What people belive is true on these forums

[Colicedus]

God is of course made up by humans - in a way. But what was made up is there to explain things like where we all come from, what the source of all being is, why there's life and death, what strings the world together, why the heck laws of physics exist and so on.

The thing is that God just makes things more complicated. Once you assert that God made the laws of physics, etc. the obvious question is "Who made God?" To which people answer, "Oh, God doesn't need a creator! He just IS!"

Why is it so hard to accept that the universe just IS and doesn't need an explanation, when you are perfectly willing to accept that some magical man created the entire universe, oh and by the way, this magical man just IS and doesn't need an explanation.

Can you prove that he is invented?

Why is the burden of proof suddenly on the real world to prove that the supernatural world doesn't exist? That is completely backwards and impossible. Can you prove that the all powerful, yet undetectable purple unicorn isn't real? Once you start believing in supernatural phenomena with no evidence, where do you draw the line?

Well, Science is about discovery and proof, do this and you will convince me. here is a thought for you, what created the universe? apparently, the Big Bang. what triggered the big bang?

about the purple Unicorn: from what I have read about it, it is a Joke that Atheists make amongst themselves. I have no knowledge on it, and there for, can not answer you. You know more on it than me most likely, how ever, I will correct you on one thing, its Pink

[Jeff]

about the purple Unicorn: from what I have read about it, it is a Joke that Atheists make amongst themselves. I have no knowledge on it, and there for, can not answer you. You know more on it than me most likely, how ever, I will correct you on one thing, its Pink

... The correct answer is "No! Of course there is no purple, invisible unicorn that controls my life! That is ridiculous!"

It's not a joke, it's a valuable analogy to (hopefully) show you how absurd it is to follow the flawed logic of "well, it can't be disproved so it may very well be true and must be taken seriously."

Well, Science is about discovery and proof, do this and you will convince me. here is a thought for you, what created the universe? apparently, the Big Bang. what triggered the big bang?

As I said in my last post, I don't believe that anything created the universe. I believe it has always existed. That is a much simpler and elegant explanation than one that involves a deity.

[BunnyWithStick]

Apparently, what triggered the big bang was gases clumping together and igniting. (And no, this was not the result of god farting contrary to religious belief )

But where did the gases come from? Sometimes, science is as stupid as religion tends to be.

[Colicedus]

Indeed...

[rudel_ic]

I actually believe in nothing in peticular. That's of course why I posted a pic of the FSM somewhere in this thread.
I just happen to love bleeding-edge metaphysics, like (as I said) superstring theory or certain infinity theories that make everything dimensional look like a bunch of intertwisted bowls (even scale).
Therefore, I can easily say the following:

There is no time as we intuitively understand it. From a certain viewpoint, Mr. Something can see the lives of all humans as a static multidimensional bubble tree. Plancton.
There is no beginning and no end in time. The present is a fiction, brought upon us by the structure of our brains. We're just like the prisoners in Plato's allegory of the cave (look it up).
See, our world is more than meets the eye. We experience an ultra-thin layer of it, one which we can't escape from. That is not the world, so we will never understand it. The world is the completeness of spacetimescalealternatives. It's a long word, but it fits.
If there is a god, he's the world. You can't deny the world, or can you? The word 'god' is a good substitute for 'really, really, REALLY everything'.
Anyway, even our sensed reality is not as distinct as we think it is. The truth is that even if we follow the laws of time and space, what we are in is just a very weird molecule soup. If we would live on a piece of paper, there would be no such thing as a line, instead, it would be myriads of points and abstraction would let a small subset shine out as a line. And the paper is not flat as a table, but crumbled, ripped and not even in one piece.

Realizing this means understanding that you don't know anything at all, no matter how sophisticated you are. To compensate it, you can always say 'I don't understand anything, but god does, and I believe in him'. It gets the weight of the unknown off your shoulders.

I mean, just take Goedel's first incompleteness theorem: You take axioms, a true-false structure of deductions and you end up with something that isn't even consistent in itself, no matter what you do. Now, you can of course say 'alright, math and logic is just a bunch of crap, science leads nowhere, let's stop with that'. Or you can accept that although you end up with wrong statements with every model, you can construct beauty with it if you keep on trying.

God is the unfound beauty for some people. What's wrong with that? It's very elegant.

[David]

Apparently, what triggered the big bang was gases clumping together and igniting. (And no, this was not the result of god farting contrary to religious belief )

But where did the gases come from? Sometimes, science is as stupid as religion tends to be.

What?! We have no idea what triggered the big bang. There are many competing theories, but none that especially stand out from the rest. Science is a systematic method of discovery, it is not a faith that claims to exhaustively explain everything... I have no idea what you are talking about.

[BunnyWithStick]

I know that there are many competing theories, that's just the one I'm most familiar with, and someone claims it's the most prominent.

It doesn't really matter though, so let's not start an argument about what came before the big bang.

[David]

From a certain viewpoint, Mr. Something can see the lives of all humans as a static multidimensional bubble tree. Plancton.

I understood the rest of your post, but have no idea what this could possibly mean.

Edit: Also, I think your definition of god is very different from that of any religions I know of, usually there is much more emphasis on hierarchy and little if any discussion of the limits of human experience.

[NickD]

Damn, I was just about to post that, but when I opened up the posting page I saw your post below and I was like "DAMN!"

Maybe you shouldn't tell people what to do or think, NickD. You're way too young and unexperienced to impress other guys on these forums.

*cartman's voice*Screw you guys. I'm going to a different thread.

[Silb]

I think your definition of god is very different from that of any religions I know of, usually there is much more emphasis on hierarchy and little if any discussion of the limits of human experience.

The idea that God is the universe is pretty old, it's called pantheism, and is part of subdivisions of all major religions. It was already around in classical Greece (it's probably much older, I'm no specialist).
I think discussion of the limits of human experience is essential to buddhism, although I may be wrong. For Christianism, Blaise Pascal for instance has discussed this matter in a famous (for educated Christians at least) text, usually called "the two infinites" (man is a 'nothing' in-between the infinitely small and infinitely great, which he cannot hope to know). It is a very important aspect of that religion (again, for educated believers).

Of course the thing here is that there what believers who have studied their religion think. Then there is what believers who are not so interested in that stuff think. Then there is what non-believers who have received no religious education whatsoever think that the second kind of believers thinks. It's all very confusing.

(For reference, I do not think God exists, but come from a solid Christian education.)

I mean, just take Goedel's first incompleteness theorem: You take axioms, a true-false structure of deductions and you end up with something that isn't even consistent in itself, no matter what you do. Now, you can of course say 'alright, math and logic is just a bunch of crap, science leads nowhere, let's stop with that'. Or you can accept that although you end up with wrong statements with every model, you can construct beauty with it if you keep on trying.

Gödel's theorem does not prove that certain theories are inconsistent. It does not prove that there are "wrong statements" in them. It proves that they are incomplete - that is, there are statements that they cannot prove or disprove. It is a complex theorem and should be used with care, or not at all if you're not familiar with it (no offense, rudel).

I think the Big Bang theory itself is not yet asserted on any kind of certain ground; there are good clues, but no definite evidence. There are even researchers arguing that the theory is given too much credit, even in the scientific community, with respect to the lack of evidence - it might smother alternate theories that are equally believable so far. This is even truer for what might have been "before".

Anyway, (and now that's just me speaking) no theory (or religion) does or perhaps even can explain why something exists rather than nothing. Saying that the universe has been around since forever just handles the sub-question of what was first.
(Which is very troubling. If you have thoughts on this I'd be eager to hear them.)

Edit: Was this post boring? File a complaint.

[Zantalos]

... The correct answer is "No! Of course there is no purple, invisible unicorn that controls my life! That is ridiculous!"

It's not a joke, it's a valuable analogy to (hopefully) show you how absurd it is to follow the flawed logic of "well, it can't be disproved so it may very well be true and must be taken seriously."

There are reasons people have hope and belief in god, a main reason is the bible.

Some things people won't understand, like how the bible pointed out that the world was a sphere long before scientists and explorers did, why the israelites knew to practice proper hygiene when handling dead meat and diseased people before anyone else knew of the causes and had been calling them "evil spirits." There is also the fact that the bible was written in a long perod of time, yet it doesn't contradict itself anywhere and it doesn't change its writing style even though it has multiple writers who are born centuries apart from one another, maybe its because the writers got really lucky in their philosophies, rules, and writing styles, or maybe it's because god was the author and these writers were his pen.
What kind of purple invisible unicorn do you know that can prophetize correct information through its manuscripts like the bible can? You can't just make up supernatural beings if there is no supernatural being behind it, the bible is just one reason to prove their existence, if that makes sense.

[Jeff]

Some things people won't understand, like how the bible pointed out that the world was a sphere long before scientists and explorers did,

Um... Pythagorus predates the Bible. Regardless, the Bible's extremely vague language on the subject can be debated, but since you already got your fundamental assertion wrong, it is not necessary.

why the israelites knew to practice proper hygiene when handling dead meat and diseased people before anyone else knew of the causes and had been calling them "evil spirits."

Plenty of people figured out basic hygiene. This hardly proves the supernatural.

There is also the fact that the bible was written in a long perod of time, yet it doesn't contradict itself anywhere and it doesn't change its writing style even though it has multiple writers who are born centuries apart from one another, maybe its because the writers got really lucky in their philosophies, rules, and writing styles, or maybe it's because god was the author and these writers were his pen.

No contradictions whatsoever in the bible? I hope your religion doesn't hinge on this fact, because if so, don't read this list of 100 blatant contradictions: http://www.islamway.com/english/images/ ... ctions.htm

The writing style is exactly the same throughout the whole thing? This statement just furthers proves that you have not read the bible. The vengeful god in the Old Testament versus the suddenly somewhat forgiving god in the New Testament, alone debunks your statement.

What kind of purple invisible unicorn do you know that can prophetize correct information through its manuscripts like the bible can? You can't just make up supernatural beings if there is no supernatural being behind it, the bible is just one reason to prove their existence, if that makes sense.

What did the Bible correctly prophetize? You can't just throw all of these huge, super natural claims out there and expect me to believe them without any evidence.

Anyways, if all it takes for you to believe in something is a dubious holy document, then why don't you believe in Islam, which has just as rich a history as Christianity? Why not become a Buddhist or follow the Greek gods, which certainly predate yours.

There is an infinitude of religions, each has about as much evidence as each other (i.e. none). How do you know that the Christian god is the true god, let alone the many possible variations of the Christian god? Who are you to say that the Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and followers of the purple unicorn are wrong and you're right?

Because of your "flawless" Bible? Please, everyone has their own ancient and infallible holy document.

[invertin]

If there is a god, I doubt anyone will ever know how to worship him, or what he wants us to do. The bible could have been made up (I'm not saying it is though) and god didn't make the world in 7 days but some other higher power created the world with a snap of his finger. And the reason people don't get proof of god is because if he helps us, we will begin to depend on him.

P.S. One of my friends believes that aliens created the world... Odd.
P.S.S and another believes that the universe is a program inside a computer and god is a fat nerd who sits at his comp all day. (No offence to the big guy)

[David]

The idea that God is the universe is pretty old, it's called pantheism, and is part of subdivisions of all major religions. It was already around in classical Greece (it's probably much older, I'm no specialist).
I think discussion of the limits of human experience is essential to buddhism, although I may be wrong. For Christianism, Blaise Pascal for instance has discussed this matter in a famous (for educated Christians at least) text, usually called "the two infinites" (man is a 'nothing' in-between the infinitely small and infinitely great, which he cannot hope to know). It is a very important aspect of that religion (again, for educated believers).

That is true about pantheism, I hadn't really thought about that. I have never formally (or otherwise) studied religious history, but I get the distinct impression that the Judeo-Christian religion has always been founded on the Will, Power, and Personality of God, and the virtue of accepting Him and His Word as the Ultimate Authority on Everything (hence the Capitalization). While philosophers and scholars sometimes try to soften it and make it more compatible with education; I get the impression that most people believe not so much because it fills the void left by the scientifically unknowable, but because of the comfort of inertia (like NickD's atheism), of believing that there is 'meaning' in everything, and of believing that absolute justice is realised after death.

Anyway, (and now that's just me speaking) no theory (or religion) does or perhaps even can explain why something exists rather than nothing. Saying that the universe has been around since forever just handles the sub-question of what was first.
(Which is very troubling. If you have thoughts on this I'd be eager to hear them.)

At Swarthmore I sometimes have a lot of trouble convincing philosophy students that anything actually does, in fact, exist. I think there is only so far back that the "why?" questions can ever reach, and I am not sure if we can ever reach that one.

[rudel_ic]

I mean, just take Goedel's first incompleteness theorem: You take axioms, a true-false structure of deductions and you end up with something that isn't even consistent in itself, no matter what you do. Now, you can of course say 'alright, math and logic is just a bunch of crap, science leads nowhere, let's stop with that'. Or you can accept that although you end up with wrong statements with every model, you can construct beauty with it if you keep on trying.

Gödel's theorem does not prove that certain theories are inconsistent. It does not prove that there are "wrong statements" in them. It proves that they are incomplete - that is, there are statements that they cannot prove or disprove. It is a complex theorem and should be used with care, or not at all if you're not familiar with it (no offense, rudel).

You're right, I shouldn't have said "wrong statements", but something like "statements that aren't true or false in the theorem although they fall into the set of statements the theorem aims at". I was in a rush.
Isn't that inconsistency? Of course it is.

Edit:

Screw you guys. I'm going to a different thread.

Come on, I didn't want to piss you off. Take it like a man, not like a Cartman
I think that followers of evil principles or opposants to religion itself make the discussion interesting. Otherwise, it's just a long thread of "Yeah, I agree" and "You're right, of course" - damn boring if you ask me.

From a certain viewpoint, Mr. Something can see the lives of all humans as a static multidimensional bubble tree. Plancton.

I understood the rest of your post, but have no idea what this could possibly mean.

Take all places all humans in all time of their existence were and you end up with such a tree if you make a spacetime graph of it. That's a 4D graph, it's not easy to imagine, but that's how it is.

Edit: Also, I think your definition of god is very different from that of any religions I know of, usually there is much more emphasis on hierarchy and little if any discussion of the limits of human experience.

The root of religion is the power of the unknown. If you have an explanation for infertility issues that your tribe of cavemen dig, but the explanation is just a fancy replacement for "we just don't know", you just founded a new religion.
That's at least what I think. Could be wrong, I dunno..