Is there a God? What do YOU think???

[BEAKER]

I believe in a way yes. We are a part of endless possibilities each one of us being one possibility. That goes for everyone and everything that exists, that will exist and won't ever exist if that makes any sense...Dang, I'm tired.

 

It doesn't make any sense to me at least that God is some being sitting in the "clouds". I think that's just our simple way of humanizing the concept.

 

 

...if that makes any sense...Dang, I'm tired.

 

I get that way when I'm tired too; and no, it really doesn't make much sense! - I do understand your meaning - I think.

 

-But I do believe that there is a God.

If that is true (that there is a God), and if it is true that He made everything that exists; why would we who enjoy all of His creation, -believe that He who made it is confined to sitting in the clouds?

 

And just because he was capeable of creating an infinite collage of human pesonality that continues to procreate seemingly without end, why would we assume that we are He?

 

We may observe what He has done, but we cannot do what He does.

[Tormod]

Hey Tormod!

 

I like what you've done with the place!

 

Thanks, Beaker! There have been a lot of changes lately and there are a lot more people around now (as you probably have noticed). :hihi:

[maddog]

Atheism is not a belief system. It is the lack of a belief system.

You can put this in the fact if you like. It is not accurate though.

 

Atheism is a belief system. It is the belief system in the Not-belief of God (or the denial of God).

This is demonstrated by the fervor with which an Atheist will defend their statement. I do not

see this as wrong. Now the lack of a belief system would be Apathy. These people truly don't

care. It is totaly irrelavent. This is what I would put in the fact (or at least my belief). :cup:

 

Maddog

[maddog]

So humans are part of God? Does that make us God?

If you are a page in a book, does that make you a book ?

 

Maddog

[maddog]

To God believers (Atheist can ignore this question), "What is so wrong about being a piece of God ?"

Each of us are a piece of the living biosphere of this planet. Our atoms compose a piece of the

universe. What are the limits to God ? If he/she didn't have any, wouldn't the obvious conclusion

to be the Unviverse itself. Maybe we are all connect through our piece with God. Unless it is thought

that God is an inhabitant within this Universe (that he/she created). Then where did God come from

before the Universe was created and why did he/she create it.

 

Get back to me when anyone has an answer, I am waiting... :cup:

 

Maddog

[pgrmdave]

I assume that God is apart from time. If you assume, like I do, that time is a physical dimension, then you can see that anything that is beyond that 'time' dimension is able to affect any time frame, without being restricted by the direction of cause and effect. As for why....Creation is a wonderful thing. It makes us feel whole, and that's just creation on a tiny scale - music, poetry, painting. Imagine being able to create the cosmos. Every scientific, and mathematic law is created, and from this, life emerges. I think that God is continually amazed with His creation. Just like I can be surprized when writing music, I think that God is surprized with life, and the mind, and our ability to learn.

[zahizahi]

http://www.evidencesofcreation.com

 

 

 

The evolutionary theory is not supported by science; it is trying to be lived against science.

Science proves God.

[TeleMad]

http://www.evidencesofcreation.com

 

The evolutionary theory is not supported by science; it is trying to be lived against science.

Science proves God.

 

Good grief, another person linking to that stupid site.

[TeleMad]

http://www.evidencesofcreation.com

 

The evolutionary theory is not supported by science; it is trying to be lived against science.

Science proves God.

 

Good grief, another person linking to that site; another person who doesn't understand science.

[BEAKER]

Good grief, another person linking to that stupid site.

 

Good grief, another person linking to that site; another person who doesn't understand science.

 

Is this the evolution of a sentence?

[[email protected]]

There are many gods. Some are more successful than others, that's all.

[Tormod]

Atheism is a belief system. It is the belief system in the Not-belief of God (or the denial of God).

 

Coming from you I'd expect some sort of reason behind this statement.

-Which god is it that I deny? Surely all gods?

-Why does atheism imply denial?

-What is the belief set of a typical atheist? (basic things they believe in)

-As a belief system, do atheist all over the world believe in the same things?

[paultrr]

[

Evolution represents Science at it's most detailed and formal structure

 

Creationism is NOT Science.

 

There is a branch of creationism that attempts(I use that word loosely here) to apply scientific methods to the concept of creation. They go under the bannor of Creation Science Research. However, they also tend to reject certain scientific methods over others. They, by precepts of their own faith system tend to deny atomic dating methods in general, like Carbon 14 dating. This and several other problems with their scientific methods makes the approach far less scientific than that generally employed by the majority out there.

 

The poll results were interesting:

 

What is your personal belief about GOD??

A. I do not believe in any type of God. 38.71%

B. I do not believe in any personal God. 9.68%

C. I believe that every person is God. 3.23%

D. I believe that God is part of everything and everything is part of God. 16.13%

E. I believe in the God represented in the Bible. 16.13%

F. I believe in a personal God, but not the same God that Christains claim. 6.45%

I am a Freethinker, and therefore have no BELIEF in anything, only acceptance of things.

 

Generally, most scientists tend across the board to reject God which is interesting given that evolution would show us that nature itself is our creator,ie we evolved from natural processes. So the idea of a first cause for creation is not outside of science in general. Its just that our first cause or creator is nature and natural process itself. I think the problem is one of meaning and terms. The word God tends to denote a personal aspect and intelligence behind creation. Therefore by rejecting a personal god one might think one was accepting something akin to deist ideas. Perhaps what might be of interest here is replacing the word God with creation first cause. The choices could be natural, intelligent, personal, etc and see what answers one gets then. I think the resulting shift would point out why in general one finds that scientists tend to reject the God solution.

 

Naturilism has had over the years propoents that represent the following cases:

 

A. I do not believe in any type of God. 38.71%

B. I do not believe in any personal God. 9.68%

C. I believe that every person is God. 3.23%

 

That yields a total of 51.62% into the naturlist camp, so to speak. The rest fall under religious or ID camps of varying types. So by a small amount the majority out there do not favor a personal creator and tend to support a natural solution to creation.

 

I for example am a naturlist. I believe in creation and not ID or Creationism and I see in reading on the subject and from all the historical evidence, experimental evidence, etc that this is the one approach I find most scientific to begin with. But understanding the differences is important as well as understanding why most have this world view in the first place. As such I am an evolutionists and have strong reasons why it is the proper perspective. But with all people there are reasons we think one way or another that one simple poll cannot fully grasp. Might try mixing things up a bit to get a better perspective on all this.

[Tormod]

Good post, paultrr. Thoughtful stuff. Thanks. This thread needed some perspective.

[TeleMad]

Is this the evolution of a sentence?

 

 

Yeah :-)

 

After posting it, I didn't like my first phrasing (the use of the word stupid) and also saw that I didn't point out the lack of understanding of science the statments I was replying to included, and so hit the EDIT button and made changes. But I guess I hit the QUOTE button by accident instead.

[TeleMad]

Generally, most scientists tend across the board to reject God ...

 

Yes, no, maybe. A 1997 poll of prominent US scientists showed that 40% believe in a personal God that one can pray to and expect a response of some kind, and the same percentage believed in an afterlife. These are pretty strong religious beliefs held by 40% of US scientists who have been published in major peer reviewed journals.

[paultrr]

There are some who do believe in a personal god. A lot of them might could be put under the older theistic evolution concept in that from the few articles I have read and some of their own personal interview notes they do seem to accept evolution. There is also a class out there that why holding to a belief in god somehow manage to divorce that from their science, at least in their articles they do. Then, one also has the ID group which believes in some type of Creator even though some vary on weither they call this creator God or not.

 

I'll put it this way, for myself at times there does seem to be an intelligence at work in this cosmos. But by intelligence I do not imply a personal creator. A bit back some of us where trying to model things at the so-called zero point level or ZPF as its more properly called. The one explination that keeps coming up requires things being developed in the quantum computer fields to help explain things at that level. That on the surface at least hints at information process going on at the quantum level and smaller. Now, I still see no reason to invoke an outside first cause. Even if there are aspects that lend itself to something natural akin to artificial intelligence that still does not imply a real personality behind it all. However, if that last proposal ever turns out to be the case then other life forms having intelligence and even the start of life itself could have been something rather pre-built into the programming of this universe even if that programming is natural.

 

Several scientists have made the remark before about the universe having a certain pre-built in logic. And interesting enough, while the idea mentioned before is not fully new, it does surface from time to time in the speculations of other scientists. But I would suggest that those of us who do tend to speculate that way also would not be lumped into the catagory that believes in a personal creator.

 

Of course I would also add that if the above case ever was shown to be valid then one could also speculate who programmed that artifical intelligence system in the first place. The problem for me is its a long way from some speculation with a little quantum modeling and little experimental evidence at the present to reaching that point. For one I could also speculate how something like that type of natural system could have evolved slowly itself way prior to the start of this universe in the classical sence.

 

Just something from the mind of one thinker to others and none of this is "Gospel" to use an old saying. Its simply a little speculation that adds some flavor to all this and might expose some other ideas on polling questions.