Do you believe in God? (2022 edition)

[Th3Birdman]

God is eternal. He exists outside of time and space, therefore having no beginning or end.

Asking "Oh, then who made him?" is a pointless question because not only do you have no way of answering it, you naturally have to then ask "Well who created the one who created him?" and so on

No, that's precisely the problem, and a valid question to ask.

If the answer to that question is unknowabale, why would you believe this? If there is literally no logical answer, what compels one to believe something that is obviously not evidently true?

That's a rhetorical question, because I know the answer already (a combination of indoctrination, and fear of death). But what I'm saying is, you have no real, tangible, independently verifiable evidence that thing exists.

The only reason believers don't like this question is precisely because they cannot answer it. They have answers for everything except that. Don't you find that interesting???

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

You are your own God - in this life, anyway.

Whatever happens after that is inconsequential; it's counterproductive to believe in the perception of a higher being/power when you're none-the-wiser as if you'll even have that perception once your life is over.

 

[ba'al]

@kevm3 @MMS @Sccit

Interested in hearing what ya'll have to say on the topic

 

[Fillerguy]

You know, I always took you for a rational dude.

But this... yikes.

First of all, you're making assumptions here-- no one (scientists) says the universe "created itself"-- that's a strawman. The current position of cosmologists is that the universe has always existed in one form or another, and may be a part of an infinite parallel with other universes.

Second, a supernatural being by definition cannot exist in nature, otherwise, it would be natural. As far as I'm aware, the gods of man interact with men, thereby making them a paradox-- they are no longer supernatural if men can hear them, for example. Their voices can only be heard if there is a medium, such as air. That, by definition, would make them a natural being, hence the paradox.

So no, it's not perfectly logical, most especially because the god of the bible, at least, is described as looking like us, meaning he can be seen, meaning he's not supernatural, meaning none of this makes sense.

But that's the point though. The concept of the divine, in its entirely, is outside our current understanding of the universe. Virtually every god man has made up violates several laws of physics, at the very least.

Reason dictates, we do not have the ability rationalize the concept of "God"....any attempt to do so would be as irrationally as attempting to disprove "God". And all evidence of "God", from another human or even yourself, isn't to be trusted because we are objects bound by this universe's laws of nature...."God" isn't. Our existence limits our ability to properly experience a thing(s) that violates all laws of nature.

So God(s) existence depends eitherly on the observer...on some Schdogerthingabobs cat, quantum superposition type shyt. And if you accept the Many World interpretation, all gods exist

 

[Thelonious Napz]

I'm still on the fence about it, honestly.

 

[jaydawg08]

Yes. But the thing is that the universe actually exists.

We can see, smell, touch, and taste the universe. It makes more sense to take a naturalistic position since there's evidence it actually exists in the first place.

We only have a book that says a god exists, and the only evidence we have the book is true is the book itself.

In other words, begging the question, a logical fallacy.

That's not entirely true.. there are historical finds found strictly going off of text/passages in the bible and the different books in the bible. There are a lot of books in the bible that have been proven to be VERY accurate and are consistent with archaeological records and other historical records.

As far as the universe... there is far more we DON'T know about the universe than what we do know. We know probably a tiny percentage about the universe even tho we can physically see it

 

[Low_key]

I think religion skewed the perspective of how we look at God. The debate always stems from viewing God as a human like figure. What if God is a energy and not a being? I say all that to say yes I definitely believe in a source but I don’t believe it’s anything like what religions or sconce describes. Maybe the source is past our comprehension in this realm.

 

[Wig Twistin Season]

Yes.

 

[AQz]

Yes. I’m not a big fan of church though

 

[Professor Emeritus]

We only have a book that says a god exists, and the only evidence we have the book is true is the book itself.

Hardly anyone believes in God just because they read a book. In fact, placing a book at the center of religion wasn't even a thing until the Koran was formulated in the generation after Mohammed. Until then (and even for the most part after then), religious belief was virtually always formulated via a combination of community knowledge and individual experience. The books were there, but they were secondary to the community. Jesus didn't even write a book, and the various stories and letters that were written about him, while all available within 20 to 50 years after his death, weren't even bound together into a single volume until 300 years later. The teachings of Jesus never once say, "Write all this shyt down and turn it into a book", they're always about talking to each other, sharing your experience with each other, forming communities that treat people the right way, and growing community organically via personal relationships and personal experiences of God.

The prominence of a single book at the center of religious practice, as if someone wouldn't know about God if it wasn't for that book lying around, was a mix of Islamic teaching (since Mohammed was supposedly the only one who ever really experienced God and no other experiences counted, and since his book was supposedly word-for-word written by God, a claim Christians and Jews had never made about their books), certain insecure Christian jealousy of Islam's claims, and the modern ultra-concrete mindset that came about during the Enlightenment and Reformation. I'm not saying the Bible isn't important, but it's not supposed to be the end-all or the center of community. Following Christ as a community is that. If you don't experience Christ personally or via your community, then I'm not surprised that you're not going to get it from reading a book (though, indeed, some do).

 

[Th3Birdman]

Curious, what's your background in physics and thinking within and outside of spacetime? Like, have you ever wrestled with those concepts in a college context or anything similar?

Natural sciences (biology, chemistry). In order to prepare for my minor (evolutionary biology), I obviously had to take physics courses. I've always been incredibly interested in all branches of science, and my studies reflected that. But let's not get sidetracked.

There is no "current position of cosmologists", they're all over the map on this issue, have literally no proof or even evidence of any answer, and aren't anywhere near a consensus.

Except this is not true.

First of all, we have evidence the universe exists. Second, we have evidence the big bang occurred, meaning the universe as we currently know it (14BY). Those two things being true, the layman assumes there had to be a beginning, because of our own nature. We are incredibly self-important, and arrogant, and we base everything on our own experiences. Humans are born and they die, so they assume things have a beginning and an end. It's the reason we use base 10 to count things-- 10 digits on the hands.

But the evidence that we have that suggests there was an expansion of space time (otherwise known as the Big Bang), meaning if there is currently expansion (and there IS), then at one point, that energy was at a single point.

We know for a fact that energy cannot be destroyed or created, therefore that energy has always existed, in one form or another. This is physics 101, I'm not sure why you're arguing against this concept as a physicist...

Lastly, a debate is always being had in science, and there will always be outliers that try to prove theories wrong. That's the beauty of science-- it's self correcting and always trying to better itself. I don't doubt there are cosmologists that go against the grain. But posting a few links does not refute the fact that cosmologists generally believe the Universe is eternal, especially given Einstein's formula.

If you want to refute that, I'd be happy to review your paper on it.

Now, intellectually, such a position is obviously bullshyt for the reasons I already gave. Which is why some of them jump to the crutch of infinitely successive universes, each creating the next in turn. But not only is there zero evidence for this, to claim that such universes can track back infinitely and don't need to have a beginning is just to hand-wave the problem away. Why would space-time even exist at all in that scenario? What would determine that there be any physical laws in the first place? It's the most ridiculous juelz because they can't explain how the finite spacetime we're well aware of could track back infinitely, so they just say, "Because I say so, and I don't have to explain it", even though that justification doesn't hold for any other natural phenomena that actually has to follow the laws of said spacetime it is within.

There are a lot of things we don't understand yet. But invoking the supernatural is a logical fallacy, called god of the gaps, which I'm sure you're familiar with.

Science isn't settled. We will simply get better at explaining this concept. For now, the idea that the Universe has always existed at least has a physics proof: energy-mass equivalence.

 

[Th3Birdman]

That's not entirely true.. there are historical finds found strictly going off of text/passages in the bible and the different books in the bible. There are a lot of books in the bible that have been proven to be VERY accurate and are consistent with archaeological records and other historical records

The best kinds of lies are those that have a dollop of truth to them.

Of course there are historical elements present in the bible. I don't think any atheist, scientist, or archaeologist disputes this. But you've missed my point, and are arguing something else entirely.

Read what I said again:

We can see, smell, touch, and taste the universe. It makes more sense to take a naturalistic position since there's evidence it actually exists in the first place.

We only have a book that says a god exists, and the only evidence we have the book is true is the book itself.

You see, I'm talking about god's existence, not historical events. We don't have independently verifiable evidence that a god exists, outside of a book, whose proof is itself.

Put it another way: who says the bible's claims about the creation of Earth is fact? The bible. Who says the bible is the word of a god? The bible.

If this were a court case, would you allow the prosecution to also be the judge?

 

[Th3Birdman]

Hardly anyone believes in God just because they read a book

This was the only portion of your post that requires a response.

That's... just an assumption on your part at best, and factually inaccurate at worst lol

The catholic church, the largest denomination of Christianity, with 1.3 billion adherents, SPECIFICALLY base their beliefs on a literal interpretation of the bible.

They quite literally believe in god because they take the bible literally.

Rhakim, sit this one out dog. I get you're a believer, but you're letting your emotion cloud your otherwise rational arguments.

 

[weather so breezy]

just saw him on the mirror

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Natural sciences (biology, chemistry). In order to prepare for my minor (evolutionary biology), I obviously had to take physics courses. I've always been incredibly interested in all branches of science, and my studies reflected that. But let's not get sidetracked.

The vast majority of physics courses do nothing to delve into the nature of spacetime. Unless you take courses specifically in relativity, or sometimes upper division courses in quantum or astrophysics, it's not even going to come up.

There are a lot of things we don't understand yet. But invoking the supernatural is a logical fallacy, called god of the gaps, which I'm sure you're familiar with.

Invoking the supernatural to explain natural phenomena is a "God of the gaps" fallacy.

Invoking the supernatural to explain something that philosophically can only occur outside of the natural realm is perfectly reasonable and isn't a "God of the Gaps" at all.


You just tried to claim that any mention of the supernatural is a logical fallacy, and thus think you can forbid the other side of the argument from even existing. That's pure circular reasoning - you're a priori discounting any role for a supernatural God solely by declaration, not by evidence or logic.