The "Is there a god?" thread

This is for discussions about news, politics, sports, other games, culture, philosophy etc.

Is there a God

Yes
22
38%
No
36
62%
 
Total votes: 58

User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: The

Post by Goodspeed »

That doesn't understand the idea that God is eternal, omniscient and omnipotent for starters.
This is such a cop-out. Why can't the universe be eternal then?

This is taken out of the context I said it in, which was discussing how DNA could have developed without the external influence of God. The discussion never referred to why the universe can't be eternal.
It's relevant because you said:
I don't think this supports your argument. This doesn't explain how life got here without a God. All this does is beg the question how the universe got here without a God?
Which, if the universe is eternal, is not actually a question at all. Similarly, all God does is beg the question how God got there?

As for abiogenesis, there are some hypotheses but this certainly is something we don't fully understand yet. That doesn't mean it's impossible without outside interference (God). It simply means we don't understand it yet. There have been many things in the past that were inexplicable then, but are explained now. All those previous times, there were plenty of people who claimed "God did it". This has turned out untrue, every time. Why would this time be different? There will always be things we don't fully understand, but this in no way implies God.
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: The

  • Quote

Post by Goodspeed »

For the love of God can we make it possible to edit posts in this forum
EDIT: Thank you :flowers:
User avatar
Korea South Vinyanyérë
Retired Contributor
Donator 06
Posts: 1839
Joined: Aug 22, 2016
ESO: duolckrad, Kuvira
Location: Outer Heaven
Clan: 팀 하우스

Re: The

Post by Vinyanyérë »

It isn't possible?
duck
:mds:
imo
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Re: The

Post by momuuu »

Nope
User avatar
Korea South Vinyanyérë
Retired Contributor
Donator 06
Posts: 1839
Joined: Aug 22, 2016
ESO: duolckrad, Kuvira
Location: Outer Heaven
Clan: 팀 하우스

Re: The

Post by Vinyanyérë »

tfw you realize you're an out of touch bourgeoisie
duck
:mds:
imo
User avatar
Great Britain chris1089
Retired Contributor
Posts: 2651
Joined: Feb 11, 2017
ESO: chris1089

Re: The

Post by chris1089 »

Goodspeed wrote:
Show hidden quotes

This is taken out of the context I said it in, which was discussing how DNA could have developed without the external influence of God. The discussion never referred to why the universe can't be eternal.
It's relevant because you said:
I don't think this supports your argument. This doesn't explain how life got here without a God. All this does is beg the question how the universe got here without a God?
Which, if the universe is eternal, is not actually a question at all. Similarly, all God does is beg the question how God got there?

As for abiogenesis, there are some hypotheses but this certainly is something we don't fully understand yet. That doesn't mean it's impossible without outside interference (God). It simply means we don't understand it yet. There have been many things in the past that were inexplicable then, but are explained now. All those previous times, there were plenty of people who claimed "God did it". This has turned out untrue, every time. Why would this time be different? There will always be things we don't fully understand, but this in no way implies God.
[/quote]
I kind of want to play aoe3 this evening so I don't really want to get into steady state theory and stuff for the entire evening. However, I do think that the universe had a beginning - you can cite the doppler effect - and I haven't seen any arguement for an eternal universe yet. As for God, I already said earlier, that God doesn't apply to our space-time continium as the very premise of God is that he is supernatural and not constrained by time. He is eternal and doesn't have a beginning or end.
User avatar
No Flag Jaeger
Jaeger
Posts: 4492
Joined: Feb 28, 2015

Re: The

Post by Jaeger »

This is my favorite debate ever on the Topic: William Lane Craig, the big daddy of theism, vs Sean Carroll, my favorite physicist

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqKObSeim2w
last time i cryed was because i stood on Lego
User avatar
No Flag Jaeger
Jaeger
Posts: 4492
Joined: Feb 28, 2015

Re: The

Post by Jaeger »

They talk about the possibility of the universe being infinite too. I love Sean Carroll because he is very eloquent, and he has studied some philosophy as well so he is able to answer WLC's points very well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqKObSeim2w
last time i cryed was because i stood on Lego
No Flag deleted_user
Ninja
Posts: 14364
Joined: Mar 26, 2015

Re: The

Post by deleted_user »

Vinyanenya wrote:It isn't possible?

Can you make a new "is there a god" thread outside of archive and move posts there?
No Flag Radix_Lecti
Dragoon
Posts: 413
Joined: Dec 3, 2017

Re: The

Post by Radix_Lecti »

The existence of life is highly unscientific and illogical. This is my conviction based on scientific data. It is a classic 'black swan theorem'.

We were taught to believe it without any explanation other than it was how it happened. And anything questioning it is dismissed to maintain the historic belief that all swans must be white. As a scientific society we must acknowledge any black swans challenging this idea. To me there are 5 black swans, too many for me to believe this badly unexplained premise and I don't teach it anymore. I teach Darwinian theory but not the idea life was mysteriously borne out of amino-acids because we cannot replicate it, a prerequisite for science to be proven and accepted.
No Flag Radix_Lecti
Dragoon
Posts: 413
Joined: Dec 3, 2017

Re: The

Post by Radix_Lecti »

@chris1089 's idea of anything existing outside space-time is actually highly scientific, Einstein theorised about this as well. Basically, the existence of infinite dimensions as proposed by new science means time can be influenced as well.
User avatar
Tuvalu gibson
Ninja
ECL Reigning Champs
Posts: 13597
Joined: May 4, 2015
Location: USA

Re: The

Post by gibson »

The thing is you already believe that god exists, and you’re using “outside of space time blah blah” to try to justify it when in fact logical beliefs are formed the opposite, you observe something and draw a belief from what you, or in most cases others, has observed to be true
User avatar
United States of America Amsel_
Howdah
Posts: 1855
Joined: Jan 29, 2018
ESO: The_Amsel

Re: The

Post by Amsel_ »

gibson wrote:The thing is you already believe that god exists, and you’re using “outside of space time blah blah” to try to justify it when in fact logical beliefs are formed the opposite, you observe something and draw a belief from what you, or in most cases others, has observed to be true

The concept of God being above or outside of the universe is arguably the most important part of religious philosophy. You kind of explain why in your post when you talk about logic being derived from observations. The reason I say that is because you can only observe something if that thing is material or works within the universe. Sight, sound, touch, and even much of rationality is inherently dependent on material conditions. If you have a God, or a ghost, or what-have-you then you won't be able to observe it properly using your senses, because those things are inherently non-physical.

Requiring people to prove the divine scientifically may sound nice to the ears, but in effect it is essentially saying "You must prove your beliefs using this system which automatically disproves your beliefs." But even that might sound fine to an atheist. The only valid reply to that opinion would be the fact that scientism is being applied arbitrarily, and it is impossible to prove the necessity of science using science; it is a self-contradictory framework.

The theism vs atheism debate might be better considered as less of a debate, and more of a difference of perspective. A theist is looking at reality from a perspective which already validates God. Meanwhile an atheist is looking at reality from a perspective which necessarily precludes the existence of the divine. In order to have any dialogue what-so-ever: both sides try to "prove" the existence or non-existence of God. This is doomed from the start because, as has already been stated, God does not require "proof", and science does not have jurisdiction over the non-scientific.
No Flag deleted_user
Ninja
Posts: 14364
Joined: Mar 26, 2015

Re: The

Post by deleted_user »

I underwent a crisis of faith this morning, but it could be for the best. I'm in the process of drafting a long winded and rambling juncture-product that's bad but boils down to an appeal to compel.
User avatar
Tuvalu gibson
Ninja
ECL Reigning Champs
Posts: 13597
Joined: May 4, 2015
Location: USA

Re: The

Post by gibson »

Amsel_ wrote:
gibson wrote:The thing is you already believe that god exists, and you’re using “outside of space time blah blah” to try to justify it when in fact logical beliefs are formed the opposite, you observe something and draw a belief from what you, or in most cases others, has observed to be true

The concept of God being above or outside of the universe is arguably the most important part of religious philosophy. You kind of explain why in your post when you talk about logic being derived from observations. The reason I say that is because you can only observe something if that thing is material or works within the universe. Sight, sound, touch, and even much of rationality is inherently dependent on material conditions. If you have a God, or a ghost, or what-have-you then you won't be able to observe it properly using your senses, because those things are inherently non-physical.

Requiring people to prove the divine scientifically may sound nice to the ears, but in effect it is essentially saying "You must prove your beliefs using this system which automatically disproves your beliefs." But even that might sound fine to an atheist. The only valid reply to that opinion would be the fact that scientism is being applied arbitrarily, and it is impossible to prove the necessity of science using science; it is a self-contradictory framework.

The theism vs atheism debate might be better considered as less of a debate, and more of a difference of perspective. A theist is looking at reality from a perspective which already validates God. Meanwhile an atheist is looking at reality from a perspective which necessarily precludes the existence of the divine. In order to have any dialogue what-so-ever: both sides try to "prove" the existence or non-existence of God. This is doomed from the start because, as has already been stated, God does not require "proof", and science does not have jurisdiction over the non-scientific.
you’ve largely hit the nail on the head and what you said can essentially be boiled down to “belief in god does not fall within the realm of logic” which is why I do not believe in God.
User avatar
United States of America Amsel_
Howdah
Posts: 1855
Joined: Jan 29, 2018
ESO: The_Amsel

Re: The

Post by Amsel_ »

gibson wrote:
Amsel_ wrote:
gibson wrote:The thing is you already believe that god exists, and you’re using “outside of space time blah blah” to try to justify it when in fact logical beliefs are formed the opposite, you observe something and draw a belief from what you, or in most cases others, has observed to be true

The concept of God being above or outside of the universe is arguably the most important part of religious philosophy. You kind of explain why in your post when you talk about logic being derived from observations. The reason I say that is because you can only observe something if that thing is material or works within the universe. Sight, sound, touch, and even much of rationality is inherently dependent on material conditions. If you have a God, or a ghost, or what-have-you then you won't be able to observe it properly using your senses, because those things are inherently non-physical.

Requiring people to prove the divine scientifically may sound nice to the ears, but in effect it is essentially saying "You must prove your beliefs using this system which automatically disproves your beliefs." But even that might sound fine to an atheist. The only valid reply to that opinion would be the fact that scientism is being applied arbitrarily, and it is impossible to prove the necessity of science using science; it is a self-contradictory framework.

The theism vs atheism debate might be better considered as less of a debate, and more of a difference of perspective. A theist is looking at reality from a perspective which already validates God. Meanwhile an atheist is looking at reality from a perspective which necessarily precludes the existence of the divine. In order to have any dialogue what-so-ever: both sides try to "prove" the existence or non-existence of God. This is doomed from the start because, as has already been stated, God does not require "proof", and science does not have jurisdiction over the non-scientific.
you’ve largely hit the nail on the head and what you said can essentially be boiled down to “belief in god does not fall within the realm of logic” which is why I do not believe in God.

What is your logical reason for needing logic in order to believe in something?
Canada Jam
Jaeger
Posts: 3107
Joined: May 16, 2015
ESO: Hyperactive Jam

Re: The

Post by Jam »

chris1089 wrote:
The video does not criticize any real hypotheses for the origin of life, instead it creates a false model that all the molecules found in a cell today have to pre-form and bump into each other and so go from no life to a fully formed cell like we see today, not even a proto-cell.

chris1089 wrote:I don't understand what you mean. Obviously you have to get from A-Z somehow
They are describing all the macro molecules found withing 'modern' cells preforming by chance in the same area and bumping into each other to form a cell with no steps in between, rather than criticising any legitimate hypotheses involving sequential steps that exist. [/quote]
This is like arguing that the earth could not have formed naturally because what are the odds that all the atoms would bump into each other to form the geological features we see today. What are the odds that a planet would form from atoms in space bumping together so that all the rocks are in the right places and the coastlines in the right shape as they are today? Pretty crazy odds right? Therefore cosmology is nonsense and planets cannot form from debris and gasses in space. Or another analogy, what are the odds of winds blowing the way they are right now? In order for the winds to blow 'correctly' every single molecule of gas the in the atmosphere must start moving in the correct direction with the correct velocity all at the same time. What are odds of that happening? Therefore God must be controlling the winds... Clearly this is not reasonable, these processes occur due to cause and effect of physical laws acting on initial conditions, not random chance.

chris1089 wrote:I can't answer this yet as I don't understand your initial premise, however I suspect straw man

So the real question is is there an explanation step by simple step of the origin whereby each step in the process is plausible. I don't have to suggest a way because God is not the default explanation until proven otherwise, the default is that we don't have a proven explanation of abiogenesis. So perhaps you should provide a complete history and explanation for creation by God which is backed by evidence since this is the standard you impose on non-religious explanations.

chris1089 wrote:No God is the default explanation. Mankind has believed God created the universe from the beginning of history. Atheism is a modern phenomenon.
Don't give me "people are Atheists now because they understand science and people didn't beforehand. Firstly because there are loads of PhD scientists who are Christians. Secondly, you just told me that
we don't have a proven explanation of abiogenesis.

So why don't you try and explain how DNA developed, how molecules gained life and how the universe got here without a God?
That is simply not historically accurate, there are plenty of cultures who's creation myths don't involve a supreme god creating the universe. You can look it up, this is off topic. As well polytheism was the most common belief for thousands of years before so clearly polytheism must be the default and is therefore true until proven otherwise! The suchness of many people believing in a thing is the same as an individual believing in that thing, repetition does not make truth so I am not impressed by the big number, I've seen bigger numbers before. And why are you demanding that I must explain what I just said we don't have a proven explanation for! Try to explain how your god created the universe.
User avatar
No Flag zosgan
Musketeer
Posts: 66
Joined: Dec 9, 2016
ESO: Zosgan

Re: The

Post by zosgan »

OFC YES HES NAME IS ALLAH
قحاب ويييييييييييييي نتوما قحاب فلبرلمان دلقحاب
User avatar
Tuvalu gibson
Ninja
ECL Reigning Champs
Posts: 13597
Joined: May 4, 2015
Location: USA

Re: The

Post by gibson »

Amsel_ wrote:
gibson wrote:
Show hidden quotes
you’ve largely hit the nail on the head and what you said can essentially be boiled down to “belief in god does not fall within the realm of logic” which is why I do not believe in God.

What is your logical reason for needing logic in order to believe in something?
What kind of a question is that? Everything that we know to be true, we know because of science( no matter how basic that science may be) and by extension, logic. There are an infinite amount of hypothetical scenarios outside the realm of science and logic, god being one of them. Give me one reason why the existence of the Christian god is more likely than the existence of the Muslim god, or a giant intergalactic pickle, or that we all live in the eye of a unicorn. Since it’s outside of logic, I already know you can’t, and therefor doesn’t even merit consideration. There’s a reason why when a Christian tells you why you should believe in god they say every single time “ because he loves you and sent his son to die for you” because since there is no logic to believing in god they have to use emotional appeal to make other, and themselves, believe.
User avatar
Spain Snuden
Jaeger
Posts: 4276
Joined: Dec 28, 2016
ESO: Snuden
Location: Costa del Baphomet

Re: The

Post by Snuden »

Christianity is nothing but a money grab! A SCAM!

Odin ftw.
[Sith] - Baphomet
No Flag deleted_user
Ninja
Posts: 14364
Joined: Mar 26, 2015

Re: The

Post by deleted_user »

#ModTheEar
User avatar
United States of America Amsel_
Howdah
Posts: 1855
Joined: Jan 29, 2018
ESO: The_Amsel

Re: The

Post by Amsel_ »

gibson wrote:What kind of a question is that? Everything that we know to be true, we know because of science( no matter how basic that science may be) and by extension, logic. There are an infinite amount of hypothetical scenarios outside the realm of science and logic, god being one of them.

Logic probably isn't the source of all knowledge. There are some concepts such as distance or time which might seem completely arbitrary from a scientific perspective, but humans most likely would not be able to function without such things. The notion of both time and distance is extremely valuable, but it is not scientific; it's something people are born with; it is self-evident. If thing such as distance are necessary for the scientific collection of knowledge then should we not address the fact that such sensory experiences are not rooted in science? From a purely materialist perspective the brain is necessary for the attainment of knowledge, yet it is given this privilege arbitrarily. If you ask "Why do you trust metaphysics?" then I ask "Why do you trust the brain?"

Can you prove the necessity of science in acquiring knowledge using science? If not: why do you allow science to function independent of its own rules, but not God, which is also inherently beyond the scope of the scientific method?
User avatar
Tuvalu gibson
Ninja
ECL Reigning Champs
Posts: 13597
Joined: May 4, 2015
Location: USA

Re: The

Post by gibson »

Of course logic isnt the source of knowledge, thats ridiculous. Logic is the tool we use to separate the wheat from the chaff. People aren't born with the notion of time and distance, that's ridiculous as well. A baby knows nothing of either. It's not until we teach them about how we have quantified it do they understand. Sensory experience is rooted in science lol. Science isn't something that humans created any more than we created electricity. It's something that has always been there and we are constantly discovering. You're just jabbering absolute ridiculousness. I don't need to prove anything about science to you. Open your eyes. Who irradiated smallpox? People using science. Who discovered and harnessed electricity? People using science. Who came up with methods to mass produce crops to sustain human survival? People using science. I'm literally sitting here with my mouth open because I cannot comprehend how someone who is only alive because of scientific advances and who relies on them every day for his very survival is trying to draw a comparison between science and the delusion of neanderthals. You believe in something you cannot see, you cannot feel, you cannot smell, you cannot talk to because 3rd century scholars made the decision to combine a collection of letters and old Jewish tribal tales into a single book which has been proven to be historically inaccurate in a multitude of cases, contradicts itself hundreds of times, and tells stories we know cannot have happened. Once again you're asking me why I don't consider one of infinite possible impossibilities to be possible by trying to compare it to a question which you have set up to only be able to be answered by the use of circular reasoning and which isn't a valid comparison anyway as it trys to compare that which is provable with that which is as likely to exist as a unicorn. You are delusional by definition (having false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions, according to dictionary.com), so I don't particularly want to engage in any more of your word salads where jump through hoops to try to justify your own unjustifiable beliefs. I myself was very religious until about 4 years ago, when I realized that my beliefs were based on literally nothing and the only reason I believed them was because I was conditioned to for as long as I could remember and because I was emotionally unable to think rationally about them, and when I did I realized not only was my basis for belief literally nothing, but there are 100 thousand holes in the inside of Christianity that people just ignore. If you want to have a rational conversation about Christianity and how the religion itself doesn't make sense(nothing to do with the existence of God) feel free to let me know and I'll be happy to discuss that with you, but as I said I have no interest in trying to explain to you why a single one of infinite impossibilities cannot be compared to science, logic, and reason.
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: The

Post by Goodspeed »

Amsel_ wrote:
gibson wrote:
Show hidden quotes
you’ve largely hit the nail on the head and what you said can essentially be boiled down to “belief in god does not fall within the realm of logic” which is why I do not believe in God.

What is your logical reason for needing logic in order to believe in something?
Not logic. Evidence
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: The

Post by Goodspeed »

chris1089 wrote:
Goodspeed wrote:
Show hidden quotes
It's relevant because you said:
I don't think this supports your argument. This doesn't explain how life got here without a God. All this does is beg the question how the universe got here without a God?
Which, if the universe is eternal, is not actually a question at all. Similarly, all God does is beg the question how God got there?

As for abiogenesis, there are some hypotheses but this certainly is something we don't fully understand yet. That doesn't mean it's impossible without outside interference (God). It simply means we don't understand it yet. There have been many things in the past that were inexplicable then, but are explained now. All those previous times, there were plenty of people who claimed "God did it". This has turned out untrue, every time. Why would this time be different? There will always be things we don't fully understand, but this in no way implies God.

I kind of want to play aoe3 this evening so I don't really want to get into steady state theory and stuff for the entire evening. However, I do think that the universe had a beginning - you can cite the doppler effect - and I haven't seen any arguement for an eternal universe yet. As for God, I already said earlier, that God doesn't apply to our space-time continium as the very premise of God is that he is supernatural and not constrained by time. He is eternal and doesn't have a beginning or end.
I don't immediately see a link between origins and the doppler effect. Can you explain?

What prevents us from following the same thought process when it comes to existence itself? It is eternal, doesn't have a beginning or end, is not constrained by time. Removing God from the equation makes it much less convoluted, doesn't bring up a ton of other questions.

One question that remains and will always remain is why is there something rather than nothing? But the thought that the first thing that existed is a being as sophisticated as the God you believe in (whichever one it is) makes even less sense than the alternative, which is that the first thing that existed was very simple and slowly grew more complex. Either way, existence is paradoxical. God provides no answers there, only more questions.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

Which top 10 players do you wish to see listed?

All-time

Active last two weeks

Active last month

Supremacy

Treaty

Official

ESOC Patch

Treaty Patch

1v1 Elo

2v2 Elo

3v3 Elo

Power Rating

Which streams do you wish to see listed?

Twitch

Age of Empires III

Age of Empires IV