God?(#$@)
In the past, whenever I felt myself beginning to wonder about the existence of a God or higher Being, I always cited the same evidence:
If the entire universe began at the Big Bang, the singularity that “exploded” must have originated from an object or being that is outside of our universe, since this creator would have created our time and space.
This seems to be a relatively secure argument, especially because of my own experiences exploring this situation. I believe that there is a reason that it is almost impossible to visualize ourselves outside of our spacetime-bound universe. It is this mental block that creates, both, a higher being and a separation from this being.
Other proof that I find comforting (towards the existence of a God) is the intricacy of our world, and ourselves. If the entire course of evolution from the birth of life was compressed into a one-year period, then “humans” would have evolved at eight in the evening on the final day. While this was still a period of millions of years, based on the complexity of cellular communication and other systems particular to modern humans, I don’t believe that this would be possible without aid (Be it luck, or something bigger).
The actual process of Evolution is far beyond the scope of this article, but it is built upon mutations that create selection. When speaking of advancement, we can focus on the positive mutations. Any alteration in an organisms genetic material will most likely have a negative result, and based on the evolutionary requirements of other organisms – by far the most advanced creatures on the planet – could have evolved without aid (I also don’t find it coincidental that philosophy and questioning our origin is specific to humans).
The question now (for me) is not whether or not a God exists, but what form it takes and what it’s purpose is. I am a member of the Druze faith, which does not have a clear definition of a God or a chiseled heaven and hell. Instead, we believe in the reincarnation of the soul, and as an expansion I believe that God is – in part at least – the soul.
I have recently found a very strong spiritual connenction while meditating. Meditating helps me become my soul and connect with the part of it that is god.
There it is…I believe in a god, a spirit, humans, and myself.
Note: Don’t let the Philosophy and Elitism article die, there seemed to be an interesting discussion going on.
Juan
Aug 26, 04:41 AM
I won’t try to make you an atheist but I’ll present a more probable scenario. Although the word atheist comes from the Greek meaning without god (a-theós), I don’t think atheists are necessarily about negating God’s existence; atheism is about producing a system sans a demiurge. At least I as an atheist, am not about negating God.
To be honest, to me the idea of the Big Bang is comforting. The concept of God is too complex for me; the Big Bang is very easy for me to grasp my tiny mind around. I like simplicity. Then I thought: why does there need to be a beginning? The Big Bang takes the necessity of a beginning a priori. But it does not say why a beginning is necessary, fit is necessary at all. To me, the universe has always existed, therefore there was never a beginning. If the universe always has been, then there is no necessity for a demiurge.
Your statement that the mental block you experience when you try to visualize yourself outside of a ‘spacetime-bound universe’ means that God exists is non sequitur. When I experience a similar phenomenon, I conclude that I am either approaching the problem incorrectly or I am not mentally mature to delve into the issue.
Nor does the ‘complexity’ of humanity, of the human body, predicates the existence of a deity. To you, it may seem complex but to someone else, it may seem simple. Complexity and Simplicity are user phenomenon, this is to say that I as an individual will reach a conclusion concercing a problem with relation to how much of the pattern I am aware of. If am ignorant of the pattern, then a problem will seem complex to me. Another person may have a bigger picture of the pattern and therefore, to him the problem is simple.
I cannot use God as an explanation for the universe. By adding the idea of God, I further confound everything – God is a complex idea. For me, to say God created the universe is to limit my understanding. It is saying: I don’t know the answer to such and such questions, I’ll say God created the universe because it solves this problem.
As a Humanist, I believe in a system that works without taking God into consideration; therefore allowing man to be responsible for his actions. His inabilities in developing his potential then are his – he cannot blame another being. He is the master of his life.
beajerry
Sep 2, 02:21 AM
God is more of a spiritual comfort—a deep understanding of the self and a sense of meaning in life.
It’s when you take that spirituality and try and apply it to the world around you that you get into trouble.
The empirical world is explained by science.
Religious symbols do not point to literal things, but to metaphorical meanings.
So it is fine to take comfort in spirituality and call it “God”, but you kill that God quickly whenever you use it literally, e.g. when you say God created the Big Bang then you’ve just killed him.
Another example: When you set up a camera to try and record Santa Claus, you’ve just killed him because he’s not literal, he’s a symbol with meaning.
Thame
Sep 2, 04:21 AM
“Another example: When you set up a camera to try and record Santa Claus, you’ve just killed him because he’s not literal, he’s a symbol with meaning.”
I’m not sure if there is (as you say) a cosmic Uncertainty Principle, because I do believe that there is something “bigger” inside humans.
“e.g. when you say God created the Big Bang then you’ve just killed him.”
How is that, the idea that a god began the Big Bang or provided the initial conditions and matter for the explosion is not only convincing proof (for me anyway), but it also proves the continuing existence of a god outside of our universe.
I understand what you are saying about the symbolic nature of a god, but i’m afraid this may be more of a result of religions than god itself.
I’m really busy these days, but I would definitaly like to expand on these ideas soon.
Jae
Sep 2, 11:11 AM
Well, I don’t really have much time to write something overly complex, but I’ll just cite something from my personal experience.
It is .. interesting that people tend to limit everything to their own understanding. You do not understand God and so, it ‘complicates’ things. It makes it easier to just say God doesn’t exist, and stick with what we can understand. This type of thinking does have an appeal, but from what I’ve found, it’s far from correct.
Indeed, we may never be able to completely understand God. He may never completely fit into how we perceive the world. This never really sit well with me, considering my intellectual nature.
Coming from a religious family, I had a huge motivation to seek this being. Over the years, I believe I may have found something.
Empirical evidence is hard to find about God. Well, evidence that the world wouldn’t call bull. So, I searched for something else. Something a majority have trouble believing in, myself included. Supernatural evidence. Not many believe in it. I didn’t. But regardless, out of the blue, I found something that blew my mind. It removed all notions that a God couldn’t exist.
As hard it is to believe with our human minds that a God could exist, it truly is a different ball game when God show himself the only way he could.
I realised that a reason why God cannot be explained or easily believed by the intellectuals of today is not because of lack of evidence. It’s because of close-mindedness. Many don’t believe in supernatural things. But look at it this way. If you only look for the evidence of God in the natural world, guess what you would conclude ? That God doesn’t necessarily exist because .. well, it’s just natural.
In the supernatural, things aren’t as easy to explain. And I don’t mean mumbo jumbo like card tricks or ESP. I’ve seen a friend fully healed of a terminal disease overnight. I’ve seen a friend’s distorted foot straighten itself in front of my eyes. I guess you could explain them away somehow if you thought about it hard enough. But that’s just trying to avoid admitting that a God exists. I’d rather take my chances with God, rather than just look at ‘placebo’ or some other rationale to explain it.
Juan
Sep 2, 05:30 PM
To say that atheists are close-minded because they dont’ believe in God is simply absurd. It is as if you are saying, er… you can’t prove God’s existence but God exists … and though I can’t prove it to you I am still right. It’s not about proving God’s existence, that is not the point at all! God’s existence cannot be established nor disproved. Simply put, we can create systems where God does not come into effect, that is what I proposed.
Faith provides certainty.
Faith provides meaning.
a
Faith is a governor. moral compass. An autopilot in the seas of uncertainty and chaos.
If I have faith, iIam assured the universe has meaning. My pain, my poverty, my afflictions are not in vain. Life is not random. I am not without hope. I can go on. I will be justly rewarded later.
Faith supplies the goals for my system—a goal of future bliss, heaven, nirvana, re-incarnation.
Faith frees me from setting goals; thus it reduces my biocost by eliminating the time consuming task of establishing my own goals and my own governor. And it frees me from having to monitor and regulate my goals.
Faith is the low-cost solution.
Thame
Sep 2, 10:05 PM
“Faith is the low-cost solution.”
I think that God is, as you say, the low-cost solution, not faith. Faith (in oneself, or a personal belief system) is empowering and beautiful.
I feel that God may be a product of the human ego. Since it was technically possible for the Big Bang Singularity to have risen from nothing (it being infinitely tiny and dense). While this may be unintuitive, it is surely a possibility and negates the need for a catalytic god.
I mention this because humans created an omniscient, omnipotent being to give their lives a purpose. Without a god, humans are as random a collection of molecules as any other “living” thing.
Jae
Sep 3, 02:28 AM
“To say that atheists are close-minded because they dont’ believe in God is simply absurd.”
Actually, you’re right. That was the wrong word to use there. My apologies.
I guess what I was really trying to convey in that line was to sum up my original argument, that we as humans, tend to rather sit here on our thinking charis, and merely use our mental capacity to dicern whether or not a diety should or shouldn’t exist, from our own reasoning. Well, of course, we would’ve researched into it as well, so it’s not completely a biased point of view.
What I propose is that before you completely close that door on the need (or lack of a need) for a God in the universe, is that you don’t only attempt to seek answers through purely intellectual means, or in terms of mere knowledge. Instead, as I mentioned before supernatural things.
It does sound absurd, but I did it, and no amount of coaxing or ‘sound’ argument could sway me from what I’ve experienced. Seeing is believing as some would say.
Juan
Sep 3, 03:05 AM
As a Humanist, I have created a system that attempts to explain the universe to me and how it functions. To me, the how is important and the why is of no consequence to a large extent. It’s impossible to know the why. But the how lies in our domain.
I understand that no sound argument will bring you over, not that I’m trying to accomplish that. Nor do I use the intellect to establish the existence of inexistence of the Deity; I guess my type of atheism is non-militant for lack of a better word. Intelllect and experience are not separate. We take things we experience (through the senses) and attempt to comprehend them through the Intellect. My disbelief in God is not simply intellectual, it is also because of my experiences. Concerning supernatural things; people use to think that the eruption of a volcano was because a deity was upset and so forth, but we’ve advanced in our understanding of Nature. The ‘supernatural’ can always be explained, except sometimes we are unable to because at the time, we are not prepared, be it scientifically, mentally.
But my question would be: why do I need to believe in God? What does it do for me to place credit for the existence of everything on a supreme being when I can simply say: Nature.
Thame
Sep 3, 04:43 AM
Juan
“But my question would be: why do I need to believe in God? What does it do for me to place credit for the existence of everything on a supreme being when I can simply say: Nature.”
It is not as simple as that, because we must question the origin of “Nature”. I’m afraid that laying credit on Nature is almost as Creationist as my statement about the Big Bang.
And if we are speaking of Nature, this obviously includes more than physical characteristics...certain behavioral instincts can also be classified as Natural. Thus, it becomes possible to generalize various human actions as innate and immutable, such as belief in a god.
Jae
“Seeing is believing as some would say.”
That would certainly solve a few problems!
Juan
Sep 3, 06:17 PM
Well I don’t see why the origin of Nature must be questioned. We have been taught by society that there are origins to things, I simply don’t buy that; it seems like mere conventionalism.
Perhaps the issue is wether truthful or beautiful theories are being predicated.
I don’t see why I must ‘lay credit’ upon a being that I cannot see, that I cannot feel, not that one can fully trust one’s senses, or for that matter, one’s intellect in interpreting.
Does it even matter? As I said earlier, the why cannot be discovered.
Thame
Sep 4, 06:12 AM
“Well I don’t see why the origin of Nature must be questioned.”
That is, unfortunately, not an option for me. I must trace everything back as far as a I can. To me, growth is comforting, and it is in history that I find the most advancement.
“I don’t see why I must ‘lay credit’ upon a being that I cannot see, that I cannot feel, not that one can fully trust one’s senses, or for that matter, one’s intellect in interpreting.”
That is the difference. I do feel a connection (often mentally tangible – if that makes sense at all) with a god, and I have scientific proof (again, this may apply only to myself) of the necessity for a higher being.
Orikinla Osinachi
Sep 9, 10:18 PM
First, I love you.
Yes. God has been there before the Big Bang and will continue to be there after the next Big Bang.
The Big Bang is right there in Genesis of the Holy Bible. But, the limited education of most theologists and Christian scholars and ministers have not enabled them to explain it to the world.
If you have really studied the Big Bang Theory, you will understand how it is explained in the Genesis of the Holy Bible.
The oldest book in the Holy Bible, JOB also mentioned the Prehistoric monsters.
God is real.
God is not an idea.
God is not a theory and God is not dead.
He is alive and well.
He is my Father.
Everything HE said HE is going to do for me, HE is doing it.
And I am enjoying HIM totally.
Even, if God says, “My son come home tonight.”
I will go smiling. Because, I know where I am going to join HIM is a zillion times better than this “messed’ up earth.
We humans have killed more of ourselves in senseless and useless wars than all the natural disasters from Genesis to date.
Over 40 MILLION Humans have been killed in wars from 1914 to date alone and more are still being killed everyday in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Middle East, Africa and other parts of the world.
In fact, I have asked God to put humankind out of their misery, because the agonies, ironies and miseries of humankind break my heart everyday as I see them on the streets and on news channels.
God is real and HE reads my posts.
He is always watching over me.
And I love HIM and I am very glad and grateful to be privileged to have an awesome Father like HIM JEHOVAH.
I am proud of God.
Thame
Sep 10, 07:21 PM
“First, I love you.”
I love you too :) , and although I am not very religious, I do understand what you’re saying.
Jason Martino
Sep 12, 03:45 AM
When I was a child, I asked, “Who created the world?”
My grandmother replied, “God.”
So then I asked, “Who created God?”
The only answer I ever got was that God was always there, which seems as reasonable as saying that the universe was always there. God has to live somewhere.
So I guess I don’t see how the existence of the universe needs to have the existence of God.
In response to Orikinla Osinachi’s entry,
“The Big Bang is right there in Genesis of the Holy Bible. But, the limited education of most theologists and Christian scholars and ministers have not enabled them to explain it to the world.”
I just read Genesis and I didn’t come across any reference to the Big Bang. What religion do I have to subscribe to, what education do I need, who do I have to meet to unlock the secret code of the Bible? I didn’t realize God was so exclusionary. Or that being literate was a requirement for a getting a straight answer for my initial question, “Who created the world?”
Thame
Sep 12, 04:43 AM
“So I guess I don’t see how the existence of the universe needs to have the existence of God.”
The way I see it is that our universe was born during the Big Bang, where everything was born out of an infinitely tiny and dense point of matter. I believe that the Big Bang was a result of a higher being because something must have created the singularity which itself originated in a location outside of time and space (since this singularity would eventually become our universe).
A higher being (God, if you wish) that is located in a...situation...beyond our imagination and our universe created this singularity and set it in motion.
“What religion do I have to subscribe to?”
Frankly, I don’t. Sometimes, a religion can painfully binding.
Tom
Sep 12, 07:26 AM
Why would you believe in God when it’s obviously not necessary.
Give me a reason to believe in God, that is valid, and I’ll think about converting myself into a religious… Just one reason to believe in him.
Ken
Sep 12, 08:09 AM
“I just read Genesis and I didn’t come across any reference to the Big Bang.”
And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. Genisis 1:3. To cause light
What religion do I have to subscribe to, what education do I need, who do I have to meet to unlock the secret code of the Bible? I didn’t realize God was so exclusionary. Or that being literate was a requirement for a getting a straight answer for my initial question, “Who created the world?””
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genisis 1:1. That’s about as straight an answer as God can give.
I’ve been a renewed Christian for 15 years (i had my time doing my own thing) and I still struggle with understanding. Everyone does. Sometimes it makes sense, some times it’s ‘huh?’. However, I find that the more I study my bible the more I understand. Reading the bible is developing a relationship with God. Relationships take time. Good ones take forever.
As for evolution, lets remember that not too long ago it was still called a ‘theory’. Now we embrace it as fact.
The odd thing is that our universe has one constant and that is decay. Things die. They are born, grow a bit and then slowly decay and die.
Another constant is that mutations do not improve a species. Species do adapt to that which is consistent with their species (i.e. monkey’s grow thicker fur in cold climates. Monkeys do not grow wings to fly away from the cold.). Now we are supposed to believe that given millions of years and mutation, life as we know it came to pass?
Yeah, and those flying monkeys are coming out of my butt.
Ben
Sep 12, 09:50 AM
I have debated with a lot of people about this issue and I’ve come to the conclusion that there is a larger force responsible for the universe and a planned evolution of the species on the planet. I beleive in evolution, but I don’t believe it was random.
If you look at how well organized nature is it’s hard to believe that all of these pieces to a huge puzzle could have simply fallen into place without some sort of higher planner or an intelligent force.
I don’t believe in the Christian God that takes an active role in every day life and I don’t believe human beings have a life that was planned out for them.
I simple think we are fortunate to be given a chance at this life and that random occurences and “fate” make it interesting.
Greg
Sep 12, 03:37 PM
I see a poster, a nice font, an amazing website… it would be ridiculous to assume that it just ‘appeared’, out of nowhere. That it is just there, made up of the fabric of the universe.
I don’t think it overtly but rather assume that the ‘designer’ is out there somewhere. I don’t know his name or where he lives and I have no idea what he looks like but I see the result of his work and I know that he exists.
greg
Sep 12, 03:50 PM
Tom: “Give me a reason to believe in God”
You are right, there is no reason to believe in God. But I think (and it’s only what I think) you are missing the point. God (or whatever you want to call him, Big Bang if you like) exists regardless of whether anyone believes in him. God (or this thing we are discussing here) is not a religion and I would discourage you from ‘converting to’ any religion.
I would only encourange you to do some thinking – ‘soul searching’ as I like to call it. Look at the facts put before you in your life and make up your own mind about what to belive in. After all, what is it you are ‘converting’ from and why is it you are searching for a reason?
Thame
Sep 12, 06:37 PM
“Why would you believe in God when it’s obviously not necessary.”
It is certainly not a requirement, but I feel that it helps me explain other phenomenon in our universe.
“I have debated with a lot of people about this issue and I’ve come to the conclusion that there is a larger force responsible for the universe and a planned evolution of the species on the planet. I beleive in evolution, but I don’t believe it was random.”
I agree Ben, nature is simply too complex (from the tiniest intercellular interactions to the movement of entire animals) to have been the result of random mutation.
“I would only encourange you to do some thinking – ‘soul searching’ as I like to call it. Look at the facts put before you in your life and make up your own mind about what to belive in.”
Those are wise words Greg.
Sorry I couldn’t reply to each comment in-depth, but I only have a few minutes before my next class.
In the meantime, keep the discussion going!
Vik
Sep 12, 08:29 PM
Weird stuff..
I’m Hindu, our faith/religion states
Our Gods were like humans, they had their versions of aircrafts/ flying devices, had versions of most of our mordern day devices.
Also states that creation to destruction of earth is described in 10 phases and as 10 avatars of god,
1> as a fish (water)
2> as turtle (amphibian)
3> boar (land)
4>Half Human /Half Animal
5>Human(preacher)
6>Human(Warrior)
7>Human(King)
8>Human(Strategist/Politician)
9>Human(Preacher – Peace)
10> Human (Destroyer)
Sounds like the process of evolution…
weird isnt it?
Now the question is was/is god an alien much more advanced than us running a test case/ study on earth/our universe???
Jack
Sep 13, 12:19 AM
on evolution:
Evolution is not mutation. It’s unreasonable to assume that monkeys simply grew wings just as it is unreasonable to say superheroes can gain powers through irradiation.
Evolution is the slow accumulation of genetic changes that occur naturally. The process of reproduction is random, even brothers have varied genetic structure. Nature “tries out” a varied range of genetic combinations, based from a predefined median, and those that survive are deemed superior and forms the new median. Whenever a change is introduced into the environment, the genetic median shifts, and slowly as the environment changes, so does the genetic structure of various species.
I do not believe that nature is complex. The physical world is extremely simple, based on strict rules of nuclear bonding and particle sets. The reason we percieve it as complex is because of our large magnification. At any time when a large number of random elements are introduced to a closed system, patterns will emerge. However the underlying rules governing the system can be very simple.
I’m agnostic and I do not believe that god can be found through empirical analysis. Spirituality does not overlap with reality. (is there a physical manifestation of the soul?)
Thame
Sep 13, 06:43 PM
Yes, I’m afraid many here are taking a Lamarckian approach to evolution. Jack explains it best:
“Evolution is the slow accumulation of genetic changes that occur naturally.”
_________________________________________________
“The physical world is extremely simple, based on strict rules of nuclear bonding and particle sets.”
It is true that the most basic elements of our universe are rigid and simple, but as we extend toward the macroscopic world, the complexity and intricacy of every facet of our universe is astounding.
”(is there a physical manifestation of the soul?)”
Ahh... The soul. It is worth an article in itself!
Caleb
Sep 14, 12:36 AM
It seems you do in fact believe that God exists. If that is the case do you not think he would reveal Himself to us? I belive he does and I believe this is done in the Bible.
You may ask well what about the Koran and other relegious texts. Well I do believe they are false. The Bible attests itself that only it is true.
Another question. If God indeed does exist and does reveal Himself, why would He decieve us by having multiple texts and relegions. Well, God can not be a deciever, so only one can be true.
Sctripture tells us of a triune God. Father, Son and Spirit. The three are mysteriously one, but yet still three. And God sent his son to die on a cross to pay the penalty for our sins, for His wrath was against us for our sin.
True relegion is found in Jesus Christ and faith in Him and his accomplishments on the cross. It is only through Christ we can know God. Not thru ourself. Christ is our mediator to God by His Spirit.
lr
Sep 14, 09:11 AM
What an interesting topic. Although Christian, I agree that religions are “binding” in that questioning appears to be roundly discouraged – and usually for internal political reasons.
In my view, though, the Christian Bible is a book of wisdom. Read from beginning to end, one will find nothing but contradictions, but this doesn’t make it any less wise. Both the wisdom and the history presented in it are spiritual in nature and our philosophies are simply a constant struggle for greater understanding.
To the best of my knowledge, the Bible never addresses anything scientifically, but is concerned with internal struggles/motivations and external triumphs/misfortunes.
Other religions are just as wise and I’m thinking primarily of Eastern philosophies here. I do not exclude them from my own spiritual journey (to the dismay of my fellow Christians), but rather embrace any idea which resonates as true, dispensing with those which come across as false. In doing so, I’ve found remarkable similarities across the board and have come to the conclusion that God has chosen to reveal himself to different people of different cultures in different ways – ways they can understand and relate to based on their own experience. The universality of these similar concepts (arrived at despite the relative isolation of different cultures for the greater part of human history) is just one more indication to me that God does, indeed, exist.
I identify myself as Christian not because I was brought up in it. In fact, that experience actually turned me against it. But the Great Spirit would have none of that and convinced me of His existence by opening my eyes to the moments at which He’d been at work in my life. Those were the moments in which I’d made exceedingly wise decisions. Considering I very much doubt I possess any wisdom myself, that’s proof enough for me. :)
Specifically, I’m Christian because I don’t believe a thirty-something carpenter from a small town in the Middle East could have come by so much wisdom so quickly on his own. I’m therefore convinced he was who he said he was.
To believe or not is as subjective as it gets. If there’s any experimenting going on, that’s it: Free will.
We seem to get a little lost when we try to reconcile the concept of God with our physical universe and I have many strange ideas about that which I will spare you. (You have no idea how lucky you are on that score.) Suffice to say, if one believes the physical world – and us along with it – were created by a higher being, that same being gave us the means to understand and utilize our surroundings for physical sustenance and well-being, i.e. pharmaceuticals are ultimately derived from plants. Medicine, Physics, Astronomy and all other forms of human understanding were inspired (or created, same difference) by the source of all life.
Creation never stopped. Evolution never stopped. They have always been; they will always be and that didn’t change when King James said “Put a ‘The End’ there”. That being the case, why should we not continue to question, grow and evolve in our understanding? I get the feeling we’re expected to do so.
To whit, there is nothing to indicate to me that God is constantly driving His creation. The hurricane that just hit the gulf coast, for example, was not specifically “His doing”. He created physical laws, mathematical laws and spiritual laws to govern His creation and put the whole shebang on automatic. At least, that’s how it looks from where I sit. He might step in to alter DNA every once in a while, allowing the racoons that wandered from North America to South America to develop a prehensile tail so they might have a better chance at survival… or something. Perhaps “Natural Selection” is just a little tweaking here and there.
The physical universe inspires us to wonder about these things, though, and I believe we’re curious for a reason: He wants to be known. He wants us to care for His creation (which is something we’ve royally screwed up) and He wants to be loved and appreciated for it.
As for the Trinity, I don’t think it’s all that mysterious. It’s just a revelation in stages as we’ve developed as a species: The mind of God; the heart of God and the spirit of God. As infants, we needed a stern father. As teenagers, we needed the heart to consider our fellow man. As adults (considering the inestimable destruction our “toys” can bring about), we needed wisdom – the spirit of God moving among us.
Mind + body + spirit = Trinity. We were made in His image. Makes sense to me.
Sorry to ramble, but you all have fired way too many neurons there and I’m given to understand that making “essay-worthy” comments is chief among my greatest faults.
The acquisition of knowledge is a journey that never ends….
Daniel Nicolas
Sep 15, 08:52 PM
Nice site. I believe in God too.
Orikinla Osinachi
Sep 29, 04:14 PM
This debate has been going on since Genesis to date. And God is enjoying all our searches for the Truth.
My late father was a certified Metaphysician who did awesome things that ordinary mortals cannot do. For example there is a power called the HAMZAD that seems like the ultimate power, but it is of the devil.
Who watched “Brother, Where Art Thou?”
This is an American film and in that film the three escaped convicts met one black man with a guitar at a T-Junction on the road and they asked him what he was doing there. He replied that he was there to exchange his soul for the devil’s favour. And I was wondering about the universal analogy of this to those of us in Africa, because African Voodoo or Juju devotees always met with the devil and his demons at the T-Junction. If you visit Nigeria, you will sooner or later notice sacrifices in calabashes or earthen vessels placed at T-Junctions in most villages and towns in Western Nigeria. And my father and I often did the same invocations of the spirits at the T-Junction. And these supernatural elements are as real as you and I. And they believe in God and they tremble at the mention of the Holy Name of Jesus Christ. So, who are you mere mortals to challenge the existence of God in your foolishness and ignorance when even the devils fear the wrath of God JEHOVAH.
Krishna Prasad
Feb 23, 02:20 PM
An atheist professor of philosophy speaks to his class on the
problem science has with God, The Almighty.
He asks one of his new students to stand and…..
Prof: So you believe in God?
Student: Absolutely, sir.
Prof: Is God good?
Student: Sure.
Prof: Is God all-powerful?
Student: Yes.
Prof: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to God to heal
him.
Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But God didn’t.
How is this God good then? Hmm?
Student: (Student is silent.)
Prof: You can’t answer, can you? Let’s start again, young fella. Is
God good?
Student: Yes.
Prof: Is Satan good?
Student: No.
Prof: Where does Satan come from?
Student: From…God…
Prof: That’s right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?
Student: Yes.
Prof: Evil is everywhere, isn’t it? And God did make everything.
Correct?
Student: Yes.
Prof: So who created evil?
Student: (Student does not answer.)
Prof: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these
terrible things exist in the world, don’t they?
Student: Yes, sir.
Prof: So, who created them?
Student: (Student has no answer.)
Prof: Science says you have 5 senses you use to identify and observe
the world around you. Tell me, son…Have you ever seen God?
Student: No, sir.
Prof: Tell us if you have ever heard your God?
Student: No , sir.
Prof: Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God, smelt your God?
Have you ever had any sensory perception of God for that matter?
Student: No, sir. I’m afraid I haven’t.
Prof: Yet you still believe in Him?
Student: Yes.
Prof: According to empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol,
science says your GOD doesn’t exist. What do you say to that, son?
Student: Nothing. I only have my faith.
Prof: Yes. Faith. And that is the problem science has.
Student: Professor, is there such a thing as heat?
Prof: Yes.
Student: And is there such a thing as cold?
Prof: Yes.
Student: No sir. There isn’t.
(The lecture theatre becomes very quiet with this turn of events.)
Student: Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat,
mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don’t have
anything called cold.
We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we can’t go
any further after that.
There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to
describe the absence of heat.
We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of
heat, sir, just the absence of it.
(There is pin-drop silence in the lecture theatre.)
Student: What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as
darkness?
Prof: Yes. What is night if there isn’t darkness?
Student: You’re wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of
something.
You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing
light….But if you have no light constantly, you have nothing and
it’s called darkness, isn’t it?
In reality, darkness isn’t. If it were, you would be able to make
darkness darker, wouldn’t you?
Prof: So what is the point you are making, young man?
Student: Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.
Prof: Flawed? Can you explain how?
Student: Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue
there is life and then there is death, a good God and a bad God.
You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we
can
measure.
Sir, science can’t even explain a thought. It uses electricity and
magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one.
To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact
that death cannot exist as a substantive thing.
Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it. Now tell
me, Professor.
Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?
Prof: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes,
of course, I do.
Student: Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?
Prof: (The Professor shakes his head with a smile, beginning to
realize
where the argument is going.)
Student: Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at
work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going
endeavour, are you not teaching your opinion, sir?
Are you not a scientist but a
preacher?
Prof: (The class is in uproar.)
Student: Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the
Professor’s brain?
Prof: (The class breaks out into laughter.)
Student: Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor’s
brain, felt it, touched or smelt it?.....No one appears to have done
so.
So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable,
demonstrable
protocol, science says that you have no brain, sir.
With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?
Prof: (The room is silent. The professor stares at the student, his
face unfathomable.)
Prof: I guess you’ll have to take them on faith, son.
Student: That is it sir.. The link between man & God is FAITH. That
is all that keeps things moving & alive
Thame
Feb 26, 07:57 AM
An interesting analysis of the anecdote above as well as my comments can be found here
mdk
Mar 23, 11:13 PM
Your belief isn’t necessarily saying that you believe in God as others may think. When the word God comes into peoples minds who are from other religions such as Christianity or Catholic, they allegedly see God as a physical being or a Grandfather figure. This is quite worrying, people putting their faith into a book that some caveman wrote. If you didn’t watch “The Root Of All Evil”. It showed some snippets from the bible which basically said, “If others believe in a different God you must stone them to death (even if they are family members)”. Why arn’t people stoning each other to death anymore? Because over the years people have changed religion into what they want, extracting bits from the bible to suit them. Even the government is contradicting itself stating gays can get married, yet years ago you couldn’t because the bible said so. Sorry if my opinions or thoughts offended anyone, but I like evidence and provend facts. Too many people are deluded by beliefs passed down generation after generation.
mdk
Mar 23, 11:17 PM
I wasn’t aiming that post at you in specific, I was looking at the other side to religion in which people base their beliefs on the bible.
Colleen
Mar 25, 11:34 PM
I think that it’s very important to look at one’s own religion critically carefully. It is when people start to believe whatever they are told that religion becomes a dangerous force that can control people and coerce them into doing terrible things. Fudamentalist religious beliefs can fuel wars and genocide, induced by intolerence of outside groups. Now just because I think that one needs to be critiical of religion does not mean that I think religion is necessarily useless. Applied properly, religion has the power to do good, and gives individuals and groups the inspiration to do wonderful things. The key is in living according to the religion’s values in a way that makes sense in our modern society.
I do not take much of what is written in the Old Testament of the Bible to heart. I see it as being there for contrast, showing readers the huge difference between the values of the time and the very radical messages that Jesus preached. However, even the New Testament needs to be read and interpreted within a modern context. One needs to consider the culture in which the Bible was recorded, consider the underlying message of the story, and think about how that message may be applied today.
Whether you are religious or not, you have to admit that the great religious books offer some interesting insights into humanity, and some very nice ideas about how one should live. Religious books can be seen as literature. They too evoke different emotional responses from readers and can have an effect on how you think and behave. I think that you should approach religious works with the same mind with which you might approach a novel or poem. Some parts may resonate with you, others may not. Either way, you’ll come away with impressions of the work as a whole that you may then apply consciously or subconsciously (after all, what are our best ideas but synthesized fragments of what we learned or read elsewhere) to other things.
Mike Whalen
Apr 23, 11:47 PM
I know this comment box is meant for Me to make You an Atheist but I am not going to do that.
Growing up Catholic and in a Catholic school system I learned about God and about Evolution. At a young age I never really questioned the fact of God not being a presence of creation until I took in a Philosophy class in College. There, I was blown away by the Philosophy that I was reading day in and day out. I took a step back and evaluated my faith and what know now from what I knew then. And one argument I presented in class was very similar to yours:
“If the entire universe began at the Big Bang, the singularity that “exploded” must have originated from an object or being that is outside of our universe, since this creator would have created our time and space.”
It was the first argument that also made me look deeply into existence itself and what we are as humans.
I enjoyed this argument and your views, right or wrong they are valid.
Thame
Apr 24, 08:58 AM
Hi Mike:
That problem (about the big bang) is something that I haven’t been able to get. It just doesn’t fit in with anything.
David
May 17, 09:06 PM
If God existed
A man went to a barbershop to have his hair cut and his beard trimmed. As the barber began to work, they began to have a good conversation. They talked about so many things and various subjects. When they eventually touched on the subject of God, the barber said: “I don’t believe that God exists.” “Why do you say that?” asked the customer.
“Well, you just have to go out in the street to realize that God doesn’t exist. Tell me, if God exists, would there be so many sick people? Would there be abandoned children? If God existed, there would be neither suffering nor pain. I can’t imagine a loving a God who would allow all of these things.”
The customer thought for a moment, but didn’t respond because he didn’t want to start an argument. The barber finished his job and the customer left the shop. Just after he left the barbershop, he saw a man in the street with long, stringy, dirty hair and an untrimmed beard. He looked dirty and unkempt.
The customer turned back and entered the barber shop again and he said to the barber: “You know what? Barbers do not exist.”
“How can you say that?” asked the surprised barber. “I am here, and I am a barber. And I just worked on you!”
“No!” the customer exclaimed. “Barbers don’t exist because if they did, there would be no people with dirty long hair and untrimmed beards, like that man outside.”
“Ah, but barbers DO exist! ” answered the barber. ” What happens is, people do not come to me.”
“Exactly!”- Affirmed the customer. “That’s the point! God, too, DOES exist! What happens, is, people don’t go to Him and do not look for Him. That’s why there’s so much pain and suffering in the world.”
(Author unknown)
The Bible isn’t the most printed book on the planet for no reason… millions of Christians throughout the ages haven’t died for the gospel for no reason…
Why not open it up? (It doesn’t bit. lol)
A book known as Matthew is a good place to start…
Charles
May 17, 09:16 PM
EVOLUTION HOPES YOU DON’T KNOW CHEMISTRY
:THE PROBLEM OF CONTROL
According to modern evolutionary theory, the recipe for life is a chance accumulation of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen; add a pinch of phosphorus and sulfur, simmer for millions of years, and repeat if necessary. As a Ph.D. organic chemist, I am trained to understand the principles of chemistry, but this is not how chemicals react. Chemicals reacting with chemicals is a chemical reaction, and chemical reactions do not produce life. Life must create life. In the chemical literature, there is not a single example of life resulting from a chemical reaction. If life from chemicals were possible, it would be called spontaneous generation, an idea that scientists once thought happened in nature. Centuries ago, scientists used to believe that bread crumbs turned into mice because if you left bread crumbs on a table and returned later, the crumbs were gone and only mice were present. When true science got involved, they learned the truth that bread crumbs only attracted the mice that ate the crumbs. These scientists were quick to propose a theory that sounded reasonable until, that is, they studied the process and learned otherwise.
Proteins and DNA are complicated chemical molecules that are present within our body. Cells which make up the living body contain DNA, the blueprint for all life, and proteins regulating biochemical processes, leading scientists to conclude these components are the cause of life. While it is true that all living bodies have proteins and DNA, so do dead bodies. These chemicals are necessary for life to exist, but they do not “create” life by their presence; they only “maintain” the life that is already present. However, this is not the only problem with the “life from chemicals” theory.
Why do evolutionists vehemently proclaim the “life from chemicals” theory? Because if proteins and DNA only maintain life without creating it, then something else must have accomplished its origins. Evidence such as this points to an Omnipotent Creator, but they are not willing to make that concession.
Scientists can only look at life as it exists today, and try to determine how life originated in the past. They look at the end result and try to determine the process by which it was formed. Imagine looking at a photograph and trying to determine the brand of camera that was used to take the picture. Could you do it? Evolutionists have the same problem when they claim that life comes from chemicals. They look at the end result and propose a theory without ever observing the process. Scientists cannot study the past. Scientists can only look at the present and make theories about what happened in the past that would make the present the way it is today. When evolutionary scientists study the origins of life, they propose that all life resulted from chemical reactions by natural processes, overlooking the fact that chemical processes do not “naturally” behave in this manner. If you accepted chemical reactions as they occur, you would not believe that life came solely from chemicals. Is it legitimate to propose that evolution started in some primordial soup, when the long chain polymers that are present in proteins and DNA are so complicated that the level of chemical control needed during the chain building process is beyond the realm of natural chemistry? Let’s take a closer look at proteins and DNA, and the problems of their synthesis by evolutionary processes. Proteins are long polymers of amino acids linked in a chain. There are thousands of proteins within the human body, and they all differ by the sequence of the amino acids on the polymer chain. DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid,) is a polymer of nucleotides. Nucleotides themselves are complicated chemical molecules consisting of a deoxyribose molecule and a phosphate chemically bonded to one of the following heterocycles: guanine, cytosine, thymine, and adenine. Although there are only four different heterocycles, the DNA chain contains billions of nucleotides connected together in a long precisely ordered chain. The sequence of the human DNA chain is so complicated, that even with the sophisticated scientific equipment available today, we still do not know the complete sequence. Proteins and DNA contain a unique order of the individual components. The order of the individual components is not a repeating pattern such as ABABAB or AABBAABB, but it is not a random order either. The order in these natural polymers is very precise, and it is this highly ordered sequence that allows these polymers to perform their intended purpose in the human body. If the sequence is changed even slightly, the altered polymer is no longer capable of performing the same function as the natural protein or DNA. If these polymers were formed by evolution in some primordial soup, then we should be able to explain how natural chemical processes were responsible for forming the sequence of amino acids. Evolutionists would say that amino acids eventually combined to form proteins and the nucleotide molecules combined to form DNA, and from them, life. To someone not trained in chemistry, this might sound like a reasonable process, but this is not how chemical reactions work.
Chemists are trained to understand the mechanisms of how molecules react and how to activate molecules so they will react predictably and in a controlled fashion. If a chemist wanted to synthesize the polymer chain of proteins or DNA in the laboratory, the starting compounds must be first activated so that they will begin to react. The chemist must then control the reactivity and the selectivity of the reactants so that the desired product is formed.
The problem with life arising from chemicals is a three-fold problem: chemical stability, chemical reactivity, and chemical selectivity during the chain building process. But evolutionists propose that these complex polymer chains built themselves in a precise, unlikely pattern, without an intelligent chemist controlling the reactions.
Chemical Stability
Chemical stability is a question of whether the components can even react at all. By definition, all components in a hypothetical primordial soup would be stable, because if they were not, they would have already reacted. Amino acids are relatively stable in water and do not react to form proteins in water, and nucleotides do not react to form DNA. In order to make amino acids and nucleotides react to form a polymer, they must be chemically activated to react with other chemicals. But this chemical activation must be done in the absence of water because the activated compounds will react with water and break down. How could proteins and DNA be formed in a hypothetical primordial watery soup if the activated compounds required to form them cannot exist in water? This is the problem of Chemical Stability.
Chemical Reactivity
Chemical reactivity deals with how fast the components react in a given reaction. If life began in a primordial soup by natural chemical reactions, then the laws of chemistry should be able to predict the sequence of these chains. But when amino acids react chemically, they react according to their reactivity, and not in some specified order necessary for life. As the protein or DNA chain is increasing in size through chemical reaction, we should see the most reactive amino acid adding to the chain first, followed by the next most reactive amino acid, and so on. Let’s assume that we begin with the sequence R-T-X, and will add two amino acids “B” and “A” to it. If amino acid “B” is the most reactive amino acid, the sequence would be R-T-X-B-A. However, if “A” is the most reactive amino acid, then the sequence would be R-T-X-A-B. In a random chemical reaction, the sequence of amino acids would be determined by the relative reactivity of the different amino acids. The polymer chain found in natural proteins and DNA has a very precise sequence that does not correlate with the individual components’ reaction rates. Since all of the amino acids have relatively similar structures, they all have similar reaction rates; they will all react at about the same rate making the precise sequence by random chemical reactions unthinkably unlikely. This is the problem of Chemical Reactivity.
Chemical Selectivity
Chemical selectivity is a problem of where the components react. Since the chain has two ends, the amino acids can add to either end of the chain. Even if by some magical process, a single amino acid “B” would react first as desired for the pre-determined life supporting sequence followed by a single amino acid “A,” the product would be a mixture of at least four isomers because there are two ends to the chain. If there is an equal chance of amino acid “B” reacting in two different locations, then half will react at one end, half at the other end. The result of adding “B” will form two different products. When the addition of amino acid “A” occurs, it will react at both ends of the chain of both the products already present. As in the previous example, the major products would be R-T-X-B-A and A-R-T-X-B as well as A-B-R-T-X and B-R-T-X-A and others. The result is a mixture of several isomers of which the desired sequence seldom results, and this is the problem with only two amino acids reacting. As the third amino acid is added, it can react at both ends of four products, and so on, insuring randomness, not a precise sequence.
Since proteins may contain hundreds or thousands of amino acids in a sequence, imagine the huge number of undesired isomers that would be present if these large proteins were formed in a random process. Evolutionists might argue that all proteins were formed in this manner, and nature simply selected the ones that worked. However, this is only an ad hoc assumption and it ignores the fact that we do not have billions of “extra” proteins in our body. Furthermore, nature is not intelligent. There is nothing in nature to do the selecting all-the-while splicing together non-functioning (therefore non-selectable) amino acids toward a working whole. Evolutionists say that nature is blind, has no goal, and no purpose, and yet precise selection at each step is necessary. This is the problem of Chemical Selectivity.
The chemical control needed for the formation of a specific sequence in a polymer chain is just not possible in a random process. The synthesis of proteins and DNA in the laboratory requires the chemist to control the reaction conditions, to thoroughly understand the reactivity and selectivity of each component, and to carefully control the order of addition of the components as the chain is building in size. The successful formation of proteins and DNA in some primordial soup would require the same control of the reactivity and selectivity, and that would require the existence of a chemical controller. But chemicals cannot think, plan, or organize themselves to do anything. How can chemicals know what it is they’re making? How can a chemical reaction make a protein or DNA, put it in an eye, heart, or brain, and do it without a controlling mechanism that knows what the end product is supposed to look like? This sounds much more like the work of an Omniscient Creator. Evolutionists have always been quick to claim that life came from chemicals, but their theory does not hold up to scientific scrutiny. Evolution claims that random chance natural processes formed life as we know it, but they fail to mention that their theory is anything but random or natural! This is the false logic of evolution. Evolutionists just hope you don’t know chemistry!
*Dr. Charles McCombs is a Ph.D. organic chemist trained in the methods of scientific investigation, and a scientist who has 20 chemical patents. – IMPACT No. 374 August 2004
by Dr. Charles McCombs* © Copyright 2004 Institute for Creation Research. All Rights Reserved
The second law of Thermal Dynamics states that as time goes on randomness increases. Add that to this point!
chris
May 19, 02:54 PM
My reasons for not believeing in God can be found
rantingwithfreaksandgeeks.blogspot.com
But let me say in response to this: “In fact, I have asked God to put humankind out of their misery…”
This scares me. To my very core. I have long ago given up with trying to understand humanity, 94% of america believes in God, and I am saddened by this fact.
Oh, and for all of you that say “God had to exist to start the Big-Bang…” or something to that effect, at this singularity, time and space did not exist. ALL DIMENSIONS CAME OUT OF THE BIG BANG! To say that god existed out of the singularity is nonesense. To say that God had to create the singularity is nonsense, because time did not exist before the Big Bang took place. And the Big-Bang was not an expolsion, it was a spontaneous expansion of spacetime.
As for the Second LAw of Thermodynamics, you cannot just change what it says and means and expect to be right. The Second Law Of Thermodynamics states that “For any spontaneous action within a physical system, the net entropy of the universe tends to increase.” This is based on simple mathematical probability. Throw a deck of cards up in the air, stack them up again and what are the chances of them being in the same order? It’s the same principle. This in no way acts against evolution; as evolution doesn’t actually comprise the whole chemicals-to-life scenario you depicted. And besides, what, pray tell, does something that has so very little effect on day-to-day life as entropy have to do with any of this?
I will say it to the end of my days, God does not exist.
Litel Macster
Jul 5, 02:00 PM
I like that you reference “outside” the universe. But to say something about something outside the universe means you have knowledge of information outside the universe. That is a direction violation of all field and conservation equations. Even a single bit of information from the “outside” would throw off the whole balance. Saying for certain that something is or isn’t outside the universe is presumptuous. At a superficial level Christians and Atheists are opposites, but at a very deep level (and more important level) they’re the exact samething. They both put FAITH in having knowledge of something outside the universe when they don’t.
Josef Petr Antonín Strzibny, česky Stříbný
Jul 7, 03:35 AM
I just have to say that I also believe in God, in our Holy Father.
...Credo in Deum Patrem Omnipotentem…
D3NIS
Jul 25, 10:58 AM
I don’t see why there should be a contradiction between the idea of God and no-God. There many layers to understanding and interpreting the world. One of them is science, another is religion. They do not contradict but compliment each other in those places where one of the theories fails to function. They are both parts of the universal knowledge about the world expressed in different terms.
Forgive me the analogy with Wordpress, but science and religion are two different themes for the same world engine.
j
Aug 31, 12:14 AM
what has man taught man?
what has “God” taught man?
Nick Wardle
Aug 31, 09:19 AM
Evolution: Why is it so impossible to believe the historical, empirical evidence of genetic incrementation through natural selection? “Every long journey begins with a small step..” as the saying goes.
Even if one simply refuses to “believe” these observations, why is it so impossible to accept that, within a duration of time such as that estimated for the current age of this universe and amongst the significant quantity of environments that could support life – in its multitude of forms! – that exist within the theoretical boundaries of this universe, it is even remotely unlikely that we should not have evolved to our current level of “complexity”...?
Or, to put it another way – given the time, the building blocks and number of possibilities for life – we are the enevitable consequence of chemical interractions.
Religion: Is belief on its own enough to prove existence? This seems to be a fundamental sticking point between science and religion. However, perhaps by seeking proof, you might be missing the point. In fact, it is often the case that people state belief or faith when the item in question canNOT be (easily) proven.
For example: when all the perceived and known facts of a situation point to a negative outcome, an individual often seems to have no recourse but to “have faith” that everything will “turn out all right”. This refusal to accept a negative hypothesis, in spite of current “wisdom”, is surely what drives us, humans, to achieve the impossible, to strive for “better”, to hope…
I suggest that God, faith, praying and similar theological theories and activities are actually the manifestation of our ability to HOPE for a better tomorrow; the resource of inner strength which we call on (and anthropomorphise in the form of deities) when all “real” evidence suggests a hopeless conclusion.
I also suggest that this could explain why people tend to turn to religion in times of difficulty and also why zealous followers of religion need a certain element of negativity in their ideology (I am not trying to offend) to maintain a focus for their zeal.
The question asked by those who search for proof of God, or any other deity’s, existence is misdirected outwards. Each individual has as much need to believe in a potential non-empirical solution to situations they encounter, depending on their unique psychological coping strategies.
j
Aug 31, 08:55 PM
what does A.D. and B.C. mean?
some one told me it has to do with christ.
so i’m assuming that time its self is based on this dude we call christ. does any one think its wierd that its the year 2006 but dinasaurs were around 65 million years ago? and what’s up with the missing link between ape and man. have we found it yet? what about noahs ark or the tomb of jesus christ? if any thing we should look a little harder, in my beliefs i’m told to question every thing. im just looking for a few answers. i think it’s great that we can share such different views and knowledge. (i didn’t say wisdom)
j
Aug 31, 10:11 PM
so i read a bible and it says that god spat on the ground and man was created in his image. but it doesn’t say how long it took for man to reach this “image.” so yeah maybe man and ape have a lot in common, but it took some “thing” to seperate them down the line of evolution. why don’t any animals have complex thoughts? like love, faithfullness, hate.i would think by now that turtles would communicate more intrecatly instead of with simple sounds given the “fact” that they’ve been around a long time. why can’t a cat or dog just speak to me in english?
I’ve also heard that the word of christ can not be understood until you accept the holy spirit.
A.D. after death (of who) and B.C. before christ?
so we don’t belive in God we just run our lives around Him, always ignoring His presence.
Paul S.
Feb 8, 05:04 PM
If someone like Tom wants to understand more about God and get a taste or experience of what is in store for your soul I suggest they contact www.metaphysical-journey.com.
Believers and non-believers can enrich their knowledge through an actual experience.
Kezzer
Apr 26, 12:43 PM
Interesting article. Have you ever looked into infinite regression though? If you take the Big Band theory into consideration then you also have to take into account the science behind the Big Bang. Something had to create that matter in the first place in order for it to exist. This is where life becomes easy for believers in God, because we can just place our faith in Him knowing that he is the one who created everything.
I think life is equally as difficult for both atheists as well as religious people for the fact that both creationism and evolution just goes around in circles when you come to the root of the creation.
At the end of the day, are scientists ever going to find out where we came from? Surely that’s impossible? The universe is infinite is it not?
Brutal Capitalist
Apr 27, 10:25 PM
Personally I’m a tentative atheist. I was raised in a Christian household with a super-Christian sister and mother and non-specified theist dad. I also have a healthy interest in history. As I look through history I look at how the Church grew and formed a stronghold throughout the Middle Ages, whether it be through the plague or life on the Manor or life in a medieval town. The church had such a stronghold that it would be impossible for it not to be the major religion passed from generation to generation.
So, I’ve stopped taking into account my inclination towards a god because I’ve realized it’s partially due to indoctrination (parents and a Christian school).
As far as the Big Bang question goes, I don’t see why it’s a more legitimate claim to say that God has existed forever than it is to say that whatever went bang existed forever.
matthew
Dec 18, 12:12 AM
“in the begining the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep, and Elohim(the God) said “Let there be light. And there was light, and God saw that the light was good, and he seperated the light from the darkness. (Perhaps to those who will see it in the passage above “E=Mc square) Al creation bears witness to God the King, and your conscience bears witness of the Law of God therefore no one will have an excuse . “Professing to be wise, they have become fools” for “the fool has said in his heart there is no God.” But Adonai. The God of Israel. He is God and there is no other both in the heavens above and on the earth beneath. Yet now “we see through the glass dimly, but then face to face.” It is appointed for man to die once and then the judgment where everyone will give and account for every word spoken. And act committed be it in public or in private and in secret. Everything is laid bare before the Lord of all creation. You will die, and every idle thought and idea will die with you. Who will save you from the grip of death, and who will spare you from the wrath to come? But the righteous/just shall live by faith. Yeshua is quoted as saying “He who believes in me, though He die, yet he shall live.” Choose Jesus. Choose life.
Markus
Jan 4, 03:17 PM
Things that are more likely than the existence of on omnipotent, omnipresent being aka god:
- the input of our senses is virtual and controlled by non-supernatural being
- we are just souled without a body the are dreaming in an ethereal realm (what doesnt mean its supernatural)
-> we know nothing about the real world- we are living in the real world, but it was created and/or is controlled by extremly mighty creatures, that are nor super natural. They are that mighty because of technology or natural abilities
- the world is far more complex than we thought. Like Einstein revolutionised physics, but maybe special relativity and uncertainly principle are only one step of many into the true nature of reality. Maybe there is an etheric plane, that can be scientificly explained and where the pattern of are synapse is burned into.
- the minds of all humans are connected and form therefore a single life form, that rightly could be called god, because its omnipotent and present in referring to humanity
Good Reasons to believe in god:
- find an easy explanation for complicated things you will never need to know but you cant stop thinking about
- give your live sense (because science wont and natures/the evolutionary is a bit lame)
- help others and be happy about it (but you wont need god to do this)
- use it as a synonym for something humanity doesnt already or will never understand
- knowledge brought us lot of suffers and may be our end someday
Bad reasons to believe in god
- total ignorance. You should at least know why you ignore something
- use the words of the bible to force your will
- religious fanatism brought us lot of suffers and may be our end someday
At least, we are only humans and will never be able to understand god or the universe.
Thanks for this site and the comments and I love you all ;)