Do you HONESTLY believe in God?

The answer most scientist will give you is Inflation created the universe... Nothing (gas, air and energy) Expanded to create what we call the universe. Scientist can't determine what this energy was that could make the universe expand so quickly and vastly. Scientist also can not figure Where this energy came from, what it is called and beyond that scientist can not find any traces or much proof of this energy still existing.(Or ever existing)

This ekpyrotic theory raises the possibility that the universe is ageless and self-renewing.
By definition that sounds like the exact description most people have of GOD. Alpha and Omega(timeless) :embar: Although at least in the bible they sum up all the creation of the universe and the earth in a short amount of time. God(OR either an omniscient energy) going back and forth across the universe to create something, because nothingness can not exist, all in 1 to 2 pages and got right down to the good stuff like flaws in human nature, and human relationships.

So in response to anyone saying "there is no god" I say prove it. The burden is on anyone making the claim. Good luck.

 

... And? We admit that we don't have the answers. If we did, we wouldn't have a job.

Awful bastardisation of universal models, but lets run with it. Scientists and engineers do not know. We admit that, and it has been established. We research so that we may one day find out, and so that we may one day understand the answers to some of these age old questions.

Why are you bothering to state the obvious?

Not actually a theory, but a concept. Theories are based on evidence, whereas concepts are just ideas that may or may not work, such as God (lol), or bacon icecream.

"I don't want a long answer, so lets skip all of the boring details and go off on a completely different tangent."

... Even if the Bible was not in any way fallible and completely correct, most people want a bit more detail than that. You will NEVER see an article published in a journal like Nature, with just a couple of lines: "So God did this, you can stop looking now people!"

As far as I know, this was a thread about beliefs. No-one has claimed that God absolutely doesn't exist, only that they don't BELIEVE in it. Further, that lack of belief is usually founded by a lack of evidence. As the believer it comes down to you to inherit the burden of proof; you claim a God exists? YOU prove it. Nonbelievers have no burden of proof as they are not claiming anything as fact.

You cannot use a lack of evidence as evidence. Please bother to understand this simple concept.

 

I simply showed the similarities to the scientific theory proofs after years of searching, Has an analogy no better then the theories of religious followers. And I never made any claim To a side you assumed that I had religious backrounds. So why is the burden of proof at all on me, And next why should I even be inclined to prove something you haven't? And if you were just going to repeat everything i said spitefully, and add nothing to the conversation, Why did you even post?

 

You didn't actually bring forward ANY scientific proof. You spouted a generalisation and called it "science".

You implied a claim to believe by telling nonbelievers who have yet to make any claim to prove their disbelief. Implications are not ignored in a logical debate, so rethink your wording next time.

Following your implication, you would be inclined to prove it based on the fact that burden of proof does not logically fall on nonbelievers who have not laid claim that their beliefs are fact. If you're telling them to disprove God on such a stupid notion, how about you disprove my belief in a teapot orbiting Alpha Centauri?

Lastly, you seem to think you posted expecting no-one to want to reply to it. What a strange notion you have there.

 

Well in any conversation yet alone debate, I would hope any implication would be put in place for new credible evidence or to at least bring up a relevant point. I already explained why the burden of proof isn't on me.

So my question is why ask what came before god? If one wants god to answer the question of the creation of the universe. And you have no credible answer other then the ones no better then a notion of a God . And for me not having a care for scientific proof, why is my knowledge base good enough for you to agree with it?

So, I ask again why did you post again?

 

This is pretty much nonsense. Every point posted in rebuttal was entirely relevant, even if some assumptions were made for cohesiveness.

Actually, you didn't. You just tried to shift the burden of proof on to people who aren't actually required to prove anything.

Usually such questions are rhetoric designed to contradict the idea that a God was the very first possible entity. I state again: rhetoric, not literal.

I consider a theory based on evidence better than the notion of a God, however I also admit that much still remains unknown. This has been established ad nauseam already.

Again, this makes little sense. Literally what you just said, was "I don't have a care for scientific proof, but I still want to contend with science".

Edit: It occurred to me that you may have forgotten the grammatical article "as", "And as for me...". I didn't actually say you didn't have a care for scientific proof. What I said was that you haven't actually provided any. Regardless, the following is still relevant.

If you wish to contend with science, even rhetorically, you need to be both logically sound and able to cite your evidence, rather than simply speculate and call it fact.

If you want a literal reason, although I implied one on my last post, here:

I replied because I take issue with your post, so I formed a response. This subforum is a debating and discussion subforum, so such is expected. I am participating in a discussion because I want to.

It sounds like you almost don't want anyone to reply to you, like you just want people to accept what you say without question. It doesn't work that way.

 

Yes this a thread of why people believe in god. But you expect me to defend the idea of a "god", we didn't even address things like Higher powers, supreme beings, supreme vehicles, intelligent design, or divine creators, which can easily run hand and hand with the scientific theories that you want me to disprove. Also there are plenty of mythical creatures and religions with multiple gods, so I ignored your sardonic question again... So I ask one more time why did you post if you didn't want to add anything productive or creative to the conversation with your rhetorical questions?

So some are allowed to use assumptions on the other's behalf, but I am not...? More of a reason why these threads aren't allowed. Where do we draw the line for the stretch. One thing has nothing to do with the other. Honestly I would love some bacon ice cream, but that isn't relevant

Hmm, sounds like you are bashing the idea of a god in a thread that ask for the opinion of believers. I wonder why these aren't allowed again?

Once again, I never stated A god being the first entity, Once again someone else implied that and you ran with it. So no answers to your previous rhetorical question. Hmm, I guess one would Wonder why one would not answer it... Hmm, self explanatory and hypocritical.

I applaud you for admitting that, but Don't be upset at someone with a different preference or someone placing the burden of proof where it belongs, after hoping one topic to another, requesting the opinions of believers. Hmm, I wonder why these threads aren't allowed again?

I was being sardonic. ( I don't apologize. it was well warranted.) You approved they are notions from the science community and you agreed with them. And not siting a source is assumptive of me, but that is hypocritical of you again...

And anyone with basic knowledge of religion would know the answer to your sardonic question. Which I didn't care to answer and still don't.

No your assumptions of me following a traditional christian based religion made me wish not to reply. So for me to be asked to defend a god, I may or may not believe in and take a side and create a thesis on such is absurdly Flawed, and followed up by circular logical.

Your first claim itself was flawed and all other claims fall by the wayside.

 

First and foremost, it's nice to see a discussion on the internet about this topic that is actually filled with logical remarks and a mature audience.

Do I believe there is a God? Yes. Although, my reasoning for my answer is resolved in my own experiences with my own spirituality. Sometimes I question if the 'feelings' I have during prayers, after attending confession, exc. are associated with a higher power, or if they are just a random spur of feelings that I forcefully generate to give reason to believe in a God. During religious practices I feel a sense of pureness overwhelm me. A similar feeling that you get when doing a good deed. It is a feeling that is hard to replicate by doing anything else.

This 'good feeling' isn't the main reason though. I'd have to admit that my fear of God is what holds my belief tight, rather than the love of God. It may sound hostile, and it probably is, but it is vastly similar to many other common situations here on Earth. For example, when your parents threaten you with a punishment if you don't do what they ask, you're obviously going to obey their commands. However, you didn't obey their commands because you loved them, you most likely obeyed their commands because you feared the punishment that would be initiated if you did not follow their commands.

In the modern era, living out a catholic lifestyle does not seem to impose consequences on the society as a whole, so I have no problem or shame living my life as a Catholic, or believing in a God.

 

When did reactions conclude as proof?

 

The question here is if I believe in God, not proofing one exists.

Proofing that a God exists is just as trivial as proofing that one does not exist.

 

jesus loves me yes god created me and i love god for doing so

 

I personally don't believe in any organized religion. I was raised in a non religious family, not that they were atheists, my parents just never attended church, or spoke of any god.
I'm very open minded, and I would like to believe in god, but I'm also a person of science and reasoning, and don't do much based on faith.
Whether or not you believe in the big bang/evolution, or god, there is still a missing factor. The big bang says two kinds of chemicals or atoms were floating in nothingness, and essentially com-busted, or something along those lines. Where did the chemicals come from?
Anyways, there is no way of REALLY knowing.
Whatever way you look at it, you can always question "well what was before that?"
I guess it could be as simple as, the universe just always was. It doesn't need a start, or an end. But as humans, we can't accept that.

 

He's not suggesting that the reactions experienced do conclude as proof, nor is he even remotely suggesting any kind of concrete statement.

That being said, I must ask this -

@ssarekcu

Surely those feelings of "purity" could be self-generated? I'm not saying you're actively forcing yourself to consciously experience these emotions while participating in faithful activities, but on a sub-conscious level couldn't this be the brains way of justifying that fear you mentioned?

Also, this fear of God is arguably the largest problem I have with religion (not God, or A god as such), the imposing threat of an after life in Hell brainwashed into children's minds from a young age - it's sickening.

Like you said, if a parent threatens their child with punishment for wrong doing, 99% of the time the child will take this on board and act accordingly.

The same can be said when religious figures (or parents) impose a similar threat for pseudo-belief. I use the word pseudo because the majority of these situations begin at a young age; far too young for that child to have enough know-how and mental development to make their own mind up.

If a child is told they have to believe in God or else they'll burn in hell for all eternity (this does happen, crazy I know) - especially by a parent or idolised figure in their life, they're going to grow up with this fear dominating their lives. It's wrong. By the time this child is old enough to make up their own mind and do their own research, it's already too late.

ssarekcu, I'm not saying this is you at all, but it certainly seems like this situation could be applicable to others who feel the way you do.

I don't want people to think I'm bashing religion or faith, I'm not. I simply cannot stand the indoctrination of young children. I have no problem with adults believing what they want to believe, as long as they keep it to themselves and don't judge others for not having faith.

I have a sneaky suspicion though, that if the aforementioned indoctrination of children were to altogether halt, very very very few children would grow up to be religious and the church knows this.

This post may seem somewhat fragmented, I'm at work and my manager is beginning to glare at me so I'll edit later.

~Amber

 

yes god is real

 

Just your opinion, of course.

 

Not at all, I do belief in doing right to everyone even if there are no consequences tho.

 

No, i do not believe in god simply because there is no evidence of him ever existing whatsoever. Big bang theory explains everything. What was there before the universe? No one knows, but I know for sure that its not something billions of people believe in.

 

Stick with the first part of your sentence. No one knows. You don't "know for sure" that there is or isn't a(ny) god(s).

 

I do know for sure that god doesnt exist, Why would "god" let terrible accidents happen like 9/11, the tsunami in thailand 2004 or let 400 million kids starve?

 

Once again I'm quite sure believers have an answer to this one, such as - "God works in mysterious ways" or ... "heaven needed more Angels, this is why he killed all those people". It's an argument which literally cannot be won, and ought not to be.

People can be impossible sometimes and can believe what they want to believe. I've given up arguing about such things as it never leads anywhere. A friendly debate is fair enough but after so much to-and-fro it soon becomes personal.