Do you believe in a God?

[Clover]

I guess I am agnostic... I don't really know how anyone can prove or disprove the existence of gods or goddesses at this point in time, it all seems like baseless faith to me.

 

[Into It]

And there was no big bang.

Things are not exploding away from each other, rather it is space that is expanding.

And if there was a big bang it would have started from a point. However wherever you stand in the universe, it appears the big band started from there.

Sothe big bang is entirely a fraud.

2And this fraud has become so popular because it confirms the religious view of a Creator - for if there was a big bang, there must have been a Creator to light the fuse and whoop! here we are.
And the gullible believe in the big bang for the same reason they believe in MBTI - because it suits their preconceptions.

3Gosh, the big bang and MBTI seem so intuitive. But the problem is that apart from the tiny part of the universe we inhabit, the rest of the universe, the very small and the very big, is counter-intuitive.

3The intuitive have never cottoned on to this and in their desperation are taken in by any nostrum that comes along.

This hurts my eyes. The fact that everything appears to be exploding away from the point it is viewed at is not a reason that the big bang is entirely a fraud. In fact it is evidence of an explosion, that is, if you accept Newton's Laws. If you don't think that an object is at rest until it is set in motion, that's okay I guess. If you don't think that objects will remain in motion until acted upon by another force, I guess I can accept that. But the fact that everything is expanding away from everything else is proof that a force acted upon them. It only means that the expansion must be viewed on a three dimensional plane - When I saw Hawking speak he explained it as a balloon inflating. If you draw dots on a balloon and blow it up, each dot will get farther away from every other dot. Surprise! We live in a three-dimensional universe!

2.This is a huge leap of intuition that has no grounding in reality and I cannot understand how you could make this assertion. The fact that something exploded necessarily means that a sentient being, the "Creator," made this happen? What? Let's break this down.

A long time ago, a lot of matter moved for reasons scientifically unexplained as of yet. Anything past this point is speculation, and it provides no evidence for any sort of "Creator." All it means is that the universe DID begin. Anything else is pure speculation. And as far as I have seen, most proponents of the Big Bang Theory don't use it as any evidence for God. The theory adds up well. What's yours?

3.I'm intuitive. And my gut says you're full of shit.

 

[Mole]

Blackmail and Canberra

Where's Blackmail! when we need him?

I ask myself the same question.

For our dear Blackmail is a Landscape Architect as is the very person who designed the city I am sitting in.

My city, Canberra, the Capital of Australia, was designed from a God's eye view, with the eye of a Landscape Architect.

There are some here who describe God as an Architect, and others who go further and describe God as a Landscape Architect.

But whoever is right, Canberra is a designer city, designed by the great Landscape Architect, Walter Burley Griffin.

And just as God cast His eye over Canberra, our Landscape Architect cast his eye as well - and some can't tell the difference - both saw Canberra from a God's eye view - and created a garden city.

And they created a city in the Bush - we call the Bush Capital, or in our inimitable Aussie way, "A good sheep paddock ruined".

But our favourite living Landscape Architect, our very own Blackmail, is a simple modest atheist who does the work of God without the fanfare.

And fortunately it was a Landscape Architect, quite like Blackmail, who created this little corner of heaven.

 

[Eagle]

This hurts my eyes. The fact that everything appears to be exploding away from the point it is viewed at is not a reason that the big bang is entirely a fraud. In fact it is evidence of an explosion, that is, if you accept Newton's Laws. If you don't think that an object is at rest until it is set in motion, that's okay I guess. If you don't think that objects will remain in motion until acted upon by another force, I guess I can accept that. But the fact that everything is expanding away from everything else is proof that a force acted upon them. It only means that the expansion must be viewed on a three dimensional plane - When I saw Hawking speak he explained it as a balloon inflating. If you draw dots on a balloon and blow it up, each dot will get farther away from every other dot. Surprise! We live in a three-dimensional universe!

2.This is a huge leap of intuition that has no grounding in reality and I cannot understand how you could make this assertion. The fact that something exploded necessarily means that a sentient being, the "Creator," made this happen? What? Let's break this down.

A long time ago, a lot of matter moved for reasons scientifically unexplained as of yet. Anything past this point is speculation, and it provides no evidence for any sort of "Creator." All it means is that the universe DID begin. Anything else is pure speculation. And as far as I have seen, most proponents of the Big Bang Theory don't use it as any evidence for God. The theory adds up well. What's yours?

3.I'm intuitive. And my gut says you're full of shit.

Ok then... Until we officially know more the big bang theory is just a theory. In fact if it is true until something else enters the picture we shouldn't exist. The big bang would have created equal amounts of matter and anti-matter. Therefore if it's true we shouldn't exist. However, current day scientists are looking for the Higgs particle which would prove inversely that there is a Higgs field, which would explain why we even exist if the theory is true. What's another term that the Higgs particle is called? Answer, the GOD particle.

 

[juggernaut]

My city, Canberra, the Capital of Australia, was designed from a God's eye view, with the eye of a Landscape Architect.

Small world. My anthropology adviser is from Canberra. Got his PhD from ANU.

Carry on...

 

[Mole]

And my gut says you're full of shit.

You may well be right about me.

However you are not right about the science.

You have just repeated the popular misconceptions about science. Just as you repeat and keep on repeating the popular misconceptions about MBTI.

And if you keep this up, you will become popular.

 

[Into It]

Answer, the GOD particle.

I read that book too. And I can accept a "God Particle." But Victor was claiming that the Big Bang theory "confirms the religious view of a creator," which is nonsense. A Particle is not the "creator" that he refers to.

 

[Into It]

You may well be right about me.

1However you are not right about the science.

2You have just repeated the popular misconceptions about science. Just as you repeat and keep on repeating the popular misconceptions about MBTI.
3And if you keep this up, you will become popular.

1.I did my research believing that those esteemed the greatest scientific minds were satisfactory people to learn from. To me, it appears to add up well. I suppose instead of Hawking and Lederman, I should have been learning from you.

2.I read because I want to know. Teach me what is real.

3.That's great, I must be an Enneagram 9 then.

 

[Mole]

Small world. My anthropology adviser is from Canberra. Got his PhD from ANU.

Carry on...

Yes, the Australian National University (ANU) is a beautiful University beside Black Mountain and Lake Burley Griffin with Sullivan's creek running through it.

I fell in love there just as I fell in love with the University.

And somehow whenever I enter the University, I feel welcome and somehow there is something beautiful, mysterious and mystical that keeps bringing me back again and again.

 

[Qre:us]

Nope. But, I'm sure he had a son.

 

[Into It]

"No God" is +90%

Edit:My curse of precision made me edit this post.
87.5

 

[Mole]

...instead of Hawking and Lederman, I should have been learning from you.

Quite right, mate.

But in the meantime you might like to keep in mind that the big bang is shorthand.

The big bang is a metaphor for something that is s quite counter-intuitive and outside our experience.

And the only sin you can commit with a metaphor is to take it literally.

So to be quite explicit - the big bang does not mean there was an explosion.

 

[Eagle]

I read that book too. And I can accept a "God Particle." But Victor was claiming that the Big Bang theory "confirms the religious view of a creator," which is nonsense. A Particle is not the "creator" that he refers to.

Possibly. In more ways than not Intelligent Design of some sort is more probable and more believable. The simplest solution is more times than not the right one.

I find it easier to believe in an all powerful endless God than in something from nothing.

From a somewhat objective point of view a creator could have made the big bang. Either way, we never throughout all of science can come up with how the universe originated. The big bang cannot work simply because matter (a form of energy) cannot be created or destroyed. It's possible that that matter was always there stretching throughout time into eternity past. However, it's not probable. If it was there throughout eternity past what changed, that it would expand at such an enormous rate? Even with time on it's side the chances are not even close that we would come into being, that life period would come into being. Even if life were to come into being to become the species and the different kinds of life that we have today it would have to evolve. Most evolutions hinder or do not effect the organism at all. Very few are for the better (which we would say that our coming into existence would be towards the better end of the spectrum). So the odds are that life would become extinct and have to start all over again. It doesn't work. It's more plausible to believe in an inexplicable God guiding this universe than to believe it all occurred and came into being because of trillions upon trillions of coincidences.

There is no such thing as coincidence.

Therefore, I choose to believe in providence.

Ohhh, and I never read any book on the Higgs Particle.

 

[ADISCIPLE]

Possibly. In more ways than not Intelligent Design of some sort is more probable and more believable. The simplest solution is more times than not the right one.

I find it easier to believe in an all powerful endless God than in something from nothing.

From a somewhat objective point of view a creator could have made the big bang. Either way, we never throughout all of science can come up with how the universe originated. The big bang cannot work simply because matter (a form of energy) cannot be created or destroyed. It's possible that that matter was always there stretching throughout time into eternity past. However, it's not probable. If it was there throughout eternity past what changed, that it would expand at such an enormous rate? Even with time on it's side the chances are not even close that we would come into being, that life period would come into being. Even if life were to come into being to become the species and the different kinds of life that we have today it would have to evolve. Most evolutions hinder or do not effect the organism at all. Very few are for the better (which we would say that our coming into existence would be towards the better end of the spectrum). So the odds are that life would become extinct and have to start all over again. It doesn't work. It's more plausible to believe in an inexplicable God guiding this universe than to believe it all occurred and came into being because of trillions upon trillions of coincidences.

There is no such thing as coincidence.

Therefore, I choose to believe in providence.

Ohhh, and I never read any book on the Higgs Particle.

I like this.

 

[Into It]

Possibly. In more ways than not Intelligent Design of some sort is more probable and more believable. The simplest solution is more times than not the right one.

1I find it easier to believe in an all powerful endless God than in something from nothing.

From a somewhat objective point of view a creator could have made the big bang. Either way, we never throughout all of science can come up with how the universe originated. The big bang cannot work simply because matter (a form of energy) cannot be created or destroyed. It's possible that that matter was always there stretching throughout time into eternity past. However, it's not probable. If it was there throughout eternity past what changed, that it would expand at such an enormous rate? 2Even with time on it's side the chances are not even close that we would come into being, that life period would come into being. Even if life were to come into being to become the species and the different kinds of life that we have today it would have to evolve. Most evolutions hinder or do not effect the organism at all. Very few are for the better (which we would say that our coming into existence would be towards the better end of the spectrum). So the odds are that life would become extinct and have to start all over again. It doesn't work. It's more plausible to believe in an inexplicable God guiding this universe than to believe it all occurred and came into being because of trillions upon trillions of coincidences.

There is no such thing as coincidence.

Therefore, I choose to believe in providence.

1.I wouldn't claim something from nothing. I would only claim that we don't have enough evidence yet to talk about this beginning with any certainty.

2.Actually, with infinite time on its side, not only would our "unlikely" existence be possible, it would be inevitable. And so would every other possibility we could fathom, and then some.

 

[Eagle]

1.I wouldn't claim something from nothing. I would only claim that we don't have enough evidence yet to talk about this beginning with any certainty.

2.Actually, with infinite time on its side, not only would our "unlikely" existence be possible, it would be inevitable. And so would every other possibility we could fathom, and then some.

Mhmmm, we are always driven to think of things as in having a beginning. We are always moved as a individuals to search for meaning. More facts that I can claim that support my views but they can very easily be explained or reasoned away. I don't want to appear as if to be grasping for straws when I need not.

 

[Into It]

Ohhh, and I never read any book on the Higgs Particle.

That's a helpful addition to your post, thank you. It was worth mentioning that I read the book he was referring to so that he would know my words were coming from the same knowledge base that he had. I understand now that you wouldn't do the same.

 

[Eagle]

That's a helpful addition to your post, thank you. It was worth mentioning that I read the book he was referring to so that he would know my words were coming from the same knowledge base that he had. I understand now that you wouldn't do the same.

I don't have a book. I have have a library that I should at some point make an attempt to get to. And lots of magazines such as national geographic. Along with a moderate interest and background in the sciences.

 

[Synarch]

I believe in a higher order and purpose that is beyond my comprehension. Is this God? If not, I don't know what else is.

 

[nozflubber]

I don't understand the necessity of this distinction - why would I feel compelled to force the concept of divinity into some linguistic compacting such as "a God"? Why can't I believe in many Gods? Or maybe Many Gods underneath a supreme, whole "one" God? If the latter, then why talk about just "a God" ? That makes no sense to me.

Do you wanna know what I believe? I believe that if I believe in God, and if I believe that the descriptions of God that are given to me as such ARE TRUE, there's more than "one God" - or at least, there are "spheres" of God that we can describe as being MULTIPLE. Hence we need more than A God.

If i'm not mistaken, Christianity does just this!! You don't need "a God", you need many and you need them badly.

Besides, why would I believe in A God when I can believe in ALL GODS?!? The latter is much more amusing, trust me Ever see Zeus play a prank on St Peter? I have. It was pretty violent for a prank, but it got laughs from the onlooking angels.