What is God?

[.Spectator]

Atheists do not try to “use” science to “disprove” God. They simply look at what evidence science brings (without bias) and have deducted the conclusion for themselves that based on the EVIDENCE they do not see that there is reason to believe in a god.

Me personally – I am no longer an atheist. But I’m willing to bet no one here will argue with me! Hahahaha

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

Funny how atheists can use the physical world and science to try and disprove God but if theists use science, their arguments are automatically invalid.

This is a complete misrepresentation of what I wrote. It is a standard statement that theists make. Atheists do not use Science to try to disprove the existence of any god. We use Science to understand how the physical world works. Theists already know the answers – their Supreme God did it – so they don’t need to investigate further. When Science discovers something about the physical world Theists go scrambling to their books to find “proof” that it was already revealed.

Atheists are not trying to disprove anything. We just do not believe what you believe.

Do you really believe that you can communicate with the Creator of the Universe? How does it feel to know that you are an immortal, just like your God? I do not believe you are to become an immortal.

Theists can use science all they want but that is not what you are doing. You are trying to give a certain sophistication to your arguments that does not work. Introducing the concept of quantum entanglement does not explain anything about your God or the “human soul”.  Anyway, many Muslims (or Atharis) would not approve of using “proofs” that are not derived from the Quran.

Why not introduce train station information instead? The train spotters observed that all trains enter the station from the south and exit to the north. Train spotters have shown this to be the case time and time again. Of course atheists get annoyed when theists use this information to prove that God is real, as if train spotting is only for them.

While information may have been seen as infinite in classical mechanics, do you think that seeing it as finite is one of the advances that quantum mechanics offers?  I mean we can still keep the Cloud of Probability but use the simple wave function to express the “probability” of where the entangled particle is located. You can still discover more information about any changes to the system in the future if you accept the finite idea of information, don’t you think?  However there is no way to apply any of this to working out the concept of the soul because a soul has never been detected.

God’s plan is to sort out the good from the bad? I have had both Muslims and Christians tell me for years that their God is concerned with whether or not we accept His existence. Are you saying we don’t need to believe but just need to be good?

If god is probably laughing at blasphemy then why do Muslims want to kill blasphemers? I mean we are making your God happy by making him laugh. Are some Muslims not offending Him by being “bad” and imprisoning us or killing us?  Do you think it is acceptable or “good” behavior for Muslims to hack human beings to death for making your God laugh? Are such acts pleasing to your God?

• This reply was modified 7 years, 7 months ago by  Reg the Fronkey Farmer.

[.Spectator]

RE: Theists already know the answers – their Supreme God did it – so they don’t need to investigate

I would say at least for me that this is FALSE.

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

So when is your God not involved in the answers to the important questions in life? Do you not believe that your God created humans? I don’t as Science tells me otherwise. It tells me a completely different story to that in the Bible and Quran, both of which state that “He” did it. He created man in His own image. Are you saying that Science got that right and that these books are “FALSE”?

If you accept the Biblical version that your God created humans then why bother with the Science if you already know the answer?

• This reply was modified 7 years, 7 months ago by  Reg the Fronkey Farmer.

[.Spectator]

What I mean to say is that regardless of how much evidence I can see for the existence of a God, I do not throw in the towel and forgo learning about science. And the more I learn about science the more I see that God does exist. It’s the polar opposite conclusion from you.

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

Hi Belle – yes, we are at opposite poles. I just don’t understand what evidence you see for a God existing. I can understand that persuasive arguments can be made but I do not see these arguments as “evidence”.

I see nothing in what Science says to suggest that a god exists. I can see beauty in the small mundane things in life that can pass by in a second but I still get to smile to myself at knowing that second is all that matters. I marvel at the wonders of the night sky but find it all the more wondrous knowing how it works. I can appreciate the power of the human brain, that one man can grasp the idea that we are evolved creatures from simpler life forms or how another can visualize the curvature of space and time in his mind and explain how the Universe works.

Einstein once said that “The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. Whosoever does not know it and can no longer wonder, no longer marvel, is as good as dead, and his eyes are dimmed”.

But I cannot see a god in any of it. I see no need to jump to any supernatural conclusions. I cannot formulate or visualize what this God could be. I certainly do not believe anything other people seem to believe about it. I cannot get a working definition of “God” from anyone who claims one exists.  I can understand how people with little scientific knowledge could believe in a Creator god. But not in my reality.

I do not believe people when they tell me that they have made contact with the Creator of the Universe and get somewhat alarmed when they tell me that He has made contact with them. Some even tell me that I lack humility for not believing them when they refuse to describe their god or offer me any evidence to support what they are claiming is real.

I do not understand what you mean by “evidence” when you say regardless of how much evidence I (you) can see for the existence of a God. Maybe you mean “arguments” instead of “evidence”? Can you at least tell me what you consider to be scientific that reveals a god to you? I genuinely and honestly have no comprehension of what you mean.

[.Spectator]

I agree with EVERYTHING you say….. totally and completely…..But there are some things that have happened to me – not only recently but looking back over my life – especially now in hind sight – and there is just absolutely no way it can be explained any other way….I’m convinced. So I’ve come to the conclusion that….God does exist and he is personal to us. I’ll leave it at that or I might break the site rules lol…

[caseydormanParticipant]

Evolution, being change, is not the same as creation, which may be either change or the replacement of nothing by something. Evolution does not need a force to cause or guide it, as it is the shaping of survival outcomes of both nonrandom and random events according to their survival value in their environment. Creation may or may not need a force to cause it, since we do not know, in cases such as the universe or life, exactly how creation occurred. There may be a question about the original creation of the universe, but even witih regard to original creation, it is not clear that it was an event, as we currently view events (if it was a big bang, it probably was, but other models do not view it as a discrete event). In any case, positing an entity that was the force that caused creation, not only leads to an infinite regress, it  says nothing about the characteristics of that force  (it could have been a one-off, nanosecond long force, which no longer exists, for instance). Arriving at anything that resembles most humans current conceptions of God from either the original creation of the universe (again, assuming it meets our conception of an event) or from the course of evolution, is an exercise in imagination, with no evidence to support such a conception.

• This reply was modified 7 years, 7 months ago by  caseydorman.
• This reply was modified 7 years, 7 months ago by  caseydorman.

[Kyrani EadeParticipant]

@Belle Rose and @Reg the Fronkey Farmer,

“Using Science / scientific argument to disprove God”

In claiming there is no evidence for God, atheists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris use scientific argument.

Based on Evidence! The growing consensus amongst physicists is that the Universe is a simulation, a hologram. How come, if there is no creator? They are happy to say that some computer in another universe generates this Universe. And with an infinite regression! That another computer in some other universe generates the universe with the computer that generates our Universe. This is NOT evidence. It is only suggestion.  However they have a problem with a causeless cause, God.

And the Big Bang Theory is also used. The argument goes that we don’t need God, a little patch of nothing with something in it (lol) suddenly exploded and voilà out of the chaos, there’s the Universe. The stuff self organized itself, ’cause it is really information! And if you dare ask where did the patch of nothing with the something came from in the first place.. OH! you not allowed to ask that question.

Who are you kidding. Both sides are using scientific arguments. And for the record theists investigate. For example Issac Newton was a theist. And you will find a lot of scientists have been and are theists. Who said they don’t investigate?

@Reg the Fronkey Farmer,

“We just do not believe what you believe”  and further down you said “I cannot see a god in any of it.”

I agree with you and I am glad to hear you speak in this way because I don’t see other atheists say this. Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are adamant that there is no God. And that theists are deluded.

 

 

[StregaModerator]

@Kyrani. “Both sides are using scientific arguments”.  I’ve yet to hear a scientific explanation for God – I hear the god of the gaps argument for things that science has yet to explain, but I’m fascinated with the idea that science backs religion in some way.  I thought religion was all about faith, and faith by definition was unsupported by evidence.  Are you saying faith is no longer required?

On a side note, Isaac Newton did his gravity thing as a sideline.  His main work was alchemy, the study of turning base metals (lead) into gold.  He wasn’t very good at that.  We are lucky he took a bit of time off to examine gravity.

[Kyrani EadeParticipant]

@Reg the Fronkey Farmer said:

“Introducing the concept of quantum entanglement does not explain anything about your God or the “human soul”.

“.…we can still keep the Cloud of Probability but use the simple wave function to express the “probability” of where the entangled particle is located. You can still discover more information about any changes to the system in the future if you accept the finite idea of information, don’t you think? However there is no way to apply any of this to working out the concept of the soul because a soul has never been detected.”

Quantum entanglement does not explain God or the human soul or any soul. I was trying to show the following.

1. that God as well as ourselves can intervene in making changes. There are physicists trying to explain quantum entanglement by introducing what amounts to a magical particles. A graviton (used to explain gravity), that travels at infinite speed so that it can carry information from one particle to the other. I think my explanation is better and it shows that we can intervene.

2. The point is not in knowing the information now so as to predict the future. We make a choice of what property we want to see, we don’t just observe to see what’s there. We have to choose to see something and we see what we choose to see. Prior to the measurement both particles have both properties, or at least that is what physicists believe.

The Universe is a simulation from what many physicists say, a simulation or a creation, what difference is there. Same deal. There has to be a creator or a simulator. They don’t like the idea of God but whatever they come up with has the same problem.. where did it come from?

[Kyrani EadeParticipant]

@Reg the Fronkey Farmer said: “Are you saying we don’t need to believe but just need to be good?”

Yes, as far as I understand, that is true. Why? The reason is that awakening of the conscious being/ soul requires raised consciousness. We can’t do that by our own efforts, but we can prevent a lowering of consciousness.

If we do something wrong, and we have a conscience (which requires consciousness, i.e., awareness with knowledge), then we may have a guilty conscience. People do one of two things.

a. they may acknowledge the wrong, have remorse/ change of heart and make amends. Thus they clean their conscience and retain the level of consciousness. Humane people do this.

b. they move to deaden their conscience, which means they lower consciousness. Inhumane people do this.

[Kyrani EadeParticipant]

@ Reg the Fronkey Farmer said: “If god is probably laughing at blasphemy then why do Muslims want to kill blasphemers?”

Sorry, I did not explain myself very well.

Using bad language in talking about God is often called blasphemy, but this is not real blasphemy. Blasphemy is misrepresenting God. Making statements (suggestions really) that God is this or that, giving some sort of definition. For example, in my opinion calling Jesus Christ God, is blasphemy. He may be called an avatar of God, but he is not God.

I think a lot of religious people are not the real deal. There are plenty of inhumane people masquerading as the devote in order to justify, in the eyes of other people, what are essentially crimes.

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

The growing consensus amongst physicists is that the Universe is a simulation, a hologram.

No, it is not. Please show the peer-review evidence to show this. Consensus is reached by the peer review process.

I agree with you and I am glad to hear you speak in this way because I don’t see other atheists say this. Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are adamant that there is no God.

No they don’t. Dawkins uses a scale from 1-7 with a “spectrum of probabilities”. He says he is a “6” which is:

De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there. He is not adamant about there being no gods.

You have taken it for granted that your God exists. I do not believe your God exists because there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. You also have no evidence, at least none that would stand up to any scrutiny, especially scientific. You just believe what you have always been told. If you have evidence any please share. I do not accept the concept of “Fitrah” but if you can offer me any evidence I will convert to Islam.

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

BTW do you really believe you are to become an immortal?

[Author]

Posts