By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Do you believe in God? Why/Why not?

 

Do you believe in any god?

Yes 63 36.21%
 
No 111 63.79%
 
Total:174
JWeinCom on 21 April 2020
Snoopy said:
JWeinCom said:

Ummmmmm... no we didn't prove it. You just kind of said you did, then talked about games.  Which we can interact with, although they also can interact with us.

The hypothesis that we could be in a simulation is completely unproven, and as far as I know unprovable.  Providing a possibility does not mean you proved it.  If I say we were jizzed out of a giant dick from outside our universe, that doesn't make it so.

How can we test the hypothesis that we are in a simulation, or that we were created by something outside of space and time? Is it even possible to exist outside of time?

I can change my computer's system clock to be July 4th, 2001 and I can change the physics of a video game to match whatever I want. 

And how does this prove that our universe operates in the same way and can be manipulated by some being outside of it?



Around the Network
Immersiveunreality on 21 April 2020
SpokenTruth said:
Snoopy said:

Okay, then explain to me where did everything come from at the very beginning.

There are 2 points in time (as it were) that you are asking about though you may not be aware of that.

There is the starting point of the universal expansion we call the Big Bang.  All the matter that currently exists within our observable universe was compacted into a singularity.  This "beginning" is merely a known point in history.  Tracking it back before then is tough because the remnants prior to that aren't currently measurable.

Prior to that, we have multiple theories that are getting more and more evidentiary data. The expansion/contraction theory is a pretty solid one.  Once expansion reaches a certain point and the balance between gravity and dark energy tips back toward gravity, it contacts again and eventually reforms a singularity....then the whole thing starts all over.

Keep in mind that time itself is directly proportional to space and mass/gravity. So it gets difficult to wrap your head around when gravity gets really high.

So your next question is likely about the matter itself.  Where did that come from? Currently, we don't know.  But hey, 100 years ago we didn't really know anything even existed outside our own galaxy.  Same with the atomic model of electron orbits.   We've learned so much in just 100 years that it's nuts to just say "insert deity" did it and leave it at that.

Yes indeed, time in itself is more like a momentum of mass,space,energy and it fluctuates constanly.

It is not a constant,not to be compared with what we use daily to live our lives here on earth as that is just our human artificial time based on the movement of our planet and the sun.



Snoopy on 21 April 2020
SpokenTruth said:
Snoopy said:

It isn't a simulation theory, it just an example of how something can be created like a computer and yet we aren't inside of it and don't necessary play by the same rules.

But answer the question.  How do you know we do not live in a computer simulation built by some alien programmer?

Our simulations and computing power and getting exponentially better all the time.  At some point, would we not have the computing power to perfectly simulate life on Earth?  The universe?  How do we know it hasn't happened yet and we're just Sims?

Could be, the only thing I know is that there is something outside of this universe that doesn't necessarily play by the same rules as us and we are shaped and created by it.

Last edited by Snoopy - on 21 April 2020

Snoopy on 21 April 2020
SpokenTruth said:
Snoopy said:

Could be, the only thing I know is that there is something outside of this universe that doesn't necessairly play by the same rules as us.

Good.  Now let's take the next step.

What do know empirically about God and about simulations? Absolutely nothing for the former and quite a lot about the latter.  That all said, doesn't simulation theory make more sense than a "God"? 

Some intellectual being that created us. Aren't we technically Gods when we created the simulations in the first place?



dark_gh0st_b0y on 21 April 2020
JWeinCom said:
dark_gh0st_b0y said:

have in mind that in Christianity (meaning a follower of the Chirst) ANYTHING not said by JESUS is said by humans and therefore open to interpretation as of how it represents the 'will of god', and the interpretation given by ancient people is based on the knowledge and circumstances of the times, there is no obligation for Christians to follow anything that is not said by Jesus, modern believers know it well, but atheists conveniently stick to anything else except the word of Jesus...!!

respone below bold :P

Nothing in the bible is said by Jesus.  The Gospels are not the words of Jesus, they are the words of the gospel writers, claiming to have accurately recorded the words of Jesus.  If human words are subject to error, then we have no way of knowing if Jesus actually said anything that is reported.  If on the other hand you claim the bible is divinely inspired and not subject to error, then you have to take the whole thing as true.  

very true!! unlike the Quran which is claimed to be written as revealed by god, by a man that didn't know how to read or write, the Bible was written over centuries (as proved by science too) by god chosen witnesses, therefore it is a fact that Jesus was expected to arrive centuries before he did, it is also a fact that he lived, the whole Bible is for Jesus and his teachings the most basic and useful things in there, why would it be written in the first place if it wasn't his, why would he have left such impact, why suffer, it was all about spreading universal love to self-destructive humanity that was killing for money, throwing old people, sick people and little gilrs to die because they were useless in working to produce food in the fields or fight, that's how fcked up Europe was before Jesus followers (saints - apostles who wrote the New Testament) spreading his teaching with no personal interest and dying in the worst ways... if Jesus was nothing he wouldn't be crucified

nothing is absolute anyway, what's the evidence that my best friend loves me, what's the evidence that my girl cares about me and not my good body and would not abandon me if I would deform my face in a car crash (god no), what's the evidence that 5G is safe as claimed by scientific investigations that are funded by telecom companies? same for many other science that cannot be reproduced unless funded by $$$$$$.... it's not always about evidence it's about what makes sense to us and what seems to be real with pure intentions when there is no personal interests and motivations for gain of power or money

Besides that, the laws are reportedly the words of god.  If you believe that the bible is accurately recorded at least, then the laws of leviticus are the words of god, and should carry equal weight to the words of Jesus.  If Jesus' recorded words supposedly show the will of god, then surely god's recorded words should show the will of god as well.  

Moreover, if you get rid of everything not said by Jesus, you'd have to get rid of the entirety of the old testament.  That means there's no original sin and no messianic prophecies.  So, no reason for Jesus to exist in the first place, and no way show he is the messiah. 

And of course, Jesus himself says the exact opposite of what you have said.

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. ForI tellyoutruly,untilheavenandearthpass away,nota singlejot,notastroke of a pen,will disappearfromtheLawuntileverythingis accomplished.So then, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever practices and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:18

Jesus specifically says that all of the laws in the old testament are still valid.  So if everything Jesus says is the will of god, then all of those laws are too.

this is definitely not the case because Jesus REJECTED stoning (something you mentioned in the other thread but I didn't have the chance to reply), when his disciples asked him whether the bitch should be stoned as the Old Testament said, he said that 'the one without sin may throw the stone first', obviously no one is without sin so no-one remains to stone her except Jesus, but he simply lets her 'go and sin no more', how genius is that!? not only he rejected stoning by refusing to commit it, he also gave a lesson of not criticizing others (not the first time, he said 'do not judge for you may not be judged' before), and he forgives her!! a single event yet so much we can take, the most useful things in life :) things science will never teach ya

and back to the point... he REFUSED to follow a law as you call it something from the Old Testament! could he be contradicting himself? The most logical explanation is that he referred to the Ten Commandments that was the first and most important orders given by God, the rest was guidance for Israelites in order to ensure that there is nation indeed for Jesus to come in, as part of God's plan

the point of the Old Testament was to set up the conditions for Jesus to arrive and leave an impact to the world, Jesus is the point of the whole Bible and when there is contradiction, his word supersedes anything said in the Old Testament or in the New that is not his word

as I said before, the forgiving and not criticizing Christ is what Christians should at least try for, as Jesus has shown no one is without sin anyway, we are doing the best we can at least

Science and god are not compatible in the sense that belief in god can be scientifically justified.  There are definitely lots of very smart scientists that believe in god, (although many more that don't) but none of them have put forth a scientifically valid reason for this belief. 

as I said above there are infinite things in life that we trust blindly without seeing them and without evidence but still believe them if they make sense to us, we trust the signs or we don't, I don't see why faith should be any different, especially since it gives hope to people and cannot be proved false either

the creation cannot reach the creator!! it is impossible to have proof and it's better this way since people would live miserable lives under fear, at least now people will be judged based on their pure good intentions and not how much they obey because it is in their interests, despite being evil rotten bastards inside

on a side note, there cannot be proof for god - just signs - but the contrary can be proved!! that there is no god and that indeed we are a result of random atoms coming together in the right conditions, which leads to us being a kind of insanely over-complicated robots, programmed by DNA sequences on how to respond based on our surroundings... WITH NO FREE WILL - can science prove that we have no free will?

Christianity supports that god gave us free will

Last edited by dark_gh0st_b0y - on 21 April 2020

don't mind my username, that was more than 10 years ago, I'm a different person now, amazing how people change ^_^

Around the Network
Snoopy on 21 April 2020
SpokenTruth said:
Snoopy said:

Some intellectual being that created us. Aren't we technically Gods when we created the simulations in the first place?

No, not even remotely.  An artificial existence in a computer vs actual matter?  I mean you're literally saying that when we create a simulation good enough to were you cannot tell the difference between reality and the simulation then the simulation creators are.....Gods?

Just because we aren't as good as the God that created us doesn't mean we are not a God to the AI that we created. Who knows, maybe we can create a simulation that is indistinguishable from reality. Like I said before, the rules are different outside of this universe and we were probably created in a whole other way.



JWeinCom on 21 April 2020
dark_gh0st_b0y said:
JWeinCom said:

respone below bold :P

Nothing in the bible is said by Jesus.  The Gospels are not the words of Jesus, they are the words of the gospel writers, claiming to have accurately recorded the words of Jesus.  If human words are subject to error, then we have no way of knowing if Jesus actually said anything that is reported.  If on the other hand you claim the bible is divinely inspired and not subject to error, then you have to take the whole thing as true.  

very true!! unlike the Quran which is claimed to be written as revealed by god, by a man that didn't know how to read or write, the Bible was written over centuries (as proved by science too) by witnesses, therefore it is a fact that Jesus was expected to arrive centuries before he did, it is also a fact that he lived, the whole Bible is for Jesus and his teachings the most basic and useful things in there, why would it be written in the first place if it wasn't his, why would he have left such impact, why suffer, it was all about spreading universal love to self-destructive humanity that was killing for money, throwing old people, sick people and little gilrs to die because they were useless in working to produce food in the fields or fight, that's how fcked up Europe was before Jesus followers (saints - apostles) spreading his teaching with no personal interest and dying in the worst ways... if Jesus was nothing he wouldn't be crucified

nothing is absolute anyway, what's the evidence that my best friend loves me, what's the evidence that my girl cares about me and not my good body and would not abandon me if I would deform my face in a car crash (god no), what's the evidence that 5G is safe as claimed by scientific investigations that are funded by telecom companies? same for many other science that cannot be reproduced unless funded by $$$$$$.... it's not always about evidence it's about what makes sense to us and what seems to be real with pure intentions when there is no personal interests and motivations for gain of power or money

Besides that, the laws are reportedly the words of god.  If you believe that the bible is accurately recorded at least, then the laws of leviticus are the words of god, and should carry equal weight to the words of Jesus.  If Jesus' recorded words supposedly show the will of god, then surely god's recorded words should show the will of god as well.  

Moreover, if you get rid of everything not said by Jesus, you'd have to get rid of the entirety of the old testament.  That means there's no original sin and no messianic prophecies.  So, no reason for Jesus to exist in the first place, and no way show he is the messiah. 

And of course, Jesus himself says the exact opposite of what you have said.

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. ForI tellyoutruly,untilheavenandearthpass away,nota singlejot,notastroke of a pen,will disappearfromtheLawuntileverythingis accomplished.So then, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever practices and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:18

Jesus specifically says that all of the laws in the old testament are still valid.  So if everything Jesus says is the will of god, then all of those laws are too.

this is definitely not the case because Jesus REJECTED stoning (something you mentioned in the other thread but I didn't have the chance to reply), when his disciples asked him whether the bitch should be stoned as the Old Testament said, he said that 'the one without sin may throw the stone first', obviously no one is without sin so no-one remains to stone her except Jesus, but he simply lets her 'go and sin no more', how genius is that!? not only he rejected stoning by refusing to commit it, he also gave a lesson of not criticizing others (not the first time, he said 'do not judge for you may not be judged' before), and he forgives her!! a single event yet so much we can take, the most useful things in life :) things science will never teach ya

and back to the point... he REFUSED to follow a law as you call it something from the Old Testament! could he be contradicting himself? The most logical explanation is that he referred to the Ten Commandments that was the first and most important orders given by God, the rest was guidance for Israelites in order to ensure that there is nation indeed for Jesus to come in, as part of God's plan

the point of the Old Testament was to set up the conditions for Jesus to arrive and leave an impact to the world, Jesus is the point of the whole Bible and when there is contradiction, his word supersedes anything said in the Old Testament or in the New that is not his word

as I said before, the forgiving and not criticizing Christ is what Christians should at least try for, as Jesus has shown no one is without sin anyway, we are doing the best we can at least

Science and god are not compatible in the sense that belief in god can be scientifically justified.  There are definitely lots of very smart scientists that believe in god, (although many more that don't) but none of them have put forth a scientifically valid reason for this belief. 

as I said above there are infinite things in life that we trust blindly without seeing them and without evidence but still believe them if they make sense to us, we trust the sings or we don't, I don't see why faith should be any different, especially since it gives hope to people and cannot be proved false either

on a side note, there cannot be proof for god - just sings - but contrary can be proved!! that there is no god and that indeed we are a result of random atoms coming together in the right conditions, which leads to us being a kind of insanely over-complicated robots, programmed by DNA sequences on how to respond based on our surroundings... WITH NO FREE WILL - can science prove that we have no free will?

Christianity supports that god gave us free will

None of the bible was actually written by eye witnesses though.  It was written by people who claimed to have spoken with eye witnesses.  How did you confirm that anything attributed to Jesus was actually said by him?  I'm not sure I understand your explanation.

Plus, eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable.  Even today when there are far more ways to verify something, we still get wildly different claims about what happen.  If we grant that the Bible is a group of people making a sincere attempt to accurately chronicle the life of Jesus, how do we know that they were accurate?

It is the case that Jesus said the laws of the old testament were still valid.  It's right there in his words.  He specifically said nothing will change, which seems to go way beyond just the ten commandments.

You are right though that he contradicts this by not supporting stoning.  I think the best explanation for the contradiction is simply that it's a contradiction.  Lots of books have contradictions, so there's nothing surprising about this one having one.  But... if there's a contradiction in Harry Potter, that's no big deal.  When there's a contradiction on a book that you're supposed to base your life on... that's a huge problem.

Ignoring that Jesus is contradicting himself though, Jesus is contradicting god... which is sort of god contradicting himself depending on how you view the trinity.  This is kind of a major issue.  If god said at one point that having sex with a man was an abomination, then there's no reason it shouldn't still be an abomination.

So, god says one thing, Jesus says another.  I like what Jesus said better, but why should I believe him over god?  For that matter why should I believe either position is the will of god?

Of course, I'm not in favor of stoning anyone (generally), and I think that's a good moral tale.  But, even if we grant Jesus was a good moral philosopher, that doesn't prove any of the supernatural claims.  But it seems like you're just picking the Jesus interpretation because you like it better and it's more in tune with your moral compass rather than because there is any evidence that it is the will of god.  

You're telling me that the New Testament is the only part that matters... specifically Jesus' words.  If I go to the Westboro Baptist church, they'll tell me the whole thing matters.  If I go to a rabbi, they'll tell me only the old testament matters.  If I go to an imam, they'll tell me that the Quran overrides all of these things.

Which one should I believe?  Better yet why should I believe any of them?

We shouldn't believe in things without good evidence to support it. That doesn't mean we need absolute proof though.  For instance, I'm fairly confident based on my knowledge of computers, the internet, and past experience, that when I hit submit this message will post.  I can't be 100% confident, but I can be close to 100%.  With god, or your claims about Jesus, I don't see any reason to be confident that they're true. 

Likewise, when it comes to my best friend, I believe they care for me because they have consistently shown that they do.  Again, I can't be 100% sure they won't fuck me over tomorrow, but my trust in them is proportional to the amount of evidence I have.

Of course, I'm sure there are some things I believe that are not justified by evidence but feel intuitively correct to me.  But, if someone pointed out those things to me, I would do my best to either justify the position, or find a better position.  

As far as I'm aware, science can neither prove nor deny we have free will.  Free will isn't even a concept that is clearly defined.  Neither can christianity or any other religion prove we have free will.  So, I don't see how talking about free will gets us anywhere in regards to whether or not a god exists.  

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 21 April 2020

Runa216 on 21 April 2020
Snoopy said:
Runa216 said:

I did, and it's a terrible answer. furthermore, it doesn't change the fact that, if everything needs a creator, then why doesn't God? That is a clear example of moving the goalposts - a logical fallacy we shouldn't really be relying on. 

Because God exists outside of our universe and doesn't have the same rule set as us.

No. 

you don't get to cherry-pick what logic you want to adhere to when it's convenient for you. that is the least helpful, least intelligent, least scientific way to go about this.



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

robzo100 on 21 April 2020

If I'm approaching it philosophically, I tie it into the common subject matter of determinism. Not so much from the standpoint of cause and effect which I think is narrow and tied down to singular relationships of cause and effect ( A caused B) but from the standpoint of plural relationships (AxC caused B, B+D-G caused E, etc.). Cause and effect, the base web of life has strong and weak factors at any given moment...

If I have to force in the concept of God than I have to say that God is the strong factor in life. Like wind blowing down a tree. I speak slightly unfinished as I don't know of any other way to communicate the topic.



OhNoYouDont on 22 April 2020
sales2099 said:
OhNoYouDont said:

That's a bold proclamation that isn't true for most believers.

For instance, does your belief influence other aspects of your life? Church attendance, social circles, confirmation bias, metaethical considerations, etc.

It's very dangerous to believe in things for which there is no evidence, especially when such beliefs are capable of influencing our actions. Even today, people are killed for being gay, atheist, being immodest, or even something as banal as drawing a cartoon of a religious character due to convictions.

But my beliefs don't lead to that

Sure they do. Perhaps not in the extreme examples, but certainly things come into play like abortion, gay marriage, prayer in school, creationism, etc.

Now if you're specifically addressing deism and no other baggage with it, I agree it's benign. Same as a belief in leprechauns.

I am hesitant to bring organized religion in this so I’ll explain further. A belief in a higher power and life after death is preferable to a rather depressing notion that everything is just there just because and when you die it’s the end. 

I gain nothing if I’m an atheist but I have everything to gain by being open minded to the concept. And I can’t stress enough this has no bearing on how I live my life. I live the best life I can and make choices on what I deem to be right and wrong. It literally only applies after I die so I really have nothing to loose. 

It's preferable that I am Superman, but do I believe I am? No, because that's not what the evidence says. Childish fantasies are best abandoned in favor of reality in my opinion, but to each their own I guess.

You're not at all open-minded to being wrong, so as a matter of fact you are closed-minded. This is not the case for myself, nor many atheists who approached the question openly and honestly and found absolutely no evidence for anything supernatural.

You mention right and wrong - what informs this? Religion? Which one? Do you see how you're locked into beliefs leading to actions yet or still missing the boat?