God

[Ben]

So, an explosion is not possible, but something creating everything in six days from absolutely nothing, that's utterly reasonable?

I hope no-one was hit when you threw logic out the window.

But, yes, I believe in God. And Santa. And the Tooth Fairy. And the Easter Bunny. And Hobbits. And ****ing Harry Potter. They're all just as real. They all came from the same source; someone's imagination.

 

[F.A.S.T.]

With faith it is........

But evolution is purly based on logic....
And even so, the thiory doesnt match logic.....

Faith is built on faith, nothing less.
Thats what makes it possiable.....
There are some things you dont understand, buts thats allright...

 

[Ben]

I have faith the sky is green.

Am I right?

No.

You have faith God exists.

Are you similarly right?

No.

The only thing I have faith in is logic, it's the only way to correctly look at something. It is not logical, nor possible, that god could exist. Much in the same way it is not logical, nor possible, for a fat guy in a red suit to deliver toys to all the good boys and girls in the World in one night. Neither exist.

Faith is just a petty excuse bought out when there is no real evidence. Without evidence, you can not prove anything. Without proof, you are wrong.

 

[ciallkennett]

The short answer: no

The long answer: yes

Some people say that God (why do we have to put a capial 'G' at the being of his name??(and another thing, why is 'He' a 'He'? 'He' could be a She(and another thing, why do we have to put a capital 'H' at the being of 'He' when talking about God??)))created the big bang and that it wasnt an accident.

These people are usually locked up in psychiatric units, but they like to be called christians...

 

[Snoo]

Faith is just a petty excuse bought out when there is no real evidence. Without evidence, you can not prove anything. Without proof, you are wrong.

And right now.. because neither side has any proof, neither are correct. You can't say the other is incorrect because neither side has any valid backing behind its side of the story.

Hence the problem.


--------------------------------


My whole view on this is that, much like the Big Bang, Religion is just a theory.. made up by man, to explain the unexplainable. Scientists couldn't come up with how the universe started, so it got little bits and pieces of the best evidence it could find and ran with it. Of course, can theories be proven true? Yes. Will either of these ever be? IMO, No.

Religion, IMO of course, is just something man created to explain the unexplainable. When we were a young species, we wondered what happens when we die.. when our body stops working. Being the egotistical animal that we are, we didn't want to except the fact that we went into nothing.. hence Religion.

I ask you people who believe, isn't it comforting that you know where you are going after you die?

For our young ancestors, it must have been terrifying.. but whats the best solution? Creating a place in which we have no evidence exists to comfort ourselves so we don't go insane with the thoughts of simply dieing.

Do I look down upon this? No, hell.. when I was a kid and **** was hitting the fan, I'd go away to my own little world away from things I didn't want to be around. Its really just how we are.

I hope a few people can understand that a least a little bit.

 

[Harvey]

Ben, you are queer and you are going to burn in hell, no wonder you are angry.

^.-

 

[Ben]

And right now.. because neither side has any proof, neither are correct. You can't say the other is incorrect because neither side has any valid backing behind its side of the story.

Hence the problem.

No. That would be true if I was arguing for evolution as an alternative, but I am not. I am simply arguing the lack of existence of God. Since there is a lack of evidence for him existing, this in itself is evidence that he does not exist. Again, in much the same way there is no evidence Santa exists, which logically means he does not exist. If there was no evidence someone had committed a crime, would they be sent to prison? Well, actually, they probably would, but in theory, they wouldn't.

 

[furie]

And right now.. because neither side has any proof, neither are correct. You can't say the other is incorrect because neither side has any valid backing behind its side of the story.

Hence the problem.

We do have proof though. We can see the universe. It exists. We can plot the course of the universe right back to when it must have been created in a big bang. We can calculate how the universe works, based on rules and science. We don't have all the answers, but we have theories which kind of fit, some will be disproved, others proven.

God will never be proven or disproved. Something which is the figment of imagination cannot be. Actually, that's harsh - a true atheist should always work on probabilities and have an open mind. There is a possibility that there is a God. It's a tiny possibility, but it shouldn't be thrown out of the picture altogether. It's just that all the evidence is utterly stacked against it. Still, there is always that outside chance, and I'm willing to accept it as another theory.

The Big Bang:
1)When something explodes, they dont come out is nice round sheres.
2)When something explodes, all fragments spin the same way. (There is a law about it somewhere, I just cant rember the name) and thats not the case with the plants.

The Sun: As the sun burns, it uses up its energy. Right.....
So if the universe/earth is a billion years old, the sun had to be alot bigger. Thus engulfing the earth. AKA: NO LIVE POSSIABLE!

Careful with that degree in astro-physics, you'll do somebody some damage.

Seriously, I'm happy to have a theological discussion, but only if people actually know even the slightest, or do the slightest bit of research. I'm even happy to take into consideration the Big Bang was a direct result of the action of some God. However, ill founded, unresearched drivel like the above does much mnore harm for the cause of religion than good.

1. Despite the models you may have seen on TV, the big bang wasn't a nice sphere. It was jagged and it still is. The universe is expanding at a standard rate, but it's not the same distance all the way around.
2. The big bang wasn't a simple explosion. Nobody truly understands it, but we're talking an explosion at a sub quantum level where the normal laws of physics as we understand them don't exist.
3. The sun was created out of a super dense package of 'fuel'. This started to burn, and as it burns, it actually gets bigger. The sun is expanding all of the time. It started as a tiny ball of condensed fuel, and now it is burning that way, and getting bigger as it does so. This is pretty basic stuff really.

Of course, my correct answer should have just been 'I have faith in science, so I don't need to prove any theories or explain anything rationally - stuff just is because of science'

 

[Snoo]

We can plot the course of the universe right back to when it must have been created in a big bang.

Must have? That looks suspiciously like you know something happened, almost like you assume fact. Big Bang 'Theory' Furie, not Fact.

We have evidence the universe is expanding, yes?
We have evidence it all started together back in the past, yes?

Other then that, to put it simply, the evidence we have more to support it is spotty at best.

 

[Anonymous]

And the big bang theory, that just bull.
Some examples of how it can be wrong.
The Big Bang:
1)When something explodes, they don't come out is nice round sheers.
2)When something explodes, all fragments spin the same way. (There is a law about it somewhere, I just cant remember the name) and thats not the case with the plants.

The Sun: As the sun burns, it uses up its energy. Right.....
So if the universe/earth is a billion years old, the sun had to be a lot bigger. Thus engulfing the earth. AKA: NO LIVE POSSIBLE!

First of all, even if The Big Bang is a "Theory", there is still a lot more proof of that ever happening, then there is for a God to exist.
So I will stick with Big Bang.

Sorry to say, I'm not an astrophysicist (I'm more a rocket scientist/satellite engineer, but I have friends who are though), but I have in my studies covered the subject of big bang, etc.
1. Big Bang wasn't an explosion, it's just that the universe just started to expand.
2. See one.

Earth is no way near the same age as the universe. It's a simple fact really. Since the most (about 99.99%) of the particles that were created by the big bang was hydrogen. Hydrogen formed stars and those stars created heavier particles by fusion, the heavies particle that can be created this way is Iron. Heavier particles are residue from Super novas (so to think of it we are all made from star "waste").
Well the sun had more "fuel" in it's early days, but more fuel means more mass, which gives higher a gravity field that forces it together, which meant that it was smaller in the beginning. As the mass decreases then the radiation pressure from the fusion in the center gradually takes over and will increase the size of the sun as time progress, and will towards it's end 5 or so billion years from now engulf the earth.

 

[Stone Cold]

We can plot the course of the universe right back to when it must have been created in a big bang.

Must have? That looks suspiciously like you know something happened, almost like you assume fact. Big Bang 'Theory' Furie, not Fact.

We have evidence the universe is expanding, yes?
We have evidence it all started together back in the past, yes?

Other then that, to put it simply, the evidence we have more to support it is spotty at best.

Whilst it hasn't been conclusively proven by any means ig you're calling Furie for treating it as fact, I'm calling you for suggesting to us that the supporting evidence is spotty.

I would suggest that Furie is probably closer to the mark than you are. The evidence is not spotty at all, there is no scientific evidence which actively contradicts with the idea of a big bang, and it is easily the leading theory as to our ultimate origins (apart from the anachronism ofreligion). It is by no means conclusively proved, but more evidence is stacking up in favour of the theory being correct everyday.

Besides, Furie's statement stands up to scrutiny in my eyes, and by default, yours as well (as you agree that the universe all started together and has and is expanding). The big bang theory doesn't actually suggest that a massive explosion occured, as F.A.S.T is implying (although science obviously isn't his strong point!) but it actually means a rapid expansion of the universe - imagine a balloon being rapidly inflated, rather that the common perception of a balloon bursting and chucking out millions of stars.

 

[Screaming Coasters]

Yeah I believe in God. My mum says if I don't then I don't get christmas presents.

Ermmmm, Christmas is a pagan belief. So is birthdays and Easter and is totally unrelated to God and is totally against what is taught in the bible.

I do believe in God and I try to do what's right although i find it hard to as I am easily influenced into doing things that is wrong by the bible. That aside, I do strongly believe that God exists.

Now to me, The Big Bang theory is just silly...

For it to happen, a reaction has to begin, but where was that reaction if nothing had begun? God is timeless. It's beyond the human mind to get the concept of no beginning and that God always existed because we think that everything must start at the beginning.

I would go into it deeper but I just wanted to share a light on what I believe.

Also leofet - some scientist are now disregarding the Big Bang Theory and are saying that there must have been some greater being of some sort.

 

[Anonymous]

Also leofet - some scientist are now disregarding the Big Bang Theory and are saying that there must have been some greater being of some sort.

Then they are not scientist. (This is actually the first time I have herd such a claim).

What I think of religion:
It should be banned, especially from Politics, since it has caused more conflicts then anything else.

 

[Screaming Coasters]

I agree that religion and politics don't mix but why should religion be banned?
Afterall, most of them are pleasant it's just how we see them through the medias eyes.

Also, on the Big Bang again...

It's known to have happened where two matter colided...
Ok, in that case -
Where and what created those two matters?

If there was nothing, how can something be created.

See now having something created first would make the Big Bang theory have some sense to it but there was nothing created.

 

[Anonymous]

As I said, Those are my views.

About that pre- Big Bang stuff..
Me and my friends actually had that discussion a few weeks ago, and one of them had a good explanation about it. I just can't remember it in it's full, but I will ask him when he returns from his little trip Sun/Mon. I think he had a link to a site that explained it pretty good.

 

[F.A.S.T.]

Ok then, lets put it in terms we would all agree on.....

Wich would you rather belive in.....
1) You die, and nothing happens...
2) You die, and go to heaven.....


If were wrong, it does no harm.
But If were right, and your wrong, there would be some serious consicuences...... (sp?)
_
With me, I rather go with # 2 even just to be safe...

 

[Gavin]

^Sorry, but there isn't a choice for things you would rather believe in. You either believe in something or you don't.

Nobody can, as yet, proove there is no god. However, given all the information we have to go on so far, I really don't believe there is one.

The concept of heaven sounds very nice, I have to admit, but just because I like the idea of it, doesn't mean I can ever believe in it.

I could say I belive in it, and hope for the best, but since god (on the tiny off-chance that he does exist) knows what I'm thinking, he would know it was just lip service and I wouldn't get in anyway, right?

Saying that you "choose" option number two suggests that you don't fully believe in god yourself, otherwise that choice wouldn't be neccesary.

 

[danielfitzgerald99]

And right now.. because neither side has any proof, neither are correct. You can't say the other is incorrect because neither side has any valid backing behind its side of the story.

Hence the problem.

No. That would be true if I was arguing for evolution as an alternative, but I am not. I am simply arguing the lack of existence of God. Since there is a lack of evidence for him existing, this in itself is evidence that he does not exist. Again, in much the same way there is no evidence Santa exists, which logically means he does not exist. If there was no evidence someone had committed a crime, would they be sent to prison? Well, actually, they probably would, but in theory, they wouldn't.

The difference between Santa and God so big I can't believe you are comparing them. While there is no evidence for Santa and everyone KNOWS he isn't real, there is plent to suggest God is real. How many people were healed by Jesus all those accounts cannot stem from nothing can they.

 

[furie]

1) You die, and nothing happens...
2) You die, and go to heaven.....


If were wrong, it does no harm.
But If were right, and your wrong, there would be some serious consicuences...... (sp?)

I like to believe I will win a £3,000,000 jackpot in the lottery tomorrow night. The chances are I will still be poor Sunday morning.

The belief is a lovely thing, and it makes me happy making plans to spend all that money on Sunday, but I know in my heart, it's just not going to happen. Of course, there's a several million to 1 chance I may be wrong, and will actually win. That's the way I look at it. I just don't believe in the several million to one shot.

Snoo, I apologise for stating the big bang as fact, it's just that nothing as of yet can disprove it, and all the calculations and work done in the field by the cleverest blokes in the world for decades make it stand up. So it's the best shot.

I've read a few scientific journals, and they have theoretically calculated how to create a big bang. Matter from nothing. There are also multiple universes (theoretically) which feed into our universe. The collapse of one of these universes could be the catalyst of the creation of ours.

The problem with the argument is that science HAS to be able to stand up and have an answer to the religious.

Religion: The big bang theory fails because how can matter be created from nothing.
Science: We don't know yet
Religion: Then your theory in null and void as you have no answer.

The other side of the argument-
Religion: God created the universe.
Science: Who created God?
Religion: God is eternal, he has always been.
Science: But God cannot have been created from nothing?
Religion: God was not created, he is eternal.
Science: Give me proof.
Religion: We need not give proof, we are religion.

Religion always asks for science to prove it is correct, yet it requires no proof of it's own. Oddly, it is science which is open minded, all things are possible until proven otherwise - it's just that evidence towards one theory gives it a higher possibility of being correct than another, so science will chase that theory until it is proven or disproved. At that point, it moves on.

 

[Gavin]

there is plent to suggest God is real. How many people were healed by Jesus all those accounts cannot stem from nothing can they.

Actually, there is very little to suggest that god is real. As for the accounts of Jesus healing people? Yes, those accounts can absolutely stem from nothing, or at least from imagination.