Do you believe in God? (2022 edition)

[null]

Lol.

Spacetime is one of the basics of physics, my dude. Literally nothing in physics works without it, because gravity affects essentially everything. Everything that exists and has mass warps spacetime.

relativistic influences depend both on acceleration and gravity but generally speaking here on earth both play a minor role.

 

[Th3Birdman]

No they don't lol.

Except yes they DO, as in TODAY. Further:

The Catholic Church existed for 300 years before they even decided to put the books of the Bible together.

This is what you said:

Hardly anyone believes in God just because they read a book.

Those 1.3 billion catholics I mentioned earlier were not around 300 years before those books were put together, meaning their faith is based on the current state of the bible. This is a fact.

You said "hardly anyone believes in God just because they read a book", but those 1.3 billion Catholics that exist in 2022 DO. The 1.9 billion Muslims that exist today DO. They will put a fatwah on your ass if you burn a Quran on Burn a Quran Day.

Concede this point, I'd rather not go in circles because you don't want to admit to being wrong about something. I get enough of that with Sccit and xCivicx

The position of the Catholic Church

The *position* of the Catholic Church itself is quite irrelevant. We are talking about the adherents, remember? They believe because of what is told in their bible.

And the vast majority of Catholics believe in God because they go to church and are part of a community, or because they had a personal experience of God. I don't know a single Catholic who started believing in God because he read it in the Bible - Bible reading for Catholics virtually always comes after faith, not before

You're still committing fallacies. Anecdotes are not evidence. I know Catholics that converted based on their readings. Which one of our personal experiences should count here?

Claiming that Catholics believe in God because of the Bible is sort of like claiming that physicists believe in the laws of physics because of physics textbooks. You're confusing the origin of the thought with its documentation

That is an absolutely awful example. Physicists don't BELIEVE in the laws of physics-- they study and catalogue them. Science is a methodology by which we observe and record natural phenomena. Adherents to religions actually *believe*, meaning there is no meaningful analogy to be drawn here.

Further, you are confusing the topic-- we're supposed to be talking about the current adherents of these religions, but you've made it about the history of those religions. The history isn't the point; we know where they come from, but we're talking about why people USE (believe) the tool that is faith.

Here's an analogy that actually works: what you're doing is like saying Old English matters in a conversation about Gen Z-speak.

See? That's how you do an analogy.

Also, Catholics don't believe in a fundamentalist "literal" interpretation of the Bible

Yet another fallacy. Notice you cannot find a single quote on The Coli of me using the word "fundamentalist" outside of this message?

Christian Fundamentalism is a different topic. Biblical Literalism is not the same thing as fundamentalism, although they overlap, which is why I don't blame you for making this mistake.

Catholics absolutely take the bible literally; they believe the Earth was made in 7 days, but have to explain it away because of their recent reconciliation with science ( Was the World Made in Seven Days? - Catholic Stand )

They're just a little more progressive than Fundies, in that they are OK with gays (still a sin), and accept scientific discoveries (these days. Wasn't always the case).

Edit: I provided a link here, and I'm gonna add some words.

I thought we were trying to avoid logical fallacies? Don't throw in an unjustified Appeal to Motive and accuse me of being emotional when I have been debating from an informed, fact-based perspective through the entire discussion

Couple things-- you have not been arguing from a fact-based perspective. You literally invoke the supernatural within your argument, suggesting it's logical to do so, since we don't know precisely what happened before the Big Bang. That is a God of the Gaps fallacy.

Second, in order for the Appeal to Motive to apply, I would have to be wrong, and attacking you without addressing the argument. I'm thoroughly addressing the relevant parts of this discussion, and it's clear that you are letting your emotion cloud your rationality.

You believe I'm saying you're getting emotional. No, I'm saying you are letting your beliefs enter the realm of rational debate. Beliefs are emotions; it's something you feel, yet we are not discussion personal feelings.

Just to put this point to bed: do you believe in a god/deity/higher power? If the answer is yes, it's not an appeal to motive, it's calling you what you are.

That's the 2nd time now that you've attempted to dismiss my entire argument solely because I'm a believer

What? It's not a dismissal; I'm asking you to put your personal biases aside and debate the topic rationally.

 

[null]

Do you not know that any of those examples can end life on this planet? A Supernova within 50Ly can kill us. A Magnetar can rip our planet apart with its extreme magnetic field. Asteroids and comets can cause ELE events. Blackholes can wander across our path. Quasars can sterilize our planet from thousands of lightyears away. There is nothing orderly or well-made about our universe. We live in a soup of chaotic possibilities, and any one of them can be a benefit or bane under the control of no one.

Also, multiverse theory covers the seemingly fine-tuned nature of our universe. In an infinite number of universes, some portion of that infinite will be able to sustain life.

not to mention the "chance" presence of jupiter keeping earth safe(-r) (most of the time)

great design


maybe a solar-system where we were not subject to the vagaries of a proverbial shooting gallery might have been a better design ..

who knows

 

[Sccit]

I do say this, actually-- the universe has always existed.

I'm simply trying to get you (since you decided to answer for the other guy) to answer your position.

Here's another question: what was god doing before he decided to create the universe? Chilling in a void for infinity years?

I really don't think y'all think too hard about the fables you believe in. It becomes laughable when you actually think about these things. What always intrigues me is how people can rationalize that Greek myths are simply fables and then look at Christian myths and not realize they're exactly the same.

THE PROBLEM IS THAT YOU TRY TO EQUATE GOD TO YOURSELF

“WHAT WAS GOD DOING .. JUST CHILLING?”

LIKE HE’S JUST ANOTHER LIMITED BEING WIT THE SAME BUILD AS US..

BELIEVING THAT YOU HAVE THE CAPACITY TO WRAP YOUR MIND AROUND GOD IS WHERE YOU FIRST WENT WRONG

BUT U (CLAIM TO) HAVE ME ON BLOCK, LIKE THE DUMBASS HEAD IN THE SAND ASS MUFUCCA U IS, SO YOULL NEVER ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY WIT WHAT IM SAYING BECAUSE YOUVE BLOCKED YOURSELF OFF FROM SEEING IT.. JUST LIKE YOULL NEVER BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY WIT GOD (IN THIS REALM) BECAUSE YOU BLOCKED YOURSELF OFF..


IRONIC


SOME1 TAG THIS WEIRDO N TELL HIM I SONNED HIM AGAIN

 

[LuuqMaan]

I get asked this a lot on here so I'm just going to quote some older posts. But in short as a regular noun it just means lord.

Interesting.

The Quran mentions Ba’l.
People of Elijah were worshipping a deity called Ba’al

Modern Arabic, it means husband

 

[Colicat]

I get asked this a lot on here so I'm just going to quote some older posts. But in short as a regular noun it just means lord.

So call yourself lord (with a lowercase) then…

Why would you even want to be associated with the conflation?

 

[Sccit]

@10bandz

PEEP THIS THREAD BRO

THE 2 FAGOT CLONES ARE GOIN AT EACH OTHER

DANKSTER VS URKEL

 

[Sccit]

I believe in God.

I do think that science and God can still be linked and they are not at odds with each other. We know so little about the universe and science, and theories such as the "Big Bang" doesn't somehow mean God doesn't exist. Frankly I feel God fills in gaps in talks like that

NOT ONLY CAN THEY BE LINKED, BUT THEY ALREADY

SCIENCE COMES OF AGE: MODERN DISCOVERIES OF ANCIENT WISDOM BY ZAMIR COHEN | eBay

Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for SCIENCE COMES OF AGE: MODERN DISCOVERIES OF ANCIENT WISDOM BY ZAMIR COHEN at the best online prices at eBay! Free shipping for many products!

www.ebay.com

 

[Th3Birdman]

Why would a supernatural being not be able to interact with the natural world? You just made up that definition. I'm not a digital person made up of 1s and 0s, but I can interact with digital worlds just fine. There's no inherent reason why something supernatural could not interact with the natural as it chose to.

This is just...

A supernatural being by definition cannot exist within nature. The word supernatural means OUTSIDE of nature. Once that being enters nature, by interacting with it, it ceases to be supernatural.

There is evidence we interact with a digital world (we're doing it now). Where is the evidence your god has interacted with this world? Your faith is very specific, except for when it comes to specifics...

And here's the definition for you.

Definition of SUPERNATURAL

of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil; departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[Sccit]

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?






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. There have been many who do believe that the universe created itself via quantum fluctuations. Because of the lack of evidence to support their theories, the ebb and flow of the discourse tends to follow contemporary philosophical fads rather than actual new developments.

Spontaneous creation of the Universe Ex Nihilo

Questions regarding the formation of the Universe and ‘what was there’ before it came to existence have been of great interest to mankind at all times…

www.sciencedirect.com

Physicists Debate Hawking’s Idea That the Universe Had No Beginning | Quanta Magazine

A recent challenge to Stephen Hawking’s biggest idea — about how the universe might have come from nothing — has cosmologists choosing sides.

www.quantamagazine.org

The Big Bang Didn't Need God to Start Universe, Researchers Say

Our universe could have popped into existence 13.7 billion years ago without any divine help whatsoever.

www.space.com

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.






Why would a supernatural being not be able to interact with the natural world? You just made up that definition. I'm not a digital person made up of 1s and 0s, but I can interact with digital worlds just fine. There's no inherent reason why something supernatural could not interact with the natural as it chose to.

YOOOOO

I ALWAYS THOUGHT TH3BIRDMAN WAS AN EVOLVED VERSION OF U

COME TO FIND OUT, HE’S THE MENTALLY CHALLENGED VERSION

YOURE ACTUALLY A GOOD FATHER

 

[Sccit]

Maybe the source is past our comprehension in this realm.

THATS EXACTLY WHAT THE SCRIPTURES SAY.. SO NO ITS NOT SKEWED BY RELIGION



AT LEAST NOT BY THE ORIGINAL SCRIPTURES (OLD TESTAMENT)

 

[Matriarchy Refugee]

You're talking about ancient Asia? Before cacs came into power?

You're too hot to confirm your cac overlords beliefs.

Asia was a very religious continent before tyrants inspired by atheistic Frenchmen came though and literally genocided away anyone who refused to give up belief.

Guess y'all never heard of Buddhists huh?

 

[ba'al]

Interesting.

Yes, it's very interesting.

The Quran mentions Ba’l.
People of Elijah were worshipping a deity called Ba’al

So yeah you also have the Canaanite deity.

Modern Arabic, it means husband

Same in the Hebrew. A Lord is someone who rules or govern over others. So you can see how that can be applied to something as simple as a Husband or a idol god.

Why would you even want to be associated with the conflation?

If other people are conflated by the scriptures that's on them. But I can see why a black man calling himself lord would get under people's skin. Posters got all types of usernames on here but this is the straw that broke the camel's back.

 

[Kuma the Bear]

‎

 

[Anton]

THE PROBLEM IS THAT YOU TRY TO EQUATE GOD TO YOURSELF

“WHAT WAS GOD DOING .. JUST CHILLING?”

LIKE HE’S JUST ANOTHER LIMITED BEING WIT THE SAME BUILD AS US..

BELIEVING THE YOU HAVE THE CAPACITY TO WRAP YOUR MIND AROUND GOD IS WHERE YOU FIRST WENT WRONG

BUT U (CLAIM TO) HAVE ME ON BLOCK, LIKE THE DUMBASS HEAD IN THE SAND ASS MUFUCCA U IS, SO YOULL NEVER ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY WIT WHAT IM SAYING BECAUSE YOUVE BLOCKED YOURSELF OFF FROM SEEING IT.. JUST LIKE YOULL NEVER BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY WIT GOD (IN THIS REALM) BECAUSE YOU BLOCKED YOURSELF OFF..


IRONIC


SOME1 TAG THIS WEIRDO N TELL HIM I SONNED HIM AGAIN

Your God aint shyt... im better than him