GOD: How much do you believe in him?

[Kalimantan Gull]

I don't know if this question has been asked yet amongst the 1200 posts here, but if God created the universe, who or what created God?

 

[seagullmouse]

I don't know if this question has been asked yet amongst the 1200 posts here, but if God created the universe, who or what created God?

The tooth fairy?

 

[readingstockport]

I meant "never mind the science" because I was being philosophical, not scientific. This whole debate is philosophical but very few seem to realise that.

You may regard it as philosophical. However you can not change the fact that there is no contemporaneous evidence for jesus of any kind at all. Philosophise all you want, facts are what I tend to go for.

If a theory is stated as such and seems to provide evidence for its veracity then I tend to accept it until and unless other evidence is produced. Show me evidence for your god or you jesus and I will believe overnight - promise.

A good start would be the famously missing bunnies in the pre-cambrian layer,

 

[One Love]

I don't know if this question has been asked yet amongst the 1200 posts here, but if God created the universe, who or what created God?

This is actually an interesting question, maybe not as Kalimantan Gull meant but because it leads to another.

Kalimantan Gull have you ever asked yourself if God didn't create the universe who or what created you?

I know you can go back scientifically to the Big Bang and singularity etc, but what was the cause of the "First Cause"?

 

[readingstockport]

This is actually an interesting question, maybe not as Kalimantan Gull meant but because it leads to another.

Kalimantan Gull have you ever asked yourself if God didn't create the universe who or what created you?

I know you can go back scientifically to the Big Bang and singularity etc, but what was the cause of the "First Cause"?

That is unknown currently. There are theories that there was a singularity which became, in the instant of the big bang, the universe as we currently expereince it but current physics does not yet have the ability to predict what came before that. So the answer is that currently science does not know the answer to the question. That's the difference between science and religion. If science does not know it admits as much and searches for answers to the question, if religion does not know it hides behind 'faith' and invents lies to cover up its duplicity.

Now answer the question posed by Kalimantan.

If God created the universe, who or what created God?

You can not claim that everything needs a first cause, such as god, and then say god is outside of that first cause requirement. That is disengenous to say the least.


edit to add.

Of course, in the style of all religious, your question in itself is false. Nothing 'created' me. I evoloved naturally through the process of natural selection over billiions of years. Now if, as I suspect, you are actually asking about abiogenisis but trying to conceal that in your wording then that is another question entirely.

 

[One Love]

That is unknown currently. There are theories that there was a singularity which became, in the instant of the big bang, the universe as we currently expereince it but current physics does not yet have the ability to predict what came before that. So the answer is that currently science does not know the answer to the question. That's the difference between science and religion. If science does not know it admits as much and searches for answers to the question, if religion does not know it hides behind 'faith' and invents lies to cover up its duplicity.

Now answer the question posed by Kalimantan.

If God created the universe, who or what created God?

You can not claim that everything needs a first cause, such as god, and then say god is outside of that first cause requirement. That is disengenous to say the least.


edit to add.

Of course, in the style of all religious, your question in itself is false. Nothing 'created' me. I evoloved naturally through the process of natural selection over billiions of years. Now if, as I suspect, you are actually asking about abiogenisis but trying to conceal that in your wording then that is another question entirely.

OK, firstly I am not on the side of religion, that should maybe lower the tone of your aggression towards me.

However I do believe in a Divine Source of everything but would never expect anyone else to and would never set about trying to prove it to anybody.

I know my answers are not going to satisfy you but how could they? You are asking me to explain something that is divine, in physical terms with my physical brain.

Here goes anyhow, I'll leave the comment about religion because I agree with it.

God is outside the laws of existence so is not bounded by the laws of cause and effect. Hardly disengenuous but what I believe.

No, I used the word created only because it followed on from the original question, of course I could have used evolved. I am not anti-evolution and have heard of abiogenesis. Interestingly the last time someone threw that word at me they spelled it wrong as well.

Just to explain I was involved in a limited way around the middle of this thread. I said then that I answered the poll in the affirmative and thought it useful to say why. My beliefs are from my own personal experience, unprovable by science but they are my own. Everyone can believe what they like.

 

[readingstockport]

OK, firstly I am not on the side of religion, that should maybe lower the tone of your aggression towards me.

Not aggressive to you, I am to your intellectual dishonesty.

However I do believe in a Divine Source of everything but would never expect anyone else to and would never set about trying to prove it to anybody.

So you are on the side of religion, immedaitely illustrating your dishonesty.

I know my answers are not going to satisfy you but how could they? You are asking me to explain something that is divine, in physical terms with my physical brain.

So in your limited knowledge you can not answer yet you expect Kalimantan to explain what is unknown. Once again, intellectual dishonesty.

Here goes anyhow, I'll leave the comment about religion because I agree with it.

God is outside the laws of existence so is not bounded by the laws of cause and effect. Hardly disengenuous but what I believe.

So your mythical being needs no first cause but the universe DOES need a first cause. Not acceptable. Dishonest to the extreme. You can not hold science up to a standard of proof which you are unwilling to hold your mythical deity up to. If you do not apply the same standards to your deity you fail.

No, I used the word created only because it followed on from the original question, of course I could have used evolved. I am not anti-evolution and have heard of abiogenesis. Interestingly the last time someone threw that word at me they spelled it wrong as well.

Ad hominem attack, as usual from a religious appologist.

Just to explain I was involved in a limited way around the middle of this thread. I said then that I answered the poll in the affirmative and thought it useful to say why. My beliefs are from my own personal experience, unprovable by science but they are my own. Everyone can believe what they like.

Fine, but if you are unable to answer what created your imaginary friend you have no right to expect those who believe in verifiable scientific rationalism to then answer as to how the universe came into existance.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

This is actually an interesting question, maybe not as Kalimantan Gull meant but because it leads to another.

Kalimantan Gull have you ever asked yourself if God didn't create the universe who or what created you?

I know you can go back scientifically to the Big Bang and singularity etc, but what was the cause of the "First Cause"?

Hello.

I was created in my mothers womb by the magic of reproduction. I have no problem following that logic all the way back to the Big Bang; what caused the Big bang is probably some boring mathematical thing to do with probabilities and Relativity and energy existing in a potentiality - I have had many conversations with astro-physicists and it quite frankly blows my mind and sends me round in circles, its certainly more interesting than any God could ever be. I also know I can't really understand it and thats OK with me, I don't need to imagine an all-seeing all-knowing all-doing beardy man to help me sleep at night.

What you are doing is saying that every effect has a cause, and that cause has a cause, and the only way to terminate that infinite regress is to have a first cause, which you call God, and physicists may well call a big bang singularity - if they are so minded to terminate that regress. Even if a God is required to start the universe (and why would he be immune to that regress, i.e. why does the existence of God not require a cause), it makes no sense to then endow him with omnipotence and omniscience - two mutually exclusive properties by the way - not to mention answering prayers and forgiving sins and so on.

 

[El Presidente]

I don't know if this question has been asked yet amongst the 1200 posts here, but if God created the universe, who or what created God?

I have asked that too. He must also have created the Devil, Brussel Sprouts and WASPS, which makes him a bit of a git really.

 

[djm21]

I have asked that too. He must also have created the Devil, Brussel Sprouts and WASPS, which makes him a bit of a git really.

He created all those things

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

I have asked that too.

Did you get an answer?

 

[One Love]

Not aggressive to you, I am to your intellectual dishonesty.



So you are on the side of religion, immedaitely illustrating your dishonesty.



So in your limited knowledge you can not answer yet you expect Kalimantan to explain what is unknown. Once again, intellectual dishonesty.



So your mythical being needs no first cause but the universe DOES need a first cause. Not acceptable. Dishonest to the extreme. You can not hold science up to a standard of proof which you are unwilling to hold your mythical deity up to. If you do not apply the same standards to your deity you fail.



Ad hominem attack, as usual from a religious appologist.



Fine, but if you are unable to answer what created your imaginary friend you have no right to expect those who believe in verifiable scientific rationalism to then answer as to how the universe came into existance.

Hmm. First of all, please calm down.

You do not know me or the experiences I have had yet you immediately dismiss them as dishonest and imaginery.

It seems quite obvious you are deeply entrenched in the physical world and that's fine.

I'm just not sure why a differing opinion to yours causes such an emotional reaction in you. Maybe you should explore that issue.

 

[readingstockport]

Hmm. First of all, please calm down.

You do not know me or the experiences I have had yet you immediately dismiss them as dishonest and imaginery.

It seems quite obvious you are deeply entrenched in the physical world and that's fine.

I'm just not sure why a differing opinion to yours causes such an emotional reaction in you. Maybe you should explore that issue.

Still no answer to Kalimantan then. Why am I totally unsurprised that you will not answer? And i'm not uncalm I asure you. However if you are unable or unwilling to address a perfectly civil and intilligent question from Kalimantan without resort to 'goddit and the rules dont count for him' then by definition your viewpoint is irelevant and can be ignored.

You are absolutely right, I have no knowledge of you or your experiences. So tell us. Give us evidence for your belief in something for which there is no verifiable nor repeatable evidence. Do so to my satisfaction and I promise I wll go to church on Sunday. But 'I felt it' does not count as evidence. I want to see concrete, repeatable and verifiable evidence.

And you will not, and can not, provide that.

 

[JamesAndTheGiantHead]

I believe in Karl Pilkington.

 

[Safe.]

I don't believe in god or all the fairy tales that have been created to make money and gain power.

 

[One Love]

Still no answer to Kalimantan then. Why am I totally unsurprised that you will not answer? And i'm not uncalm I asure you. However if you are unable or unwilling to address a perfectly civil and intilligent question from Kalimantan without resort to 'goddit and the rules dont count for him' then by definition your viewpoint is irelevant and can be ignored.

You are absolutely right, I have no knowledge of you or your experiences. So tell us. Give us evidence for your belief in something for which there is no verifiable nor repeatable evidence. Do so to my satisfaction and I promise I wll go to church on Sunday. But 'I felt it' does not count as evidence. I want to see concrete, repeatable and verifiable evidence.

And you will not, and can not, provide that.

Agreed. But at no point did I ever say I would.

 

[readingstockport]

Agreed. But at no point did I ever say I would.

So don'task stupid questiopns of Kalimantan whch you yourself are unwilling to answer. goddit is not an answer by the way outside of the dluded world of the 'faithful'.

 

[Mackenzie]

Hello.

I was created in my mothers womb by the magic of reproduction. I have no problem following that logic all the way back to the Big Bang; what caused the Big bang is probably some boring mathematical thing to do with probabilities and Relativity and energy existing in a potentiality - I have had many conversations with astro-physicists and it quite frankly blows my mind and sends me round in circles, its certainly more interesting than any God could ever be. I also know I can't really understand it and thats OK with me, I don't need to imagine an all-seeing all-knowing all-doing beardy man to help me sleep at night.

What you are doing is saying that every effect has a cause, and that cause has a cause, and the only way to terminate that infinite regress is to have a first cause, which you call God, and physicists may well call a big bang singularity - if they are so minded to terminate that regress. Even if a God is required to start the universe (and why would he be immune to that regress, i.e. why does the existence of God not require a cause), it makes no sense to then endow him with omnipotence and omniscience - two mutually exclusive properties by the way - not to mention answering prayers and forgiving sins and so on.

Its after reading things like this, that I remember why I got him to do my homework for me

 

[readingstockport]

Hello.

I was created in my mothers womb by the magic of reproduction. I have no problem following that logic all the way back to the Big Bang; what caused the Big bang is probably some boring mathematical thing to do with probabilities and Relativity and energy existing in a potentiality - I have had many conversations with astro-physicists and it quite frankly blows my mind and sends me round in circles, its certainly more interesting than any God could ever be. I also know I can't really understand it and thats OK with me, I don't need to imagine an all-seeing all-knowing all-doing beardy man to help me sleep at night.

What you are doing is saying that every effect has a cause, and that cause has a cause, and the only way to terminate that infinite regress is to have a first cause, which you call God, and physicists may well call a big bang singularity - if they are so minded to terminate that regress. Even if a God is required to start the universe (and why would he be immune to that regress, i.e. why does the existence of God not require a cause), it makes no sense to then endow him with omnipotence and omniscience - two mutually exclusive properties by the way - not to mention answering prayers and forgiving sins and so on.

And dont forget Kalimantan that their all knowing all loving god created a world without sin knowing we would sin and putting into it the tree that allowed us to do so. He then decided that because I hadn't sinned but someone else had in the way he knew all the time they would he would condemn you and I to eternal damnation for something we didn't do and which he knew adam and eve would do in the first place.

following this, religious thinking for you?

He then sent his son down to earth to die on a cross to redeem me for a sin I didn't comit but adam and eve, who he created knowing they would do so did.....

After all that I am supposed to call this thing an all loving being and worship him.

And once we do all that we can talk about the man who offered up his daughters to be raped to save some angels at the demand of this all loving god. This being the same god that sent 2 bears to rip 42 children to pieces becauses they commited the sin of laughing at a bald man.


All f***ing loving. Don't make me f***ing laugh.

 

[One Love]

So don'task stupid questiopns of Kalimantan whch you yourself are unwilling to answer. goddit is not an answer by the way outside of the dluded world of the 'faithful'.

It was not a stupid question in my opinion.