Atheists, do you really believe there is no god?

  • 99 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51

57548

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#1 deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
Member since 2004 • 57548 Posts

I'm not the best writer, so I will try to explain. I don't mean believing in one of the gods of the organized religions. I mean anything. Some organized force or energy, behind the universe. It's just hard to accept that everything came about just randomly. That all these laws of the universe and space-time, so orderly, just came out of chaos. I'd have no idea what this force would be about, but maybe there is something out there. I often think about the beginning of the universe, before time started, when the laws that govern what we know didnt exist. Where did all that matter that caused the big bang originate from? That kind of stuff.

This isnt an anti religion or anti atheist thread. Just curious what a lot of scientific minds think about this stuff.

Avatar image for deeliman
deeliman

4027

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 deeliman
Member since 2013 • 4027 Posts

Of course, I can never say with 100% certainty that there is no 'god'. Just like I can't say with 100% certainty that leprechauns don't exist. Personally, I believe that the idea that an all powerful being created this universe is both a simplistic answer and illogical.

Avatar image for deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51

57548

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#4 deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
Member since 2004 • 57548 Posts

@deeliman: I dont mean a god like in the organized religions, though. Something different.

Avatar image for deactivated-5b19214ec908b
deactivated-5b19214ec908b

25072

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#5  Edited By deactivated-5b19214ec908b
Member since 2007 • 25072 Posts

Do theists really believe in god?

Avatar image for deactivated-5b19214ec908b
deactivated-5b19214ec908b

25072

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#7 deactivated-5b19214ec908b
Member since 2007 • 25072 Posts

@thegerg said:

@toast_burner: Yes. That is what defines a theist.

So if it's so easy to understand that theists believe in god, why it hard to understand that atheists don't?

Avatar image for deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51

57548

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#8 deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
Member since 2004 • 57548 Posts

@toast_burner: Again, I dont mean the christian god or one of those other religions. How do you think everything started? Where did all the matter in the universe come from? What existed before time? That kind of stuff.

Avatar image for TheFlush
TheFlush

5965

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#9  Edited By TheFlush
Member since 2002 • 5965 Posts

I don't believe there is an all knowing, all controlling, sentient, thinking something no.
There's probably some natural force behind all this, but I don't believe it has the specifics to define it as god.
Let alone one of the many religions here on this insignificant planet.

Avatar image for deactivated-5b19214ec908b
deactivated-5b19214ec908b

25072

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#10 deactivated-5b19214ec908b
Member since 2007 • 25072 Posts

@sonicare said:

@toast_burner: Again, I dont mean the christian god or one of those other religions. How do you think everything started? Where did all the matter in the universe come from? What existed before time? That kind of stuff.

Something that isn't god? It's not that hard to understand.

Avatar image for WAJ
WAJ

771

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#12 WAJ
Member since 2003 • 771 Posts

No I do not believe in god or anything "supernatural", at all, since there is no evidence that anything even remotely like that exists...

Avatar image for GazaAli
GazaAli

25216

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#13 GazaAli
Member since 2007 • 25216 Posts

@TheFlush said:

I don't believe there is an all knowing, all controlling, sentient, thinking something no.

There's probably some natural force behind all this, but I don't believe it has the specifics to define it as god.

Let alone one of the many religions here on this insignificant planet.

What is the rationale behind this? The universe is clearly a work of absolute harmony, balance and order. The complexity and sophistication of the laws that govern all that exists are of astronomical magnitude. Concepts like space, time, organic life, chemistry, physics, mathematics and practically every concept or notion behind anything that exists whether materially or conceptually are of miraculous and phenomenal intuitiveness, cognizance, originality and creativity.

With that said, how can one reach the conclusion or accept the mere possibility that this is not the work of an all controlling, sentient, thinking being but instead the work of some vague natural force; an argument which I think is meant to reject and deny the argument of the existence of a sentient God that is aware of us all and is all seeing, hearing and knowing of all that ever existed and will ever do.

Avatar image for deactivated-5b19214ec908b
deactivated-5b19214ec908b

25072

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#14 deactivated-5b19214ec908b
Member since 2007 • 25072 Posts

@GazaAli said:

@TheFlush said:

I don't believe there is an all knowing, all controlling, sentient, thinking something no.

There's probably some natural force behind all this, but I don't believe it has the specifics to define it as god.

Let alone one of the many religions here on this insignificant planet.

What is the rationale behind this? The universe is clearly a work of absolute harmony, balance and order. The complexity and sophistication of the laws that govern all that exists are of astronomical magnitude. Concepts like space, time, organic life, chemistry, physics, mathematics and practically every concept or notion behind anything that exists whether materially or conceptually are of miraculous and phenomenal intuitiveness, cognizance, originality and creativity.

With that said, how can one reach the conclusion or accept the mere possibility that this is not the work of an all controlling, sentient, thinking being but instead the work of some vague natural force; an argument which I think is meant to reject and deny the argument of the existence of a sentient God that is aware of us all and is all seeing, hearing and knowing of all that ever existed and will ever do.

I never understood this argument. It's nothing more than wishful thinking.

Avatar image for lone_wolf_lance
Lone_Wolf_Lance

124

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#15 Lone_Wolf_Lance
Member since 2013 • 124 Posts

I won't believe in any superior being or force until its existence will be proven.

Avatar image for Fightingfan
Fightingfan

38011

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#16  Edited By Fightingfan
Member since 2010 • 38011 Posts

@GazaAli said:

@TheFlush said:

I don't believe there is an all knowing, all controlling, sentient, thinking something no.

There's probably some natural force behind all this, but I don't believe it has the specifics to define it as god.

Let alone one of the many religions here on this insignificant planet.

What is the rationale behind this? The universe is clearly a work of absolute harmony, balance and order. The complexity and sophistication of the laws that govern all that exists are of astronomical magnitude. Concepts like space, time, organic life, chemistry, physics, mathematics and practically every concept or notion behind anything that exists whether materially or conceptually are of miraculous and phenomenal intuitiveness, cognizance, originality and creativity.

With that said, how can one reach the conclusion or accept the mere possibility that this is not the work of an all controlling, sentient, thinking being but instead the work of some vague natural force; an argument which I think is meant to reject and deny the argument of the existence of a sentient God that is aware of us all and is all seeing, hearing and knowing of all that ever existed and will ever do.

So you're saying life can't possibly come from super-subatomic cells, or some unknown DNA ancestry gene, but only something all knowing?

Sounds like you're using God as a way to "fill" an empty part of your life, or to justify questions you can't comprehend the answers to.

Avatar image for GazaAli
GazaAli

25216

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#17 GazaAli
Member since 2007 • 25216 Posts

@toast_burner said:

@GazaAli said:

@TheFlush said:

I don't believe there is an all knowing, all controlling, sentient, thinking something no.

There's probably some natural force behind all this, but I don't believe it has the specifics to define it as god.

Let alone one of the many religions here on this insignificant planet.

What is the rationale behind this? The universe is clearly a work of absolute harmony, balance and order. The complexity and sophistication of the laws that govern all that exists are of astronomical magnitude. Concepts like space, time, organic life, chemistry, physics, mathematics and practically every concept or notion behind anything that exists whether materially or conceptually are of miraculous and phenomenal intuitiveness, cognizance, originality and creativity.

With that said, how can one reach the conclusion or accept the mere possibility that this is not the work of an all controlling, sentient, thinking being but instead the work of some vague natural force; an argument which I think is meant to reject and deny the argument of the existence of a sentient God that is aware of us all and is all seeing, hearing and knowing of all that ever existed and will ever do.

I never understood this argument. It's nothing more than wishful thinking.

The point I'm trying to make here is not the factual necessity of the absolute assertion of the existence of a God no. What I'm getting at is if you believe in the possibility of the existence of any force or entity behind the universe, how can you deny its sentience and omnipotence and instead choose to define it or portray it as vague, unaware of itself and its creation, and non-sovereign.

Avatar image for deactivated-5b19214ec908b
deactivated-5b19214ec908b

25072

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#18 deactivated-5b19214ec908b
Member since 2007 • 25072 Posts

@GazaAli said:

@toast_burner said:

@GazaAli said:

@TheFlush said:

I don't believe there is an all knowing, all controlling, sentient, thinking something no.

There's probably some natural force behind all this, but I don't believe it has the specifics to define it as god.

Let alone one of the many religions here on this insignificant planet.

What is the rationale behind this? The universe is clearly a work of absolute harmony, balance and order. The complexity and sophistication of the laws that govern all that exists are of astronomical magnitude. Concepts like space, time, organic life, chemistry, physics, mathematics and practically every concept or notion behind anything that exists whether materially or conceptually are of miraculous and phenomenal intuitiveness, cognizance, originality and creativity.

With that said, how can one reach the conclusion or accept the mere possibility that this is not the work of an all controlling, sentient, thinking being but instead the work of some vague natural force; an argument which I think is meant to reject and deny the argument of the existence of a sentient God that is aware of us all and is all seeing, hearing and knowing of all that ever existed and will ever do.

I never understood this argument. It's nothing more than wishful thinking.

The point I'm trying to make here is not the factual necessity of the absolute assertion of the existence of a God no. What I'm getting at is if you believe in the possibility of the existence of any force or entity behind the universe, how can you deny its sentience and omnipotence and instead choose to define it or portray it as vague, unaware of itself and its creation, and non-sovereign.

Because there is absolutely no reason to believe that the universe was created by a sentient being.

Avatar image for GazaAli
GazaAli

25216

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#19 GazaAli
Member since 2007 • 25216 Posts

@toast_burner said:

@GazaAli said:

@toast_burner said:

@GazaAli said:

@TheFlush said:

I don't believe there is an all knowing, all controlling, sentient, thinking something no.

There's probably some natural force behind all this, but I don't believe it has the specifics to define it as god.

Let alone one of the many religions here on this insignificant planet.

What is the rationale behind this? The universe is clearly a work of absolute harmony, balance and order. The complexity and sophistication of the laws that govern all that exists are of astronomical magnitude. Concepts like space, time, organic life, chemistry, physics, mathematics and practically every concept or notion behind anything that exists whether materially or conceptually are of miraculous and phenomenal intuitiveness, cognizance, originality and creativity.

With that said, how can one reach the conclusion or accept the mere possibility that this is not the work of an all controlling, sentient, thinking being but instead the work of some vague natural force; an argument which I think is meant to reject and deny the argument of the existence of a sentient God that is aware of us all and is all seeing, hearing and knowing of all that ever existed and will ever do.

I never understood this argument. It's nothing more than wishful thinking.

The point I'm trying to make here is not the factual necessity of the absolute assertion of the existence of a God no. What I'm getting at is if you believe in the possibility of the existence of any force or entity behind the universe, how can you deny its sentience and omnipotence and instead choose to define it or portray it as vague, unaware of itself and its creation, and non-sovereign.

Because there is absolutely no reason to believe that the universe was created by a sentient being.

ok

Avatar image for deeliman
deeliman

4027

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#20 deeliman
Member since 2013 • 4027 Posts

@GazaAli said:

@TheFlush said:

I don't believe there is an all knowing, all controlling, sentient, thinking something no.

There's probably some natural force behind all this, but I don't believe it has the specifics to define it as god.

Let alone one of the many religions here on this insignificant planet.

What is the rationale behind this? The universe is clearly a work of absolute harmony, balance and order. The complexity and sophistication of the laws that govern all that exists are of astronomical magnitude. Concepts like space, time, organic life, chemistry, physics, mathematics and practically every concept or notion behind anything that exists whether materially or conceptually are of miraculous and phenomenal intuitiveness, cognizance, originality and creativity.

With that said, how can one reach the conclusion or accept the mere possibility that this is not the work of an all controlling, sentient, thinking being but instead the work of some vague natural force; an argument which I think is meant to reject and deny the argument of the existence of a sentient God that is aware of us all and is all seeing, hearing and knowing of all that ever existed and will ever do.

But you're not answering any of those questions by putting a god in the picture. All you're doing is moving the question. Who/what created that god? And surely that god must be even more complex than the universe itself to be able to do that.

Avatar image for foxhound_fox
foxhound_fox

98532

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#21 foxhound_fox
Member since 2005 • 98532 Posts

No, but I do not try to explain away an absence in knowledge with a conveniently easy out.

Avatar image for Tqricardinho
Tqricardinho

477

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#22  Edited By Tqricardinho
Member since 2013 • 477 Posts

I believe in a superior being, but I am not religious whatsoever.

Avatar image for TheFlush
TheFlush

5965

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#23  Edited By TheFlush
Member since 2002 • 5965 Posts

@GazaAli said:

The universe is clearly a work of absolute harmony, balance and order.

Ehm no it isn't.

Avatar image for GazaAli
GazaAli

25216

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#24  Edited By GazaAli
Member since 2007 • 25216 Posts

@TheFlush said:

@GazaAli said:

The universe is clearly a work of absolute harmony, balance and order.

Ehm no it isn't.

oh rly

Avatar image for TheFlush
TheFlush

5965

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#25 TheFlush
Member since 2002 • 5965 Posts

@GazaAli said:

@TheFlush said:

@GazaAli said:

The universe is clearly a work of absolute harmony, balance and order.

Ehm no it isn't.

oh rly

yes.

Avatar image for foxhound_fox
foxhound_fox

98532

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#26  Edited By foxhound_fox
Member since 2005 • 98532 Posts

@GazaAli said:

What is the rationale behind this? The universe is clearly a work of absolute harmony, balance and order. The complexity and sophistication of the laws that govern all that exists are of astronomical magnitude. Concepts like space, time, organic life, chemistry, physics, mathematics and practically every concept or notion behind anything that exists whether materially or conceptually are of miraculous and phenomenal intuitiveness, cognizance, originality and creativity.

With that said, how can one reach the conclusion or accept the mere possibility that this is not the work of an all controlling, sentient, thinking being but instead the work of some vague natural force; an argument which I think is meant to reject and deny the argument of the existence of a sentient God that is aware of us all and is all seeing, hearing and knowing of all that ever existed and will ever do.

Why can it not be random? Why must we presume "harmony, balance and order" where there is evidence to suggest otherwise? Quantum physics is opening a lot of doors that suggest there is no harmony, balance or order at all. There is even a hypothesis that says the big bang was caused by a random quantum event (quantum vacuum fluctuation) that happened for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

Once we can come to terms with the fact there is no special, overarching purpose of humanity, or life, we can start living it in the moment, and taking advantage of the especially wonderful, and rare opportunity of life.

Avatar image for GazaAli
GazaAli

25216

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#27 GazaAli
Member since 2007 • 25216 Posts

@deeliman said:

@GazaAli said:

@TheFlush said:

I don't believe there is an all knowing, all controlling, sentient, thinking something no.

There's probably some natural force behind all this, but I don't believe it has the specifics to define it as god.

Let alone one of the many religions here on this insignificant planet.

What is the rationale behind this? The universe is clearly a work of absolute harmony, balance and order. The complexity and sophistication of the laws that govern all that exists are of astronomical magnitude. Concepts like space, time, organic life, chemistry, physics, mathematics and practically every concept or notion behind anything that exists whether materially or conceptually are of miraculous and phenomenal intuitiveness, cognizance, originality and creativity.

With that said, how can one reach the conclusion or accept the mere possibility that this is not the work of an all controlling, sentient, thinking being but instead the work of some vague natural force; an argument which I think is meant to reject and deny the argument of the existence of a sentient God that is aware of us all and is all seeing, hearing and knowing of all that ever existed and will ever do.

But you're not answering any of those questions by putting a god in the picture. All you're doing is moving the question. Who/what created that god? And surely that god must be even more complex than the universe itself to be able to do that.

My post is not attempting to be an argument for the existence of the Abrahamic God or the God of any of the organized religions. It is merely trying to show what I perceive as irrational to believe in the existence of a creating force/entity that is behind the universe and everything else then the proceeding to make the claim that it is not sentient and omnipotent and everything that goes with it (all controlling, seeing, knowing, hearing..etc).

If I show you a work of great sophistication and complexity and we both agreed on the notion that it has a creator, what would be the more rational and plausible profile of that creator? That is what I'm trying to validate here.

Avatar image for deeliman
deeliman

4027

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28 deeliman
Member since 2013 • 4027 Posts

@GazaAli said:

@deeliman said:

@GazaAli said:

@TheFlush said:

I don't believe there is an all knowing, all controlling, sentient, thinking something no.

There's probably some natural force behind all this, but I don't believe it has the specifics to define it as god.

Let alone one of the many religions here on this insignificant planet.

What is the rationale behind this? The universe is clearly a work of absolute harmony, balance and order. The complexity and sophistication of the laws that govern all that exists are of astronomical magnitude. Concepts like space, time, organic life, chemistry, physics, mathematics and practically every concept or notion behind anything that exists whether materially or conceptually are of miraculous and phenomenal intuitiveness, cognizance, originality and creativity.

With that said, how can one reach the conclusion or accept the mere possibility that this is not the work of an all controlling, sentient, thinking being but instead the work of some vague natural force; an argument which I think is meant to reject and deny the argument of the existence of a sentient God that is aware of us all and is all seeing, hearing and knowing of all that ever existed and will ever do.

But you're not answering any of those questions by putting a god in the picture. All you're doing is moving the question. Who/what created that god? And surely that god must be even more complex than the universe itself to be able to do that.

My post is not attempting to be an argument for the existence of the Abrahamic God or the God of any of the organized religions. It is merely trying to show what I perceive as irrational to believe in the existence of a creating force/entity that is behind the universe and everything else then the proceeding to make the claim that it is not sentient and omnipotent and everything that goes with it (all controlling, seeing, knowing, hearing..etc).

If I show you a work of great sophistication and complexity and we both agreed on the notion that it has a creator, what would be the more rational and plausible profile of that creator? That is what I'm trying to validate here.

It seems that I misunderstood your argument.

Avatar image for TheFlush
TheFlush

5965

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#29  Edited By TheFlush
Member since 2002 • 5965 Posts

@GazaAli said:

@deeliman said:

@GazaAli said:

@TheFlush said:

I don't believe there is an all knowing, all controlling, sentient, thinking something no.

There's probably some natural force behind all this, but I don't believe it has the specifics to define it as god.

Let alone one of the many religions here on this insignificant planet.

What is the rationale behind this? The universe is clearly a work of absolute harmony, balance and order. The complexity and sophistication of the laws that govern all that exists are of astronomical magnitude. Concepts like space, time, organic life, chemistry, physics, mathematics and practically every concept or notion behind anything that exists whether materially or conceptually are of miraculous and phenomenal intuitiveness, cognizance, originality and creativity.

With that said, how can one reach the conclusion or accept the mere possibility that this is not the work of an all controlling, sentient, thinking being but instead the work of some vague natural force; an argument which I think is meant to reject and deny the argument of the existence of a sentient God that is aware of us all and is all seeing, hearing and knowing of all that ever existed and will ever do.

But you're not answering any of those questions by putting a god in the picture. All you're doing is moving the question. Who/what created that god? And surely that god must be even more complex than the universe itself to be able to do that.

My post is not attempting to be an argument for the existence of the Abrahamic God or the God of any of the organized religions. It is merely trying to show what I perceive as irrational to believe in the existence of a creating force/entity that is behind the universe and everything else then the proceeding to make the claim that it is not sentient and omnipotent and everything that goes with it (all controlling, seeing, knowing, hearing..etc).

If I show you a work of great sophistication and complexity and we both agreed on the notion that it has a creator, what would be the more rational and plausible profile of that creator? That is what I'm trying to validate here.

All the things in nature that we know of have natural causes which can be explained through science. There is nothing sentient or conscious about them. I'm not saying that there can't possibly be a creator, but the evidence that we have right now for everything in nature doesn't point into that direction. So unless proven otherwise, I'm not buying it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Furthermore about the 'work of great sophistication and complexity', that's the watchmaker analogy, it has been debunked already.

http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/watchmak.htm

Avatar image for tocool340
tocool340

21647

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#30 tocool340
Member since 2004 • 21647 Posts

I think, if there REALLY is a God, its nothing like anything described in any religious text. Like I said in another thread, I think the game Mass effect gives a good enough explanation (but certainly NOT PERFECT) when one guy in the game says "A god — a real god — is a verb. Not some old man with magic powers. It's a force. It warps reality just by being there. It doesn't have to want to. It doesn't have to think about it. It just does.". There's probably a few things that can somewhat fall in that description, but if I'm REALLY forced to choose, I'd say the sun would make a good name placeholder for "God" considering the role it play's here for Earth. That's not saying I will get on both knee's and worship the Sol, I'm just acknowledging its importance...

Avatar image for br0kenrabbit
br0kenrabbit

17851

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#31 br0kenrabbit
Member since 2004 • 17851 Posts

@GazaAli said:

@TheFlush said:

@GazaAli said:

The universe is clearly a work of absolute harmony, balance and order.

Ehm no it isn't.

oh rly

What gives it apparent order is that...duh...if this reaction takes place with these elements here then wherever these elements appear in like density and environment they're going to have the same reaction.

So you get hydrogen forming stars wherever hydrogen exists in the necessary amounts. Then the stars likewise follow a similar pattern of development, interaction with each other and their environs, etc.

Avatar image for KHAndAnime
KHAndAnime

17565

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#32 KHAndAnime
Member since 2009 • 17565 Posts

@sonicare said:

It's just hard to accept that everything came about just randomly.

The random and the unknown is infinitely easier to accept than a benevolent omnipotent be-all end-all force that runs everything. The latter sounds more and more stupid the longer you're alive.

Avatar image for chrisrooR
chrisrooR

9027

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#33 chrisrooR
Member since 2007 • 9027 Posts

No. Whatever all of this is, we're all an inextricable part of it. Call it what you want, it doesn't need to be defined.

Avatar image for Riverwolf007
Riverwolf007

26023

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#34  Edited By Riverwolf007
Member since 2005 • 26023 Posts

i don't know or really care all that much but it seems to me that if the universe was supernatural in origin that there would be evidence of supernatural events taking place and there is none.

i just can't believe in magic and demons and angels and talking donkeys and 900 year old men and the whole schtick when there is zero evidence of any supernatural event ever taking place.

also i don't get the bible at all.

you worship the guy that kills everyone and hate the guy that is about personal liberty?

wtf is up with that major plothole?

it looks like a case of the winner writing the history book to me.

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
HoolaHoopMan

14724

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#35 HoolaHoopMan
Member since 2009 • 14724 Posts

In an anthropomorphic god? No.

If we're just referring to some sort of cause or force? Well I don't think I would classify that as a god or anything. When I think of something to be 'god' like it usually has some sentience to it.

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
HoolaHoopMan

14724

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#36 HoolaHoopMan
Member since 2009 • 14724 Posts

@GazaAli said:

@TheFlush said:

I don't believe there is an all knowing, all controlling, sentient, thinking something no.

There's probably some natural force behind all this, but I don't believe it has the specifics to define it as god.

Let alone one of the many religions here on this insignificant planet.

What is the rationale behind this? The universe is clearly a work of absolute harmony, balance and order. The complexity and sophistication of the laws that govern all that exists are of astronomical magnitude. Concepts like space, time, organic life, chemistry, physics, mathematics and practically every concept or notion behind anything that exists whether materially or conceptually are of miraculous and phenomenal intuitiveness, cognizance, originality and creativity.

With that said, how can one reach the conclusion or accept the mere possibility that this is not the work of an all controlling, sentient, thinking being but instead the work of some vague natural force; an argument which I think is meant to reject and deny the argument of the existence of a sentient God that is aware of us all and is all seeing, hearing and knowing of all that ever existed and will ever do.

Balanced and ordered compared to what? We only have a sample size of 1 when we're comparing universes. How do we know there aren't far more 'ordered' universes out there with difference values and laws?

Avatar image for s_h_a_d_o
s_h_a_d_o

1317

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 4

#37 s_h_a_d_o
Member since 2004 • 1317 Posts

As an agnostic, I take it this topic is not addressed to me.

Avatar image for Netret0120
Netret0120

3594

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#39 Netret0120
Member since 2013 • 3594 Posts

This topic will end badly.

Avatar image for theone86
theone86

22669

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#40  Edited By theone86
Member since 2003 • 22669 Posts

@sonicare said:

I'm not the best writer, so I will try to explain. I don't mean believing in one of the gods of the organized religions. I mean anything. Some organized force or energy, behind the universe. It's just hard to accept that everything came about just randomly. That all these laws of the universe and space-time, so orderly, just came out of chaos. I'd have no idea what this force would be about, but maybe there is something out there. I often think about the beginning of the universe, before time started, when the laws that govern what we know didnt exist. Where did all that matter that caused the big bang originate from? That kind of stuff.

This isnt an anti religion or anti atheist thread. Just curious what a lot of scientific minds think about this stuff.

Well, I don't find that hard to believe. I think it's hard to believe because our minds process the universe in an ordered fashion, which makes it hard for us to grasp the more random aspects (god not rolling dice is an example of this sort of thinking). As to the question, I believe that there is no god insofar as our mode of acquiring knowledge tells us there is no god. I completely acknowledge the possibility lack our mode of acquiring knowledge is lacking in this respect, but I don't really believe that possible knowledge that lies beyond our current capability of comprehension is of any consequence to us.

As to the beginning of the universe, it's a riddle to be sure. Currently I just defer to the Dao De Jing, "being and non-being create each other." Our universe is predicated on certain deterministic laws that didn't apply before the big bang, but I wonder if there isn't some other set of deterministic rules that applied then and necessitated the formation of temporal existence. Or perhaps it was simply random, somewhat like quantum physics and evolutionary mutation, or perhaps some combination of the two. I find it fascinating to think about, but ultimately I have to take a break from it. I think it might be something that our comprehension just isn't equipped to deal with.

Avatar image for GazaAli
GazaAli

25216

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#41 GazaAli
Member since 2007 • 25216 Posts

@HoolaHoopMan said:

@GazaAli said:

@TheFlush said:

I don't believe there is an all knowing, all controlling, sentient, thinking something no.

There's probably some natural force behind all this, but I don't believe it has the specifics to define it as god.

Let alone one of the many religions here on this insignificant planet.

What is the rationale behind this? The universe is clearly a work of absolute harmony, balance and order. The complexity and sophistication of the laws that govern all that exists are of astronomical magnitude. Concepts like space, time, organic life, chemistry, physics, mathematics and practically every concept or notion behind anything that exists whether materially or conceptually are of miraculous and phenomenal intuitiveness, cognizance, originality and creativity.

With that said, how can one reach the conclusion or accept the mere possibility that this is not the work of an all controlling, sentient, thinking being but instead the work of some vague natural force; an argument which I think is meant to reject and deny the argument of the existence of a sentient God that is aware of us all and is all seeing, hearing and knowing of all that ever existed and will ever do.

Balanced and ordered compared to what? We only have a sample size of 1 when we're comparing universes. How do we know there aren't far more 'ordered' universes out there with difference values and laws?

If we don't have enough knowledge about other universes then we shall stick to the one we know, this universe. This universe's laws and machinations are of considerable and admirable order and balance, aren't they?

What exactly are we discussing here?

Avatar image for deeliman
deeliman

4027

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#42 deeliman
Member since 2013 • 4027 Posts

@GazaAli said:

@HoolaHoopMan said:

@GazaAli said:

@TheFlush said:

I don't believe there is an all knowing, all controlling, sentient, thinking something no.

There's probably some natural force behind all this, but I don't believe it has the specifics to define it as god.

Let alone one of the many religions here on this insignificant planet.

What is the rationale behind this? The universe is clearly a work of absolute harmony, balance and order. The complexity and sophistication of the laws that govern all that exists are of astronomical magnitude. Concepts like space, time, organic life, chemistry, physics, mathematics and practically every concept or notion behind anything that exists whether materially or conceptually are of miraculous and phenomenal intuitiveness, cognizance, originality and creativity.

With that said, how can one reach the conclusion or accept the mere possibility that this is not the work of an all controlling, sentient, thinking being but instead the work of some vague natural force; an argument which I think is meant to reject and deny the argument of the existence of a sentient God that is aware of us all and is all seeing, hearing and knowing of all that ever existed and will ever do.

Balanced and ordered compared to what? We only have a sample size of 1 when we're comparing universes. How do we know there aren't far more 'ordered' universes out there with difference values and laws?

If we don't have enough knowledge about other universes then we shall stick to the one we know, this universe. This universe's laws and machinations are of considerable and admirable order and balance, aren't they?

What exactly are we discussing here?

Not if you look at quantum mechanics.

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
HoolaHoopMan

14724

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#43  Edited By HoolaHoopMan
Member since 2009 • 14724 Posts

@GazaAli said:

@HoolaHoopMan said:

Balanced and ordered compared to what? We only have a sample size of 1 when we're comparing universes. How do we know there aren't far more 'ordered' universes out there with difference values and laws?

If we don't have enough knowledge about other universes then we shall stick to the one we know, this universe. This universe's laws and machinations are of considerable and admirable order and balance, aren't they?

What exactly are we discussing here?

Again you're saying its balanced and ordered. How do we measure our universe to be ordered as opposed to chaotic? We don't have anything else to really compare it to.

There could be a possibility that our universe is more chaotic and less tuned to supporting life than countless other universes should they exist.

Avatar image for deeliman
deeliman

4027

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#44 deeliman
Member since 2013 • 4027 Posts

@HoolaHoopMan said:

@GazaAli said:

@HoolaHoopMan said:

Balanced and ordered compared to what? We only have a sample size of 1 when we're comparing universes. How do we know there aren't far more 'ordered' universes out there with difference values and laws?

If we don't have enough knowledge about other universes then we shall stick to the one we know, this universe. This universe's laws and machinations are of considerable and admirable order and balance, aren't they?

What exactly are we discussing here?

Again you're saying its balanced and ordered. How do we measure our universe to be ordered as opposed to chaotic? We don't have anything else to really compare it to.

There could be a possibility that are universe is more chaotic and less tuned to supporting life than countless other universes should they exist.

That would actually be very plausible should those other universes exist, seeing as only a very small percentage of this universe is suited for life.

Avatar image for theone86
theone86

22669

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#45  Edited By theone86
Member since 2003 • 22669 Posts

@GazaAli said:

@deeliman said:

@GazaAli said:

@TheFlush said:

I don't believe there is an all knowing, all controlling, sentient, thinking something no.

There's probably some natural force behind all this, but I don't believe it has the specifics to define it as god.

Let alone one of the many religions here on this insignificant planet.

What is the rationale behind this? The universe is clearly a work of absolute harmony, balance and order. The complexity and sophistication of the laws that govern all that exists are of astronomical magnitude. Concepts like space, time, organic life, chemistry, physics, mathematics and practically every concept or notion behind anything that exists whether materially or conceptually are of miraculous and phenomenal intuitiveness, cognizance, originality and creativity.

With that said, how can one reach the conclusion or accept the mere possibility that this is not the work of an all controlling, sentient, thinking being but instead the work of some vague natural force; an argument which I think is meant to reject and deny the argument of the existence of a sentient God that is aware of us all and is all seeing, hearing and knowing of all that ever existed and will ever do.

But you're not answering any of those questions by putting a god in the picture. All you're doing is moving the question. Who/what created that god? And surely that god must be even more complex than the universe itself to be able to do that.

My post is not attempting to be an argument for the existence of the Abrahamic God or the God of any of the organized religions. It is merely trying to show what I perceive as irrational to believe in the existence of a creating force/entity that is behind the universe and everything else then the proceeding to make the claim that it is not sentient and omnipotent and everything that goes with it (all controlling, seeing, knowing, hearing..etc).

If I show you a work of great sophistication and complexity and we both agreed on the notion that it has a creator, what would be the more rational and plausible profile of that creator? That is what I'm trying to validate here.

I don't see why it has to be sentient, I think it's anthropomorphic thinking to posit that it has to be.

I see religion generally as a tool we've used to cope with our surroundings and understand our place in the universe. When we couldn't understand why the sun rose and set we said it was beings like us that caused it, only more powerful. When we started to better understand the universe we lost the need for such superstition, but we still didn't understand why the universe existed or why we existed. Now we're better understanding those things and losing the need for a bit more religious superstition. The idea that something that caused the universe had to be sentient, i.e. like us, is just a holdover from a time when we were the only rational sentient beings, and therefore posited that anything more powerful than us was like us, only more powerful.

Avatar image for foxhound_fox
foxhound_fox

98532

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#46 foxhound_fox
Member since 2005 • 98532 Posts

@HoolaHoopMan said:

Again you're saying its balanced and ordered. How do we measure our universe to be ordered as opposed to chaotic? We don't have anything else to really compare it to.

There could be a possibility that our universe is more chaotic and less tuned to supporting life than countless other universes should they exist.

And wouldn't the idea of "order" and "harmony" suggest an equilibrium and perhaps a static, unchanging state? The opposite to what the universe actually is?

Avatar image for foxhound_fox
foxhound_fox

98532

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#47  Edited By foxhound_fox
Member since 2005 • 98532 Posts

@theone86 said:

Well, I don't find that hard to believe. I think it's hard to believe because our minds process the universe in an ordered fashion, which makes it hard for us to grasp the more random aspects (god not rolling dice is an example of this sort of thinking). As to the question, I believe that there is no god insofar as our mode of acquiring knowledge tells us there is no god. I completely acknowledge the possibility lack our mode of acquiring knowledge is lacking in this respect, but I don't really believe that possible knowledge that lies beyond our current capability of comprehension is of any consequence to us.

As to the beginning of the universe, it's a riddle to be sure. Currently I just defer to the Dao De Jing, "being and non-being create each other." Our universe is predicated on certain deterministic laws that didn't apply before the big bang, but I wonder if there isn't some other set of deterministic rules that applied then and necessitated the formation of temporal existence. Or perhaps it was simply random, somewhat like quantum physics and evolutionary mutation, or perhaps some combination of the two. I find it fascinating to think about, but ultimately I have to take a break from it. I think it might be something that our comprehension just isn't equipped to deal with.

I've been trying and trying to upload a gif of applause and Glitchspot is rearing it's ugly head... so I'll just use actual words and say "well said" and give you an *applause*

Avatar image for Celldrax
Celldrax

15053

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#48  Edited By Celldrax
Member since 2005 • 15053 Posts

In a nutshell, I have absolutely zero reason to believe in the existence of an all-powerful cosmic being, but we will also never entirely prove nor disprove such a thing.

Beyond that, I just find it hard to care.

Avatar image for GazaAli
GazaAli

25216

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#49  Edited By GazaAli
Member since 2007 • 25216 Posts

@HoolaHoopMan said:

@GazaAli said:

@HoolaHoopMan said:

Balanced and ordered compared to what? We only have a sample size of 1 when we're comparing universes. How do we know there aren't far more 'ordered' universes out there with difference values and laws?

If we don't have enough knowledge about other universes then we shall stick to the one we know, this universe. This universe's laws and machinations are of considerable and admirable order and balance, aren't they?

What exactly are we discussing here?

Again you're saying its balanced and ordered. How do we measure our universe to be ordered as opposed to chaotic? We don't have anything else to really compare it to.

There could be a possibility that are universe is more chaotic and less tuned to supporting life than countless other universes should they exist.

We're aware of the concepts of order and balance aren't we? We're aware of them conceptually and cognitively aren't we? We're aware of them in their abstract definitions regardless of context and their application in the physical world. What happens is that we take those concepts and apply them on different contexts in the physical world, in the most general sense of the word physical.

Comparison requires two or more of the same thing while relativity doesn't. The fact that we only know of this universe doesn't stop us from assessing or attempting to assess its degree of order and balance. We need more universes to find out which has more of these attributes or concepts which is something that is irrelevant to this discussion.

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
HoolaHoopMan

14724

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#50  Edited By HoolaHoopMan
Member since 2009 • 14724 Posts

@GazaAli said:

@HoolaHoopMan said:

Again you're saying its balanced and ordered. How do we measure our universe to be ordered as opposed to chaotic? We don't have anything else to really compare it to.

There could be a possibility that are universe is more chaotic and less tuned to supporting life than countless other universes should they exist.

We're aware of the concepts of order and balance aren't we? We're aware of them conceptually and cognitively aren't we? We're aware of them in their abstract definitions regardless of context and their application in the physical world. What happens is that we take those concepts and apply them on different contexts in the physical world, in the most general sense of the word physical.

Comparison requires two or more of the same thing while relativity doesn't. The fact that we only know of this universe doesn't stop us from assessing or attempting to assess its degree of order and balance. We need more universes to find out which has more of these attributes or concepts which is something that is irrelevant to this discussion.

No, as order would imply that we have something disorderly to compare it to. With a sample size of one, we don't. For example, if we found an ancient skull of an extinct species of dinosaur with no other specimens we couldn't come to the conclusion that it was a large or small member of its species. We could only measure the spacial dimensions and specifications of the skull.

What you're doing is basically invoking the anthropic principle.

By saying its ordered and harmonious you're implying that these laws were designed specifically for humans to come into existence. The problem being with that line of thinking is that you're basically reversing the cause and effect.

Instead of this universe being tuned to house us, its far more likely that we (as in life) adapted to the universe instead.