Do you believe in God?

[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."

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

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

That's like the people who write in response to my movie reviews at MousePlanet saying "That's just your opinion, you should say so." Just as "in my opinion" is inherent in a movie review, "could be" is inherent to "I theorize."

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

That's like the people who write in response to my movie reviews at MousePlanet saying "That's just your opinion, you should say so." Just as "in my opinion" is inherent in a movie review, "could be" is inherent to "I theorize."

Very true, but a lot of people miss that point.

Science is as much of a belief system as anything else. It requires acceptance on faith of certain base assumptions that are not proveable. The basic axioms of mathematics, the basic postulates of geometry. There is no positive proof for the identity axiom, or that a straight line can be drawn between any 2 points. They simple must be accepted because there's no reason not to believe they are true. And yet all of science is based on them.

[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."

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

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."

Priceless.