened over time. Now the things that happen can be seen as evidence, either for or against the existence of a deity. I believe that atheists and theists are looking at the same coin, but one sees the heads and the other the tails.

[LexusInfernus 908]

I choose to believe that there likely is a God, though I also realize I could be entirely wrong. 

 

Still, I prefer my universe with a God rather than without. 

[Snugies 91]

Yep you guys are right. Science puts forth theories and calls them just that "theories" meaning haven't been proven so scientists can just as easily disprove them and accept that no matter how wacky. Religion has no logical provability and no way to prove or disprove it.

Is anyone here familiar with Socrates? like studied him knows all his writings?

I believe Socrates did criticize the practical world though as he said do not treasure all that is on the earth since you will die and can not take that with you.

Therefor Socrates determined the most important thing is knowledge which he then concluded must be knowledge of the soul and virtue am I right about that? Because some knowledge is to material like say being a blacksmith that is not as good knowledge as knowledge of virtue being virtuous as a happy soul will be happy after death isn't this why Socrates said he was not afraid to be executed because he made his soul happy?

Here is an interesting philosophical question for you guys: Math knowledge comes from our soul we are all seemingly born with the same innate mathematical abilities rational thinking, therefor what makes your soul if you believe in your soul any different than other people's souls? is your personality not just created through your experiences?

[ROFLyoshi 1,760]

Yep you guys are right. Science puts forth theories and calls them just that "theories" meaning haven't been proven so scientists can just as easily disprove them and accept that no matter how wacky. Religion has no logical provability and no way to prove or disprove it.

Is anyone here familiar with Socrates? like studied him knows all his writings?

I believe Socrates did criticize the practical world though as he said do not treasure all that is on the earth since you will die and can not take that with you.

Therefor Socrates determined the most important thing is knowledge which he then concluded must be knowledge of the soul and virtue am I right about that? Because some knowledge is to material like say being a blacksmith that is not as good knowledge as knowledge of virtue being virtuous as a happy soul will be happy after death isn't this why Socrates said he was not afraid to be executed because he made his soul happy?

Here is an interesting philosophical question for you guys: Math knowledge comes from our soul we are all seemingly born with the same innate mathematical abilities rational thinking, therefor what makes your soul if you believe in your soul any different than other people's souls? is your personality not just created through your experiences?

Yes, we touched on him a little in high school literature.

However keep in mind the definition of scientific theory is a little different to the commonly accepted definition of the word theory.

[AkemiAzula 280]

I was indeed referring to a God as in an all powerful force, not an oversized white male aged 18-45 eating nuts and gum up in the clouds in his Ford Falcon as he commutes to his office job at Heaven and Company.

 

Every piece of evidence of a 'proven' (relatively if you wish) nature points to this universe being tied together by a flowing set of laws and practices, thus it is a cohesive entity. The laws of physics, of relativity... They are consistent and spectral, the universe is greyscale.

 

So according to every bit of scientific evidence we have, the most influential intelligence in the universe is ourselves, and thus we are the brains of the universe. 

 

It is my theory (and here I am actually theorising and speculating rather than summing up scientific facts and evidence) that technology post-singularity will become a new brain organism. That we, as masters of this brain, and eventually connected symbiotically with it in a cyborg manner, will dominate science and eventually we shall become a 'God' in that we shall have absolute power over the universe.

 

I think it is fairly logical to assume this will transpire. We began as slaves of our bodies, tapping random keys about us and being forced to obey rather strict rules, we learnt and practiced, and eventually we'll write the Brandenburg concertos.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

The theological concept of God states categorically that God is unknowable by man.  The only imponderables around right now are the big bang and dark energy.  Both part of the same thing IMHO since without the first, the second cannot exist.  The cosmological crowd are really stretching it these days.  The question is when does cosmology become theology.

[Bdub01 201]

The word "god" is or can be misleading. Where I live most people think of "god" in the Juodeo-Christian way, a white haired, bearded person sitting on a throne in heaven passing judgments and curses on the earth. They also think of Him as literally creating the universe with His own hands. I obviously don't believe in that, but I do believe in a power higher than us who set the universe in motion and maybe seeded planets with life. However I can not prove nor disprove my thoughts on the matter however. Guess we won't know tell we die.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

The anthropomorphic view of the God of Moses was all very well in those simpler times.  However, any true God will be an alien being indeed.  We must not try to make God look like man.  There is a good chance that if there is a God, He exists in far more than the four dimensions of this universe.

 

Making any statement defining the nature of God is one of the really deadly heresies.  God is unknowable if He exists at all.

 

Edit: July 13th.

 

Ran across this quote, and I think it says what we all have been getting at:

 

The notion that science does not concern itself with first causes -- that it
leaves the field to theology or metaphysics, and confines itself to mere
effects -- this notion has no support in the plain facts.  If it could,
science would explain the origin of life on earth at once--and there is
every reason to believe that it will do so on some not too remote tomorrow.
To argue that gaps in knowledge which will confront the seeker must be filled,
not by patient inquiry, but by intuition or revelation, is simply to give
ignorance a gratuitous and preposterous dignity....
        -- H. L. Mencken, 1930

 

---

 

So, Ecclesiastes is right:  "There is nothing new under the sun."
 

[Gannet 34]

Religion = Evil

That's all Im saying.

No most religions are very peaceful and promote good deeds. What planet are you from?

[Mr Saturn64 742]

Religion = Evil

That's all Im saying.

No most religions are very peaceful and promote good deeds. What planet are you from?The trouble is that the people who do horrible thins int he name of religion are he ones who get attention. Those people are hypocrites. They go against what they preach. That's why religion sometimes gets a bad reputation. Bscausehypocrites get the attention.

[AkemiAzula 280]

I have nothing against the concept of religion, and Gods. However in this universe no Gods exist, and thus it is highly impractical to act as though they did.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

Most lay people don't have the necessary education to read scriptures in the vernacular.  Look at all the problems created by King Henry VIII's English Translation of the Bible.  Why do you suppose there are no "official" translations of Al Q'ran?

 

Translators often interpret and interpolate things to suit themselves -- A point aptly made by Frank Herbert in his Dune cycle with the Orange Catholic Bible.  The last contact I had with Bible translators was with the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society at Brooklyn, NY, who were working on a very scholarly, annotated edition.  They had a battery of scholars trying to get things exactly right from all of the urtext sources available at the time.  Looked like it was going to take decades.  This was in the early 1970s or late 1960s, and they were using a very large mainframe and raster display terminals so they could display all the alphabets involved.  It also had a very interesting typesetting program, which is why we were there. 

 

They could typeset any language, ancient or modern with the exception of Arabic, which they cut directly onto printing plates using laser cutters.  Arabic is very difficult because (they said) the length of the stroke in this cursive language depends on the context and the mood of the writer.

[Bdub01 201]

I have nothing against the concept of religion, and Gods. However in this universe no Gods exist, and thus it is highly impractical to act as though they did.

Idk. I think there is a higher power of some sort. Not a god that's sitting on a throne throwing judgements left and right.

[blade2k5 1,523]

I have nothing against the concept of religion, and Gods. However in this universe no Gods exist, and thus it is highly impractical to act as though they did.

 

 

Since you're so sure about that, prove it.  Oh wait....you can't either way.

[timmie 988]

 

I have nothing against the concept of religion, and Gods. However in this universe no Gods exist, and thus it is highly impractical to act as though they did.

 

 

Since you're so sure about that, prove it.  Oh wait....you can't either way.

 

 

Usually it is the other way around, you prove that something exists. Not that something doesn't.

[AkemiAzula 280]

Ay ay ay...

 

Gods obviously don't exist. The whole concept of a 'higher power' suggests something beyond science, and we know no such thing exists. If we haven't found it yet, it isn't there to be found. I think a little rational grain of salt needs to be digested here, people. We have rocket ships and I Pods and the Internet. No signs of God yet. Pretty sure he is a myth, people. 

 

At any rate if I was a gambling man I'd willingly place my life savings on his not existing, and would already plan for how to spend my winnings.

 

This is not to say that there isn't a force or entity which is 'superscientific' in that it can operate beyond and around our rules of operation. However a God is specifically an actual being, a creature, and as such there is obviously no God.

 

As to why this universe was created my present theory is it was the result of some madness or mistake or error. Obviously no sensible intelligent being would allow such a pathetic place to exist, worthy of nowt but destruction.

[SimCoug 5,977]

Obviously no sensible intelligent being would allow such a pathetic place to exist, worthy of nowt but destruction.

 

Yay for foolish daft deities, 'cause I like this pathetic place 

[Meg 368]

 

 

 The whole concept of a 'higher power' suggests something beyond science, and we know no such thing exists. If we haven't found it yet, it isn't there to be found.

 

History disagrees. When my parents were in school, they were taught that there is nothing smaller than an atom, an atom can not be split into parts because there were no parts.   That was the best known science at the time.

 

I was taught there were only three stages to matter:  gas, liquid, and solid.   Again, the best known science at the time.

 

Our scientific knowledge is being expanded all the time.    Why would now suddenly be the time when we have found everything?

[Cobraroll 138]

This discussion is interesting, but it quickly becomes a question of definitions.

 

The English language has a tendency to interchange the words "God" (with a capital G, nonetheless) and "Deity" quite freely. If we're strict with the definitions (which are very hard to agree on, anyway), and say that the topic title "Does God exist?" refers to the Abrahamic deity or another being of a similar fashion, then I believe the existence of Him to be just as likely as the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible pink flying unicorn, or for that matter Homer Simpson. The arguments for and against the existence of those are basically the same in the end. My relation to the Abrahamic deity is approximately the same as my relation to Sherlock Holmes. They are best regarded as literary characters, but one can certainly learn a thing or two from their origin stories, or things written about them outside their canon.

 

If the question is interpreted as "Is there a deity?", then things get way more fuzzy. My first response to that question would be "If so, we certainly don't know it". Think about it. If you're religious yourself, you discredit the legends and pantheons of literally thousands of other religions, claiming them to be false, heretic or even misunderstanding of the real face of The Creator And Administrator Of Everything (which of course happens to be the one you yourself were raised to believe in). If they can be so sure about knowing The Truth, yet still be wrong about it, why can't you?

 

The followers of Vishnu, Odin, Quetzalcoatl, Waheguru, Ra, Kon-Tiki, Zeus, Jupiter and the rest of the bunch were/are just as devoted to their religion as you are to yours. The arguments they make/made for the existence of their gods are pretty similar to those made for the existence of the Abrahamic deity. They would also quite certainly be wrong in their beliefs (by defintion, only one religious pantheon can be the right one). Why not add your own to the list? As far as solid evidence goes, no religion has got the unquestionable upper hand over the others yet. Most likely, they are all wrong.

 

Can there still exist a deity, though? In theory, yes, but I see no reason to believe so. The universe does not need one to exist ("We don't know how else it got here" is kind of a bad argument. Most likely, we'll find out some day). In concept, there is nothing inherently impossible concerning the existence of deities (for all I know, the universe gets a new one every Thursday, and the first thing it does is make us forget about the previous one), but there is nothing inherently impossible concerning their non-existence either. Existence does not need to have a beginning or an end (even in religions - according to Hindus, among others, it doesn't), time might not be as linear as it appears to us, and there might be several basic concepts of existence we have neither observed nor hypothesized yet. Perhaps we'll find out one day, perhaps we won't. I'm quite sure a rational explanation behind it exists, but if we'll ever get to it, that's a wholly different story.

 

Third interpretation of the question: "Is there any [known] object, mentality, or concept we can define as God?" For instance, is energy God? Is matter? Time? Thoughts? In my opinion, heck no. Calling it God is wrong on several levels, first and foremost it clutters the debate. Yes, that thingy of your choice might encompass all of existence, be found anywhere in the universe at any time, and be identifiable to its every observer, but it is so far from the classic image of God that it doesn't really have anything to do with the original question. Praise it all you want, remark that it ticks off all the relevant boxes, but stop calling it God. Find another word for it."God is energy, so energy is God, therefore God exists" is totally useless to this debate. Worded differently, it might have some relevance, but as-is, it just makes everything messier and people more angry.

[Bdub01 201]

I believe science is the answer to everything, however our science just hasn't caught up to everything yet. We still aren't too sure on what "dark matter" is. String theory is still just a theory. I would be willing to bet that so much stuff we can't even see cause we haven't made the micro/telescopes sophisticated enough yet. If humans are around a millennium from now, they'd say how we are living in the dark ages . I hope the days of needing a monotheistic god who literally created and watched over us is gone. But still SOMETHING had to set all this in motion. I have trouble believing some molecules got together and decided on their own to blowup and start the Big Bang. Just like I can't just believe a few atoms were chillin in a pool on earth and lightening struck them and all of a sudden they realize they are alive.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

Well, the whole question is moot.  If there is a being beyond what we are able to understand, what are the odds that we will never understand such a being?  Pretty good, I think.  We are limited, although we persist in pushing the envelope.

 

Currently science is delving into the micro universe and the macro universe at the same time, but in different branches of science.  I am not sure that this separation is a good thing.  People like daVinci were polymaths and they strove to know everything in order to reconcile their thought.  I am not at all sure that haring around after individual tiny parts of the cosmos is such a great idea if there is no serious effort to bring this all together.  The cosmologists seem to be in collision with the micro-physicists at the moment, since they seem to be approaching the big bang from two different sides, if a singularity can be said to have sides.

 

Meanwhile, the string theory guys are off in the silences of ten or eleven dimensions making mathematical models of things we can never sense or probably make sense of.

[Cobraroll 138]

Currently science is delving into the micro universe and the macro universe at the same time, but in different branches of science.  I am not sure that this separation is a good thing.  People like daVinci were polymaths and they strove to know everything in order to reconcile their thought.  I am not at all sure that haring around after individual tiny parts of the cosmos is such a great idea if there is no serious effort to bring this all together.  The cosmologists seem to be in collision with the micro-physicists at the moment, since they seem to be approaching the big bang from two different sides, if a singularity can be said to have sides.

 

You seem to be personifying science waaaaay too much here. Like if science is a single being (or a coordinated board of directors) unanimously deciding what to do now and what to think about stuff. In reality, there are millions of people all over the world, working with their little projects and trying to tie it all into some grand picture. This grand picture isn' regulated by anything other than nature itself. Nobody governs it and decides how it should look, it's simply a great puzzle where we have to figure out what the pieces look like, and where to put them. If scientists uncover that the pieces we currently have don't fit together very well, that means something is missing somewhere and that should also warrant an investigation. It's better to know that "something is wrong somewhere here" instead of blissfully believing oneself to be correct, deliberately not looking into the fields of science that would prove otherwise. You don't solve puzzles by cutting the pieces so they fit. I fully believe everything can be tied together, and lots of people are contributing towards that as we speak. "It does not look pretty at the moment" is no excuse for not doing science.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

Science has its points.  My point is that it is too over-fragmented and communications are currently not good enough for most men and women in the field to be completely in the overall picture, and it may not even be possible or productive.  However, an earlier poster expressed his belief that Science is his "god", and a multipart deity seems a little off-base, at least to me.  With all the published journals, no one can possibly read them all, so there is a certain lack of cohesion in the thoughts about the cosmos in general.  This chaos will continue, by the way, as long as publications are in various languages, and edited from certain points of view.  A nexial approach is needed, and I, for one, do not see one.

[Cobraroll 138]

Thing is, the resulting information is available to those who want to seek it. Sure, nobody needs to go around knowing everything, but if he needs some info on something, it can be looked up. "Here be dragons" should be a thing of the past. I'm OK with there being stuff we don't know about, but deliberately not researching it because it might tell us that what we already know is wrong? Then we're getting dangerously close to the medieval Catholic church, who banned science because it might conflict with the Bible.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

Well, we certainly are in agreement on that.  However, do you think, as I do, there should be some kind of general clearing house whose job it is to put things together when they are related, even faintly?  People working in abstruse fields are often alone and don't have time to watch all the literature.  A data mining program might be developed to do most of this work automatically.

[AkemiAzula 280]

I always had a polymathical mind, albeit a limited and feeble one. I gained the knowledge I have now through sheer grunt work and Holmesian deduction over many years of boredom and lack of social stimulation. These days I have pretty much given up learning new stuff as I know it will be of little use to me personally.

 

However I agree with the general concept of a clearing house for combining related data into an overall picture. That concept of finding patterns and connections and then building a puzzle from them piece by piece is the core concept behind my method of gaining intelligence on the universe. Also why I am pretty certain there is no 'God', defined in the normal manner.

 

Of course the very existence of anything at all implies it had to come from somewhere, which in itself suggests something created everything. 

 

I am still admittedly stuck on 'why does stuff exist' and 'define reality'

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

Stuff exists because it can.  Reality is what you perceive around you.

[grandiosepie 0]

I don't post much here and mainly enjoy all the awesome downloads from this site until I came across this thread.  It is amazing to me that there is so much interest in this topic.  That is a good thing to always question, even your own opinions.  Afterall, humans will never KNOW in the complete sense all there is to know.  Take our species, the human race.  The way the human body functions is a marvel in its' own right.  Then you have the earth.  How could so many events and processes come together so perfectly to create this amazing planet?  Then lets take one small example.  Have you ever just stopped and wondered how from a seed, a huge tree can grow?  Sure we know the physical and biological processes because we were taught or learned them but I myself still can't even fathom how!  Take your favorite fruit.  How does a flower evolve into a delicious, liquid filled object that can grow repeatedly season after season?  What about the universe as many of you have mentioned?  The smartest scientists will never be able to wrap their minds around all that is out there.  It is utterly unimagineable, the vastness and complexity.  So I tend to concentrate on the simple.... 

 

Who gave us the "golden rule"?  If you believe in the Bible, it was Jesus.  If you don't then it was a human fabrication.  Either way, is it not a rule that if followed will better everybody?  If there is a God and you have done this simple rule (although admittedly hard to follow sometimes), you will be rewarded.  If you do not believe in God but still follow this rule, there is at the least usually a feeling of satisfaction in your own heart and mind.  Now if you don't believe in God and don't follow the golden rule precisely because of that belief, what if you are wrong?  You will not be rewarded and your belief/opinion will be your eternal mistake.  The only other option: you will be dust regardless of the way you lived your life and there is no God. 

 

This is why so many people believe in God.  They want to believe and be rewarded even without concrete proof that He exists.  This is called Faith.  Then there is Hope.  Believers in God hope by living a good life that God will reward them for their "blind" trust regardless of the sufferings they experience in this lifetime.  They believe that God "will wipe every tear from their eyes."

Some laugh at all these notions and the foolish people that wrap themselves in them.  But what if......what if there is a God?   "God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise."