Prove God Exists - Act Three

[Birdjaguar]

True Christianity is that which follows what the Bible teaches without modification by the personal preferences and political machinations of mere men.

True Christianity? There hasn't been a single universally accepted version of Christian faith in 2000 years. Even the fundamentalists don't agree on what is True. What version do you believe is the True one? And you can't answer "the one in the Bible." The Bible doesn't even present a consistent version. How to interpret the Bible has been the agruement all along.

 

[Pointlessness]

Faith is not the opposite of proof, just like understanding is not the opposite of reading comprehension.

Faith is belief in spite of the lack of proof.

In other words, faith is when you believe something you know is not true.

 

[the mormegil]

Faith is not the opposite of proof, just like understanding is not the opposite of reading comprehension.

Faith is belief in spite of the lack of proof.

Why would you believe anything without proof?

Do you believe pigs can fly?

NO, because there's no proof!

Why don't you have faith that pigs can fly?

 

[Murrin]

Why would you believe anything without proof?

Do you believe pigs can fly?

NO, because there's no proof!

Why don't you have faith that pigs can fly?

Now that's a bad example, because the observed behaviour of pigs is proof that the don't fly. With God we're talking about a lack of proof for, and a lack of conclusive proof against. Without anything to deny the possibility, it can be considered possible (however unlikely it is).


To those with faith: What is it that makes believers think the existence of a supreme being or an afterlife is feasible?
If you were brought up with no beliefs, no knowledge that such beliefs existed, what about your experiences would make you think such things might exist as a God? If you can answer that, then you've justified your faith sufficiently as far as I'm concerned - I personally cannot think of any other answer to that question than nothing.

 

[the mormegil]

Now that's a bad example, because the observed behaviour of pigs is proof that the don't fly. With God we're talking about a lack of proof for, and a lack of conclusive proof against.

Yeah you're right.

Ok, how about this. Do you believe there is an invisible turkey that follows you around? It can walk through walls and people, performs miracles and no one has ever seen him, except for a few people that claim to have 2000 years ago.

(You would agree that the behaviour of this turkey has not been observed, yes?)

Do you believe in that turkey? Do you have faith?

 

[Murrin]

lol. A bit extreme, but a fair example, IMO
But like what I said when I edited the last post - if you can't see, hear, feel, sense in any way that the turkey is there, then you have no way to prove that there isn't an invisible, non-corporeal turkey following you around - it's just highly unlikely (or to put it frankly, ridiculous).

 

[the mormegil]

YAY. Someone that understands what I say.

Welcome to CFC!!!

 

[Birdjaguar]

In other words, faith is when you believe something you know is not true.

You are off base here. Faith is acceptance of something that cannot be "proven" by other means. Faith is often accompanied by an "event" that transcends the rational and allows for the suspension rational rules. Religion is an aspect of some faiths that can then remove reason from the indiviual's tool kit.

 

[Phydeaux]

(This is the only coherent part of your post so I will not reply to the rest.)
Did you read that post by FredLC with the whole thing about the special guy?
The universe is just like that. It's bound to happen eventually, out of sheer probability. It's only special to us because we're part of it.

Well... It's has nothing to do with being special. It's just a fact of life. Sure you could say that it happened long ago in far a way land, but that's just a fary tell. To me that's more faith than you need for God.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Faith is not the acceptance of everything that cannot be proven (ie. your turkey). It is a particular suspension of rational thinking.

 

[Mise]

This cyclic view seems to be a form of the infinite regress of events. The loop in this theory is only that it repeats itself. The origin point is still an issue of major importance in this theory.

I'm glad we're on the same wavelength .

Each change would have very substantial results if added up over a very extend period of time or events. If a slight (almost any perhaps) change occurred in the process even though the Big Bang might be able to repeat itself a few times however eventually this would possibly disjoint the system and lead to an eventual change in the process in which a big bang becomes impossible. I do not claim that this proves it impossible that a cyclic view can occur however I think these work against the idea somewhat.

I disagree. The events that transpire following the big bang could not lead to the destruction of matter and energy, i.e. all matter and energy is conserved. If there is matter in the universe, the universe will have a centre of gravity. It is inevitable that the matter (and energy) in the universe will, under the force of gravity, will go back to the centre of gravity and form the singularity (which gives the big bang). I think that this is inevitable, regardless of what events transpire after the big bang.

There is another theory in physics that every event that can happen, does happen, in an alternate universe (this has been featured several times in star trek and other sci fi shows). Perhaps subsequent universes are actually these alternate universes. Perhaps they even exist simultaneously!

I'm not saying I know the answer to the universe's creation. What I'm saying is that it need not have been created. An infinite regress could be solved by saying that the universe was always there, and will always be there. While this is still an infinite chain, it is not a regressing chain, so finding the "start" isn't a problem, since there is no definite "start". And personally, I'd rather believe that than try to get to THE beginning of an (in)finite regress!

 

[Phydeaux]

Virtual Particles pop in and out of existance with no cause! Physics has already proven your assertion false!

Just because we don't know where it came from doesn't mean that it came from nowhere. This is the mistake that people made with mold, they couldn't see what made it so they guessed it came from nowhere... We look down at those people and say ha of corse it didn't come from nowhere silly people, but will people be saying the same thing about us? I think that we should what what we say.

 

[GenMarshall]

Meh, I dont beleve there is such thing as a god. I dont even think there is such thing as a god or a supreme deity. I dont see no deity helping me with life's problems.

 

[Isabelle]

True Christianity is that which follows what the Bible teaches without modification by the personal preferences and political machinations of mere men.

But to follow the Bible at all, you have to do so according to some personal preferences. What I mean is, the Bible contradicts itself so much, you wouldn't be able to take any action if you took ti word for word. The New Testament and Old Testament are almost polar opposites.

Leviticus.

MILDEW OUT

 

[CivCube]

But to follow the Bible at all, you have to do so according to some personal preferences. What I mean is, the Bible contradicts itself so much, you wouldn't be able to take any action if you took ti word for word. The New Testament and Old Testament are almost polar opposites.

Then maybe the two Testaments are for completely different religions...the "Old" for Judaism and the "New" for Christianity.

 

[Mise]

Just because we don't know where it came from doesn't mean that it came from nowhere. This is the mistake that people made with mold, they couldn't see what made it so they guessed it came from nowhere... We look down at those people and say ha of corse it didn't come from nowhere silly people, but will people be saying the same thing about us? I think that we should what what we say.

Umm, actually, virtual particles do come from nowhere . They are the result of the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics.

Personally, I don't think they exist... If they did exist, then they would exert an infinitessimal, but finite, force on orbiting bodies, such as the moon. This force would reduce the moon's tangential velocity, causing it's KE to be less than its PE, resulting in the orbit decaying (i.e. the Moon falls into the Earth).

EDIT: It's like a body orbiting another in a viscous fluid.

 

[Isabelle]

Then maybe the two Testaments are for completely different religions...the "Old" for Judaism and the "New" for Christianity.

Indeed? But surely both are part of the Bible? It's hardly uncommon to see people using passages from the Old Testament as justification for... whatever they want, really. In any case, I sincerely doubt it's possible to follow the Bible in its entirety to the letter, which is supposedly what we are required to do, according to ... some guy. And I'm just saying that's silly.

 

[Birdjaguar]

It is inevitable that the matter (and energy) in the universe will, under the force of gravity, will go back to the centre of gravity and form the singularity (which gives the big bang). I think that this is inevitable, regardless of what events transpire after the big bang.

IIRC science pretty much discounts an occilating universe as a valid solution to the question of origin and future of the Big Bang. And I think, that current models show the expansion of the universe is speeding up and the universe is destined to expand forever. Stay tuned, however, this is subject to change.

There is another theory in physics that every event that can happen, does happen, in an alternate universe (this has been featured several times in star trek and other sci fi shows). Perhaps subsequent universes are actually these alternate universes. Perhaps they even exist simultaneously!

TV is always a good source of evidence.

I'm not saying I know the answer to the universe's creation. What I'm saying is that it need not have been created. An infinite regress could be solved by saying that the universe was always there, and will always be there. While this is still an infinite chain, it is not a regressing chain, so finding the "start" isn't a problem, since there is no definite "start". And personally, I'd rather believe that than try to get to THE beginning of an (in)finite regress!

If you accept the Bing Bang as a real event, then the logical answer is to put the creation event outside our universe. Science is moving to brane theory, Christian can put it with god, Hindus might attribute it to a universal and eternal oversoul.

 

[CivCube]

Indeed? But surely both are part of the Bible? It's hardly uncommon to see people using passages from the Old Testament as justification for... whatever they want, really. In any case, I sincerely doubt it's possible to follow the Bible in its entirety to the letter, which is supposedly what we are required to do, according to ... some guy. And I'm just saying that's silly.

The Christian Bible, yes, but the New Testament is more heavily emphasized.

 

[Isabelle]

Of course the universe could just spontaneously exist. It's no less ridiculous than a God spontaneously existing and creating the universe, why creat a third party for no reason?

Or would that be a second party?

I don't know... I'll shut up now. =(

edit.

The Christian Bible, yes, but the New Testament is more heavily emphasized.

In that case, you're already reading it according to your own personal inclinations.

Saying "one testament is more important" and "we must live according to the teachings of the Bible, ignoring the ... slant given to it by particular religions" (one of which may be putting a heavier emphasis on the NT) are like opposite things.

I don't really know what I'm talking about, but I think they are.