Who even says there is a god?

[steven lloyd]

... and if the bigbang theory pans out , there doesnt have to be any higher power responsible , it will be interesting to see if quantum and einstien phyisics can be brought together

What question does the "big bang theory" answer ? Are you assuming that theory debunks the idea of God ? Stephen Hawkings would disagree with you there as he believes that theory actually provides evidence supporting the idea of God. There are a lot of theories regarding quantum physics, waves and particles, alternate universes existing along different frequencies, etc., and none of them "debunk" the possibility of God - only mankind's understanding of God.

Take the next step buddy. Ask yourself, "What if I don't know?" "What if I'm wrong?"



G'night

[strwbrrydvl]

... and if the bigbang theory pans out , there doesnt have to be any higher power responsible , it will be interesting to see if quantum and einstien phyisics can be brought together

What question does the "big bang theory" answer ? Are you assuming that theory debunks the idea of God ? Stephen Hawkings would disagree with you there as he believes that theory actually provides evidence supporting the idea of God. There are a lot of theories regarding quantum physics, waves and particles, alternate universes existing along different frequencies, etc., and none of them "debunk" the possibility of God - only mankind's understanding of God.

Take the next step buddy. Ask yourself, "What if I don't know?" "What if I'm wrong?"



G'night

That is just the thing.
I am about as Atheist as they come but can't help to wonder where did those two particles come from to create the big bang? There had to be energy first, but energy out of nothing? Everything between the big bang and now has more than enough scientific evidence; understanding even just the basic principles of physics & biology answer many of the 'how' questions. But those two free floating particles that collided, where did those come from? How did something come from nothing? Unfortunately it is completely unfathomable and will likely never be answered.

[steven lloyd]

That is just the thing. I am about as Atheist as they come but can't help to wonder where did those two particles come from to create the big bang? There had to be energy first, but energy out of nothing? Everything between the big bang and now has more than enough scientific evidence; understanding even just the basic principles of physics & biology answer many of the 'how' questions. But those two free floating particles that collided, where did those come from? How did something come from nothing? Unfortunately it is completely unfathomable and will likely never be answered.

Atheist, or anti-religion ? Asking the questions makes you an agnostic - or at least someone who is still thinking and asking the questions. This isn't a question about whether or not you are religious or can presume to understand what God is or what His/Her/Its purpose and nature is.

[strwbrrydvl]

Atheist, or anti-religion ? Asking the questions makes you an agnostic - or at least someone who is still thinking and asking the questions. This isn't a question about whether or not you are religious or can presume to understand what God is or what His/Her/Its purpose and nature is.

I'd much rather go with 'someone who is still think and asking the questions', saying Agnostic seems too wishy-washy with the concept of these 'Gods' that many humans believe in. I also wouldn't say that I am anti-religion. Religion does have many good points to it, giving the masses hope. Example: when a death occurs it seems somewhat bittersweet for Christians because so&so is going to 'heaven'.

[westsidebud]

well if im wrong so be it, but as of now i dnt buy theres any type of god

[steven lloyd]

well if im wrong so be it, ...

Well, that certainly is one option a person has of things he can tell himself when he does not want to challenge his thinking any further.


Gotta go ...

[westsidebud]

well if im wrong so be it, ...

Well, that certainly is one option a person has of things he can tell himself when he does not want to challenge his thinking any further.


Gotta go ...

well its not that at all, i grew up being a pentacostal and i always had christian, catholic friends , and debated the issue on lots of occasions and i just dont see a connection between alll that is and some type of higher power, but if i am wrong then it still ok ,all i would need is one shred of eveidence , i cant go on faith

[Glacier]

Welcome back, WSB!

all i would need is one shred of eveidence , i cant go on faith

The above point is very good and valid. No one should ever believe something without some sort of evidence.

There is nothing wrong with faith, as long as it entails some sort of evidence. ie. I have faith that you are indeed the same Westsidebud of old we have all been missing because I have seen evidence through your posting styles.

Some things do take an inordinate amount of faith to believe like the origins of the universe.

If you believe God did it, then you have to have faith that some being we cannot see or comprehend exists.
If you believe it was an accident, then you have to have faith that at that time the first law of thermodynamics can be broken, and
If you believe it the universe always existed, but came into an orderly existence on its own, then you have to have faith that entropy the second law of thermodynamics (entropy) can be broken.

Using occam's razor, which scenario should one put their faith in?

[SILENCE]

I believe in "God", but not the vengeful/loving/angry heavenly-father type of "God".
I feel it's naive and conceited to think that something powerful enough to create the universe would be petty enough to experience human emotions.

[WeatherWoman]

I believe in a higher power (energy). All religions have some great positive truths but much is overtaken by the fact religion is created by humans along with their prejudice and judgement at the time their doctrines are written.

I know the "God" I believe in makes NO judgement on all humans.

[steven lloyd]

I believe in "God", but not the vengeful/loving/angry heavenly-father type of "God". I feel it's naive and conceited to think that something powerful enough to create the universe would be petty enough to experience human emotions.

I believe in a higher power (energy). All religions have some great positive truths but much is overtaken by the fact religion is created by humans along with their prejudice and judgement at the time their doctrines are written. I know the "God" I believe in makes NO judgement on all humans.

Belief in the existence of “something”, some purposeful energy or force that exists everywhere and is integral to creation and existence and can be called “God” (just as good a term as any) is not mutually inclusive to religious belief. Far from it in fact.

It has been said that the religious man goes to church on Sunday and thinks about golf, while the spiritual man goes golfing on Sunday and thinks about God.


That’s me ( “God, please let this ball carry the sand trap” )

[fluffy]

Belief in the existence of “something”, some purposeful energy or force that exists everywhere and is integral to creation and existence and can be called “God” (just as good a term as any) is not mutually inclusive to religious belief. Far from it in fact.

Well said Steven. I think this is the ground I currently occupy. I've always been comfortable with the thought that there is a greater unifying power of some sort, but the concept of a conscious entity doesn't feel quite right. You know, the flowing white beard, the chorus of angels, big "G" on his sweatshirt...doesn't quite cut it. My concept of God (like you said, just as good a term as any, only one syllable and real easy to spell) is something a tad more obiwankenobi-ish. Basically, it's an important tool to remind myself of the things that I am not in control of. That being said, I think I'll go and whine about the weather.

[steven lloyd]

I’m close with you on this one fluffy, although I could accept some form of consciousness that is kind of included with my meaning of purposeful. Consciousness is not necessarily limited or contained as it is a form of energy and can exists everywhere and even be infinite (like the “force” of Obiwankenobi). I have long dropped the concept of an old man with a long white beard living in the clouds with angels flying all around, and at the same time I am reluctant to accept the word of people who presume to understand something that is so far beyond anyone's understanding. It doesn’t matter to me that God is something I will never be able to fully comprehend though. It is enough for me to know there is purpose to all of this, and as you say, accept that there are things that I do not control.

[rideforever]

That’s me ( “God, please let this ball carry the sand trap” )

does 'god dam did I ever smash that one' count?

[rideforever]

Welcome back, WSB!

all i would need is one shred of eveidence , i cant go on faith

The above point is very good and valid. No one should ever believe something without some sort of evidence.

There is nothing wrong with faith, as long as it entails some sort of evidence. ie. I have faith that you are indeed the same Westsidebud of old we have all been missing because I have seen evidence through your posting styles.

Some things do take an inordinate amount of faith to believe like the origins of the universe.

If you believe God did it, then you have to have faith that some being we cannot see or comprehend exists.
If you believe it was an accident, then you have to have faith that at that time the first law of thermodynamics can be broken, and
If you believe it the universe always existed, but came into an orderly existence on its own, then you have to have faith that entropy the second law of thermodynamics (entropy) can be broken.

Using occam's razor, which scenario should one put their faith in?

Interesting post.

I don't think it's hard to assume the laws of physics that humans came up with are flawed. We know there is a lot of stuff we don't understand, and I think we already have pretty good evidence that said laws are flawed. From materials acting odd when super cooled, to things acting like waves and particles while our laws say they must be one or the other.

We don't even know why we act as we do, or how to convince people to be nice to eachother. We can't even convince people to give up their 5th ferrari to save 100 childrens lives. I'd be pretty disapointed in us if we figure out where the universe came from before we figure that out.

I know this is focussed on god and not religion, but just for fun, I find it quite easy to assume some prenant girl was lying when she said she was a virgin.


Assuming whether there is a god or not can have an effect on our lives.
Assuming whether or not our laws of physics are perfect does not have much effect on our lives.

I understand the 2 assumptions are somewhat tied together, but I think our clear lack of knowledge of the universe shows that there's plenty of room for our laws to be flawed, and with the plenty of room comes plenty of room to make these 2 assumptions not that closely tied together.

Whoever said laws of thermodynamics would have to be broken is also acting on the assumption that they know how things started.