Do You Believe In God?

[Warwick C]

I started to find this thread fustrating, for the reason NurseAngela mentioned. I think we all need some thing to believe in but it does not need to be only a god.

 

[IContainMultitudes]

Just a little reminder that this thread is called "Do you believe in God?" not "Argue about religion." There's a place for civil debate, but the tone here is becoming a little bit hostile, and I think this is really one area where nobody's mind is going to be changed by a discussion thread on an internet forum. I'll keep this thread open for now, but it's probably time to close it if it becomes basically just an argument thread.

 

[apt-get]

Believing in God is all about faith.

And that outlines the entire problem that I have with religious belief in general. In order to publish something in a scientific paper, even something that isn't an important discovery, one needs to have evidence and run some analysis that must be reproducible. If there is a God, that would be an incredibly profound and important property of the universe, and the best that proponents provide is "faith." Everyone is obviously entitled to their beliefs, but the extreme lack of standards of evidence it requires to believe in a God is why I cannot respect positive religious beliefs as a legitimate viewpoint. Sorry if that is harsh.

 

[Grumpy Cat]

Apt-get, that wasn't harsh at all. I understand where you're coming from with the "science" point of view - I'm a realist and work in the medical field. That's why I struggle everyday, because it is all about faith (and yes, I seem sometimes to have the faith of a mustard seed - a quote in the bible) but even though it is a struggle for me, I still have a choice and I choose to believe in God.

 

[MoCoffee]

Just a little reminder that this thread is called "Do you believe in God?" not "Argue about religion." There's a place for civil debate, but the tone here is becoming a little bit hostile, and I think this is really one area where nobody's mind is going to be changed by a discussion thread on an internet forum. I'll keep this thread open for now, but it's probably time to close it if it becomes basically just an argument thread.

Thank you for getting us back on track in this thread. All the arguments were making me feel anxious every time I read the new posts.

 

[apt-get]

Apt-get, that wasn't harsh at all. I understand where you're coming from with the "science" point of view - I'm a realist and work in the medical field. That's why I struggle everyday, because it is all about faith (and yes, I seem sometimes to have the faith of a mustard seed - a quote in the bible) but even though it is a struggle for me, I still have a choice and I choose to believe in God.

Why do you think that faith is a good thing?

 

[Grumpy Cat]

I didn't say that I think faith is a good thing, but it is what I need to have in order to believe in God. I have to believe that God exists in order to know that there has got to be something more after this life. Because if this life was all there was, I couldn't handle it. There is just too much death and misery in this world.

 

[Judge]

I have to believe that God exists in order to know that there has got to be something more after this life.

If you consciously witnessed something that indicated life after death you couldn't logically debunk or deduce, would such an experience alter or enhance your view of a deity? Just wondering.

 

[Ste11aeres]

If you consciously witnessed something that indicated life after death you couldn't logically debunk or deduce, would such an experience alter or enhance your view of a deity? Just wondering.

I'm not sure there is anything in the world that one can witness without being able to logically cast doubt on it.
Even this visible physical world around us...logically speaking, I have no certainty that it exists. I see things, hear, taste, touch and smell things, but I have no proof that those things are real, no proof that the physical world exists. Yes, I think it does exist, but logically speaking, I have no absolute proof of that.

Just a thought.

 

[Grumpy Cat]

I'm not sure there is anything in the world that one can witness without being able to logically cast doubt on it.
Even this visible physical world around us...logically speaking, I have no certainty that it exists. I see things, hear, taste, touch and smell things, but I have no proof that those things are real, no proof that the physical world exists. Yes, I think it does exist, but logically speaking, I have no absolute proof of that.

Just a thought.

That's really deep Ste11aeres. You know what I never forgot was when I took chemistry and learned that everything around us is made up of atoms and they are in constant movement. I still can't wrap my head around that. How is it that I just don't fall on my a** when I'm sitting on the couch? And if I did, what's stopping me from falling right through the floor?! Hmm.

 

[Judge]

Yes, I think it does exist, but logically speaking, I have no absolute proof of that.Just a thought.

Technically the existence of something doesn't need to be dependent on empirical proof. It either is, is not or remains unknown.

Powered flight was theoretically possible in 1902. The world was still round in 1491. And the sound barrier could have been broken in 1946.

That said, does it make sense for us to assume that if science has no answer, something must not exist or not be possible?

Proof is an overrated argument when science has no way of dealing with things presently outside its parameters.

 

[Peter A.]

Just like a Boeing 747 with all the cockpit instruments perfectly formed can magically come from a scrap metal yard, or a combination of an iron ore mine and petroleum deposit, etc. It takes a lot of faith for me to believe in that kind of luck.

Yes, exactly, and we have Fred Hoyle to thank for the 'Boeing 747 being assembled, ready to fly, from a scrapyard through which a tornado has passed' analogy. Actually, the chances against the miraculous appearance of the level of order that would be required to create and sustain the complexity we see around us, is FAR less likely even than this. 'One in a billion'? I don't think so!

Also the problem with the Big Bang singularity - how can the Big Bang singularity explode into a fully functional universe, and a black hole singularity draws everything in, and does not allow light to escape past the event horizon? This is contradictory reasoning that is all too common in the secular world.

Yes, good question! Singularities - and they are all basically the same, as far as their characteristics and effects upon physical systems go - exist at the centre of black holes and, because they are infinitely dense, have an infinite gravitational effect upon nearby matter. Nothing can escape them, everything is eventually compressed out of existence when it (whatever 'it' may be) reaches this point. Yet, we are expected to believe that these very same singularities (or at least just one of them) somehow, and in defiance of all they actually are, was responsible for an 'explosive' expansion of space-time some 13.7 thousand million years ago.

Okay, maybe I've overlooked something really obvious here, and I have no doubt simplified things, but if there is anyone here who can explain how such opposite effects can be produced by the same phenomenon, I'm listening. Are there two types of singularities perhaps?

 

[apt-get]

If you consciously witnessed something that indicated life after death you couldn't logically debunk or deduce, would such an experience alter or enhance your view of a deity? Just wondering.

Conscious experience is a pretty unreliable method of collecting data. It is far more likely that I made a brain-fart than me witnessing something that defies physics.

I would also argue that there is sufficient evidence to rule out the notion of an external soul and therefore, life after death.

 

[Judge]

I would also argue that there is sufficient evidence to rule out the notion of an external soul and therefore, life after death.

If you had sufficient evidence you should be able to prove something- not merely argue it. I just see the dynamics of such issues as a metaphysical "Mexican standoff". Neither side has the ability to drive home their point in terms of proof.

But then this thread is about belief- faith. Not proof. One either has faith by choice or not. Nothing to prove.

 

[apt-get]

If you had sufficient evidence you should be able to prove something- not merely argue it. I just see the dynamics of such issues as a metaphysical "Mexican standoff". Neither side has the ability to drive home their point in terms of proof.

But then this thread is about belief- faith. Not proof. One either has faith by choice or not. Nothing to prove.

Proof only exists in mathematics. For everything else, evidence is used. Anyone who asks for proof in the context of science simply has no clue as to what they are talking about. Science works with evidence, and it is by far the most reliable method of understanding how the world works. Faith is not even close to being a valid method of understanding, and faith-based conclusions are not worthy of respect.

When it comes to the notion of a soul, we can measure and predict conscious decisions 7-10 seconds before they happen. If there were a soul, measurements like this would be completely impossible. The fact that this can be done clearly and concisely shows that souls do not exist.
Research | Research news | 2008 | Unconscious decisions in the brain

 

[Ste11aeres]

Proof only exists in mathematics. For everything else, evidence is used. Anyone who asks for proof in the context of science simply has no clue as to what they are talking about. Science works with evidence, and it is by far the most reliable method of understanding how the world works. Faith is not even close to being a valid method of understanding, and faith-based conclusions are not worthy of respect.

When it comes to the notion of a soul, we can measure and predict conscious decisions 7-10 seconds before they happen. If there were a soul, measurements like this would be completely impossible. The fact that this can be done clearly and concisely shows that souls do not exist.
Research | Research news | 2008 | Unconscious decisions in the brain

This reminds me of the scene in bedazzled when she asks the main guy
"Do you even know what a soul is?"
He says "Of course it's that thing that...no that's the...It floats around..."

I don't follow that such measurements would be impossible if there were a soul.
While in the body, the soul uses the brain to think. It does not float around and make decisions without the brain. This is why brain damage affects someone's thinking ability.

And maybe the 7-10 seconds is when the decision is actually made. Even though the person does not remember it as such
"it is the brain that makes the decision, not a person’s conscious mind." The conscious mind uses the brain, exists in the brain. It does not float above the brain like somebody holding a video game controller with little buttons to make the brain respond.

 

[Judge]

Proof only exists in mathematics. For everything else, evidence is used. Anyone who asks for proof in the context of science simply has no clue as to what they are talking about. Science works with evidence, and it is by far the most reliable method of understanding how the world works. Faith is not even close to being a valid method of understanding, and faith-based conclusions are not worthy of respect.

When it comes to the notion of a soul, we can measure and predict conscious decisions 7-10 seconds before they happen. If there were a soul, measurements like this would be completely impossible. The fact that this can be done clearly and concisely shows that souls do not exist.
Research | Research news | 2008 | Unconscious decisions in the brain

Faith is beyond science. Belief without limitations.

Science on the other hand only reflects the limits of man's alleged understanding at a specific point in time. To exclusively rely on unproved or partial conclusions of the immediate present is inherently flawed logic. Putting two and two together to get five and trying to sell it as something else.

Unless of course someone can post a link to an internationally recognized scientific body who has categorically proven that God does not exist. Which admittedly would be rather big news in the civilized world.

Wake me up when the scientific community officially and cohesively states as scientific fact that God does not exist. Until then, you are all free to state your faith in science or faith in God.

 

[Ereth]

Without dragging my own personal attitudes regarding the issue of faith into the conversation, I don't see how the speed of unconscious decisions in the brain is related in any way to the question, "Do we have a soul?"

For people of faith, the idea of a soul tends to go along with whatever that faith is. For people without faith, the soul is a human construct, designed to provide us some measure of comfort after death---that we are more than just the flesh and bone that will ultimately break down and return to the earth.

I don't see why there isn't room in this world for both.

 

[Judge]

I don't see why there isn't room in this world for both.

Huge point. A core concept that goes so much further than just this mere thread alone.

Why must everything be assessed only from a polarized point of view?

 

[Ereth]

I don't know. Perhaps it's a tendency left over from before human civilization was formed, and survival truly meant "it's them or us."