Do you believe in God?

[Frogberto]

Originally Posted by RStar

To have "creation" you must have a begining (and an end as well), so yes, there is no "creation moment" in infinity because infinity has no begining and no end.

But doesn't saying "it's just always been there" take the same faith as saying "God made it"? (Of course the faith can be placed on various deities, nature, extra terestrial, ect). Just a thought, because if matter was not created then it's exestance makes no since.

This is a very stimulating thread. Wish I could have joined more, but my computer had more connectivity problems which I just resolved (I hope).

Absolutely. I think the current status of data shows that our universe is not an infinite one, but any questions of what's outside of our universe, whether other universes exist, or have different laws than ours, what came before the big bang, or whether our universe always existed requires data outside of space and time (or our universe), and thus can only be pure speculation, without supporting data, almost by definition.

But it sure is fun to think about.

[Moonliner]

Every time this type of discussion comes up I'm always reminded of a quote from Dr. Carl Sagan discussing the observations of Venus made by Lowell.

Venus shows no surface features at all. It must be covered with clouds. When the earth was covered with clouds there were rain forests and dinosaurs.

Observation: I can't see anything
Conclusion: Dinosaurs.

I think it ties in nicely with the opinion that many present about creation.

Observation: We cannot tell how the universe started.
Conclusion: God.

How about this for a possible alternative? How did the universe get started? What was the spark of creation, that moment where something suddenly existed... What was it? I don't have a clue. Humans don't have a clue. We are basically ignorant hairless apes. Just like our ancestors that created gods to explain everything from lightning to libidos. Sure we now know lightning is not gods fighting (well most of us anyway...) but we are still clueless primates when it comes to cosmology. When will humanity stop creating gods to cover the fact they are ignorant? I guess it will be when we really are gods and god knows how far we are from that....

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by Frogberto

Absolutely. I think the current status of data shows that our universe is not an infinite one, but any questions of what's outside of our universe, whether other universes exist, or have different laws than ours, what came before the big bang, or whether our universe always existed requires data outside of space and time (or our universe), and thus can only be pure speculation, without supporting data, almost by definition.

But it sure is fun to think about.

Just to clarify, by definition there is only one Universe. There is nothing outside it, there are no other universes simply because where there to be such things they would, by definition, become part of the universe. Since the universe is defined as being everything there is.

That being said, I do believe that what we observe as "the universe" is not unique. There was not just one big bang. They are going off all over the place like bubbles in a glass of soda. But from our perspective inside our own bubble (that we currently define as "the universe") that's just all we can observe, the inside of our bubble.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Originally Posted by Moonliner

When will humanity stop creating gods to cover the fact they are ignorant?

Originally Posted by Moonliner

That being said, I do believe that what we observe as "the universe" is not unique. There was not just one big bang. They are going off all over the place like bubbles in a glass of soda. But from our perspective inside our own bubble (that we currently define as "the universe") that's just all we can observe, the inside of our bubble.

When will humanity stop creating unprovable theories to cover the fact they are ignorant?

Personally, I dig unprovable theories, because they are the same as beliefs (as you say above - "I believe"). I have plenty, including irrational ones, as most people do, and I'm cool with it.

This is why I love Alex Stroup - he has no belief beyond what he can prove, and that's cool. If you're going to argue against people having a belief system, you better not have one yourself, and that includes all beliefs.

I've been in and out of this thread so sorry if I'm repeating what others have said.

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

When will humanity stop creating unprovable theories to cover the fact they are ignorant?

Personally, I dig unprovable theories, because they are the same as beliefs (as you say above - "I believe"). I have plenty, including irrational ones, as most people do, and I'm cool with it.

This is why I love Alex Stroup - he has no belief beyond what he can prove, and that's cool. If you're going to argue against people having a belief system, you better not have one yourself, and that includes all beliefs.

I've been in and out of this thread so sorry if I'm repeating what others have said.

In this case I used the word 'think' as a synonym for "speculate" rather than as a synonym for "believe" which is apparently how you took it.

Creating theories is what we (as a species) do it's how we discover and progress. Wow! When that pot gets hot it seems to create a lot of energy, I bet we could use that. Humm, that mold seems to be killing all the bacteria around it. I bet it could be used as a medicine. We postulate, we test, we make mistakes, we move on. Learning is not a linear process by any means. What's "fact" today, is often laughable tomorrow. That's science.

Also I am not damming all religions/belief systems, I'm just saying that using creation as proof of God is not a good argument, and from a larger point of view, that trying to prove the existence of god in any way shape or form goes against the fundamental tennet of faith.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Originally Posted by Moonliner

In this case I used the word 'think' as a synonym for "speculate" rather than as a synonym for "believe" which is apparently how you took it.

Huh?

Originally Posted by Moonliner earlier, emphasis mine

That being said, I do believe that what we observe as "the universe" is not unique.

If you can't prove something but "think" it is true, then it is a belief, isn't it?

You're right - creation as proof of God is not good logic if you want to convince others of it. It is, however, just fine logic to use within one's own belief system.

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

Huh?

If you can't prove something but "think" it is true, then it is a belief, isn't it?

You're right - creation as proof of God is not good logic if you want to convince others of it. It is, however, just fine logic to use within one's own belief system.

OK, bedtime for moonie...

I theorize it is true. Hows that?

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Originally Posted by Moonliner

OK, bedtime for moonie...

I theorize it is true. Hows that?

Heh, I'd buy it if you said "I theorize it could be true."

[Frogberto]

Originally Posted by Moonliner

In this case I used the word 'think' as a synonym for "speculate" rather than as a synonym for "believe" which is apparently how you took it.

Creating theories is what we (as a species) do it's how we discover and progress. Wow! When that pot gets hot it seems to create a lot of energy, I bet we could use that. Humm, that mold seems to be killing all the bacteria around it. I bet it could be used as a medicine. We postulate, we test, we make mistakes, we move on. Learning is not a linear process by any means. What's "fact" today, is often laughable tomorrow. That's science.

Also I am not damming all religions/belief systems, I'm just saying that using creation as proof of God is not a good argument, and from a larger point of view, that trying to prove the existence of god in any way shape or form goes against the fundamental tennet of faith.

Yes, isn't that the "argument from ignorance?" If you can't explain it, it must be God. Well, we have a long history of attributing supernatural causes to the movement of flowers in tracking the sun, the fall of every sparrow, the movement of the planets - and with each new discovery, the "God of the Gaps" arguments get relegated to more remote and tiny places where they can't be disproved like all the others...

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

This is why I love Alex Stroup - he has no belief beyond what he can prove, and that's cool. If you're going to argue against people having a belief system, you better not have one yourself, and that includes all beliefs.

That's not quite accurate but is well in the direction of what I strive towards.

When it comes to others I really don't care what people believe but when it comes up in the context of discussion there are two things I can't avoid picking at:

1) If there is a claim of real world affects that should be measurable, I'll want to investigate whether they are actually measured.

2) If there is a claim that rational methods suggest belief for something lacking an evidentiary basis I'll want to investigate whether there are gaps in that rational method.

But if someone keeps it completely in the realm of untestable and unknowable then there is nothing to debate. But I saw a lot (not necessarily here) of "I believe god is unknowable and not subject to scientific methods of investigation. I also believe in the healing power of prayer" or "Since science can't explain how the pre-Big Bang state [which, by the way was not a ball of gas; pre Big Bang neither matter, sub atomic particles, nor time as we know it appear to have existed] it seems the only option is a sentient creator."

The former makes claims that should be testable and the former makes logical leaps that I don't think are supported.

But when someone says "God is the love I feel for all mankind" all I can say is "please don't sit on my furniture you stinky hippie."