Does God exist?

Well, that was just one theory I was postulating. An important thing to keep in mind is a quantum physics is a developing field with rapidly changing hypotheses. While some of its major theories are agreed upon by most scientists, I have a feeling that these beliefs will be seen as archaic if not incorrect down the road (just look back on the history of science).

I also was not arguing against free will in the sense of executive decision, I was just arguing that, if these decisions can actually be made in the first place and are not illusions, they are predictable. However, if particles are consistently acting in a random matter and the randomness affects things outside of the particles or other particles, then my theory of predictability is incorrect.

 

Okay, but that requires a little faith

Well it seems that scientists tend to agree that free will may be an illusion. But then again, if we look at the randomness of the quantum level, determinism may be an illusion too. But even if both are illusions, does that mean they most certainly do not exist? After all, both are simply ideas to describe an effect. Whether the cause is an illusion or not, the effect is still there.

If you're wondering, I tend to believe in both free will and determinism, as I implied before.

Also, if you want, read this (http://pjmazumdar.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/randomness-vs-determinism/). I don't agree with everything, but the author does bring up some interesting points.

 

You made a watertight argument, yourself. People are just too big-headed to realize it.


Firstly, consider the limitations of real science. We're not talking about publishing papers for fame and grant money. This is real science, going back to ninth grade, where you were taught the scientific method. We're trying to answer a question using a specific scientific process, and part of that process is that correlation does not prove causality. Basically, you can't prove anything without setting up a system of experiments where only one variable is manipulated.

The system would seem like this:

Question or Statement of Problem: Does god exist?
Hypothesis: God does not exist. All observable phenomena are independent of a creating entity.
Explanation of Procedure: We will develop two infinitely dense and small groups of matter in a space of absolute nothingness, and then to one we will do nothing. To the other, we will perform a battery of stimulation until it eventually explodes violently and the mass within it scatters over an eventually infinite space at a speed infinitely close to the speed of light. From this mass of debris will form billions of solar systems, and within one solar system eight planets will form around one star..... You get the drift. Meanwhile, our lack of action has not caused the second ball of mass to react in any way. If our hypothesis is correct that God exists, then none of the expected results will happen and we will exhaust all possible resources before the Big Bang is caused in our experimental variable.

Confused? Basically, the procedure is to create two pre-Big Bang universes and stimulate one using whatever means necessary to cause the Big Bang, while the other is still innert. Whatever method we used to create the Big Bang is therefore proven to be the cause of the Big Bang and of the universe as we know it, provided our methods stand up to the battery of the inquisition of the scientific community and they agree no results were obtained erroneously. If we exhaust literally everything possible to react one Big Bang and not the other, only then can they actually say that at some point the two pre-Big Bangs will eventually explode on their own without the help of any outside entity.

Now, please, I beg you to correct me if I'm wrong, but what I just outlined is the only possible way to have scientific proof that God exists. Aside from science forming an experiment that demonstrates the existence of anything we can see today, science can't say with certainty that anything is true or anything is false.

Remember this is just ninth grade science; no bottom-quarks, gravitons, string theory, or anything else needs to be used in my demonstration. Science can't prove anything without an experiment, and without experimental proof every theory is watertight.

 

Fairly unrelated but one of the things that annoys me is creationists saying they offer a theory of creation as opposed to the theory of evolution, while clearly not understanding the definition of theory in science, the 'theory' of evolution is only a theory in the same way as gravity is a theory, with probably as much evidence.
The fact that science defines evolution as 'just' a theory does not make your delusions equally valid options to be for example taught in schools.

 

I personally believe in god, It is how I was raised and What I will continue to believe in until I die, but not only do I believe in god, You can feel him around you in things that you do. If you really sat and took the time and believed. Not only that but the world is so messed up now a days, it is good to have something not so violent and dark etc, to believe in. It's not about if he is real or not as to everyone is always going to have there opinions, there like assholes everyone has one. It's more of if you are willing to humble yourself to believe there may be something bigger, then just me and you. So that's why I voted yes.

 

I personally am an atheist, do not believe in god for the sole purpose of him not being there for me, what you can't say its not real - thats what my mother said,
But at the other hand i do not hate the religion, i am just not drawn into it.

 

It's much easier for somebody to believe in something when they see it with their own eyes. Throughout history there has been so signs, no solid proof that a god like being existed, only speculation or coincidence that lead people to believe in the possibility of a higher being watching over us.

Believers say that God loves all his children, if that was the case where has he been the past couple thousand years? While his children have sat in sorrow, while we fought one another, killed one another? A "Father" would not sit and let his children do what we have done. Not one that supposedly loved us anyways.

So maybe there was a God, maybe there still is. But if so, he's not exactly the kind of guy I want to meet, considering he abandoned us long ago.

 

Yes, he did and He has always existed.
When the human man starts thinking about it, it'll go nowhere. Image that you are in a road, if you leave the road it'll be difficult to to reach your destination. Only with your faith you can understand the existence of God.

 

But there is no scientific proof that he actually exists/did exist, faith alone can not prove it.

 

i believe that there is a god. ofc i have doubts, but i try my best to stay a believer.

 

But why? And please don't use the 'insurance-policy' reasoning.

 

And what if that were his reasoning? What would be wrong with it? That you think it's ignorant, is that it?

 

I think he's referring to Pascal's wager. There are many things wrong with Pascal's wager. It actually is gambling with your life... See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager#Criticism

 

No.

- I was even grown in a Christian family, and even as of now, I'm only 16.. But I feel if there is no proof, it can't exist. (Atheist mind) I can't believe in a god when the bible is just a book of morals to follow and tells you 'You have to live your life this way'.

 

Well Yes, I believe that there is something up there watching over us but Im not sure if I would call it "God" :L

 

I personally don't believe in God, but I think Descarte's Trademark Argument puts up a really good fight for the belief in God. (If you're wondering, he has to use God to rebuild all knowledge, so that he can attempt to prove we do really have knowledge).

Thoughts on this? (If it hasn't already been posted).

 

I am actually quit surprised with the results of this poll. I would have hypothesized that the vast majority of Sythe users were Atheist. Thanks for the info.

 

This argument is rife with problems, but I don't feel like picking apart Descartes' ramblings. I'll just point out that "perfection," the concept upon which points 6-15 rely, is subjective.

 

I think this thread should be locked, it creates to much tension and definitely doesn't help Sythe become a better community.

 

There is a difference between friendly debate and creating tension. Nobody is saying anyone is wrong for believing or not, it's simply opinion. If this offends you then you don't have to read.