Do you believe in God?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 40035
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.


PinzaC55 said:
I am on my phone in a pub so it will be hard to go through the posts but where did I say you didn't "believe in" the big bang ? I seem to recall you saying there was "no evidence" for god or the big bang ? That is the point I was addressing.
Click to expand...
I didn't say anything of the sort mate. i said there was no evidence of anything before the big bang. a load of models and theories but its pure speculation at this stage.

Kent_Mackem said:
When is the End of Year Awards Ceremony? That has to win the most ironic post of the year award, surely.
Click to expand...
I would hazard a guess that it wouldn't tbh
 
GK said:
I didn't say anything of the sort mate. i said there was no evidence of anything before the big bang. a load of models and theories but its pure speculation at this stage.


I would hazard a guess that it wouldn't tbh
Click to expand...

In post #508 you said (quote) " i don't believe in God but people that do have as much scientific evidence supporting them as those who believe the universe spontaneously appeared . ie none."
Unless it is poorly worded this appears to mean there is "no scientific evidence"(none) for either god or the big bang. Perhaps you would like to clarify ? You said nothing about "before the big bang" which is a statement without meaning because if the current mainstream scientific theory is correct time did not exist past the Planck time.
While we are on the subject of misunderstanding, in post #522 you said "The universe is absurd - there is no reason or logic". I know what each of those words means but the statement has me baffled.
 
PinzaC55 said:
In post #508 you said (quote) " i don't believe in God but people that do have as much scientific evidence supporting them as those who believe the universe spontaneously appeared . ie none."
Unless it is poorly worded this appears to mean there is "no scientific evidence"(none) for either god or the big bang. Perhaps you would like to clarify ? You said nothing about "before the big bang" which is a statement without meaning because if the current mainstream scientific theory is correct time did not exist past the Planck time.
While we are on the subject of misunderstanding, in post #522 you said "The universe is absurd - there is no reason or logic". I know what each of those words means but the statement has me baffled.
Click to expand...
Nope. i believe in the big bang or something similar. There's shitloads of evidenve e.g. expanding universe

Kent Mackem said the conditions that lead to the big bang e.g. the singularity may have spontaneously appeared. he might be right, who knows. i have no issue with him believing that. he was telling all and sundry that his belief was more credible than anyone elses. despite having nothing to back it up.

Over half of the worlds scientists believe in a god or creator of some sort admittedly from more religious countries than ours. who's to say they are wrong. 70% of scientists dont think theres any clash with science and the concept of a god.

Nobody knows basically. i dont believe in a god. but there's people that do. fair play to them . There's not a person on this planet that can tell them that they're wrong. well they can, but science doesn't support them.
 
GK said:
Nope. i believe in the big bang or something similar. There's shitloads of evidenve e.g. expanding universe

Kent Mackem said the conditions that lead to the big bang e.g. the singularity may have spontaneously appeared. he might be right, who knows. i have no issue with him believing that. he was telling all and sundry that his belief was more credible than anyone elses. despite having nothing to back it up.

Over half of the worlds scientists believe in a god or creator of some sort admittedly from more religious countries than ours. who's to say they are wrong. 70% of scientists dont think theres any clash with science and the concept of a god.

Nobody knows basically. i dont believe in a god. but there's people that do. fair play to them . There's not a person on this planet that can tell them that they're wrong. well they can, but science doesn't support them.
Click to expand...

You haven't answered my questions. No disrepect to Kent Mackem but I am not him and you should answer him directly about his posts.
As for "half the world's scientists" well...... I think we are done.
 
GK said:
Kent Mackem said the conditions that lead to the big bang e.g. the singularity may have spontaneously appeared. he might be right, who knows. i have no issue with him believing that. he was telling all and sundry that his belief was more credible than anyone elses. despite having nothing to back it up.
Click to expand...

That is absolutely not what I wrote as anybody who takes time to read my posts will clearly be able to see.

I wrote that a relatively (i.e. when compared to the next option) simple concept of a spontaneously appearing universe is more likely than an extravagantly made up concept of a designer who created the universe, because by definition the second option must be more complicated than the first.

It is nothing about what I "believe" or "don't believe".
 
Kent_Mackem said:
That is absolutely not what I wrote as anybody who takes time to read my posts will clearly be able to see.

I wrote that a relatively (i.e. when compared to the next option) simple concept of a spontaneously appearing universe is more likely than an extravagantly made up concept of a designer who created the universe, because by definition the second option must be more complicated than the first.

It is nothing about what I "believe" or "don't believe".
Click to expand...
Its not more likely in any way shape or form.
 
FootballFan said:
I'm keeping my options open
Click to expand...

This. Although if pushed I'd say I'm agnostic.
I like what Humanists believe too.

I like to think people can do good things and be nice without some ethereal parent looking over their shoulder reminding them to be good and they'll get a treat in the next life.
 
dangermows said:
Because life is a punishment and the ultimate aim is to be free of the life, death, rebirth cycle.
Click to expand...

I don't accept this life is a punishment although I can see much suffering. The cycle of Samsara.....the engine of Greed, Hate and Delusion that propels us through the six realms of the Wheel of Life.....Devas (Happiness), Asuras (Power), Humans (Pride), Animals (Ignorance), Pretas (Insatiable Desire), and Hell (Hate and Suffering) is what could be interpreted as mental states that we pass through during this lifetime, possibly on a day to day basis. The same for the stages described in the Bardo Thodal (Tibetan Book of the Dead) for the intermediate state between death and rebirth which is also very similar to the rising and falling through the Chakras and is also something we continuously pass through during day to day living. Comparison could also be made to Humanistic Psychology and the Hierarchy of Needs.

So it is all a very living experience for all of us and I see no need to

If we call this life suffering then that is caused by the mind which is constantly changing. We are not born with that mental suffering. Buddha said that existence is suffering but by existence he meant mind rather than no-mind. He said suffering was selfish desire and that selfish desire can be removed. Surely that can be done in this lifetime. Truth is the Consciousness of Bliss. What greater truth could you aspire to?

Edit: So it is all a very living experience for all of us and I see no need to elaborate on. That just leads to further distractions. (that line should read)

Forget your theories of past and future live. Focus on this one.

Forget your theories of life, death and the afterlife. Focus on this life.

Only there can you become conscious of truth as the experience of bliss.

Distraction leads to procrastination and the delusion that we have plenty of time.
 
Last edited:
haway said:
How is it unfalsifiable? It is a hypothesis that could easily be tested at future points one would think.

Not sure why you think it isn't taken seriously. It's probably one of the leading two or three theories in philosophy of mind on consciousness.

1. How do you think consciousness can arise out of matter?
Click to expand...

It is based on an assertion that provides no evidence, and no method by which it can be proven false; ostensibly an argument from ignorance (and a fallacy of division), you could replace 'rock' and 'consciousness' in the sentence with 'seaweed' and 'melancholy' and you'd not be making a great leap. How would you test it? How can anything be tested, when it provides no actual evidence in its favour in the 1st place? It is a totally abstract idea with no science to it; it is nothing more than cognitive speculation for me, and one that is inherently non-scientific.

Honestly, I don't know. But it is not up to me to provide an alternative to an unsupported assertion, though. If pressed, I'd say that consciousness is probably emergent, and is the collective end result of the evolved 'whole', and doesn't require all of the basic 'parts' to be imbued with the same. A brain produces thoughts and emotions, that doesn't require every single thing that makes up a brain to also do that, it is a fallacy of division.

PhilSAFC said:
It's your understanding of "realistic" though. I think it's very arrogant to think we have reached the stage where we understand the universe. 1. There is so much stuff beyond our understanding and will be forever beyond our understanding 2. that I don't think anything can be ruled out as unrealistic.
Click to expand...
1. How do you know what will be forever beyond our understanding? How did you determine that, and what things are you claiming this about?
2. If 1 is true, the explain the following: 'There is so much stuff beyond our understanding and will be forever beyond our understanding, that I don't think anything can be ruled out as unrealistic.' - This sentence was espoused by a married bachelor on his hen night, who was simultaneously alive and not-alive, and who wrote this sentence down on a piece of paper in the shape of a square-circle...

Some things are impossible by definition.

With regards to 2, how can you say that nothing can ruled out as 'unrealistic'? The very statement implies that everything must not only be 'ruled in', but also be 'realistic', which is just not true, and renders 'realistic' meaningless and self-refuting - if everything is realistic, then there isn't anything that is unrealistic. As 'realistic' is defined against things that are not realistic, the whole concept of it is gone. Can unrealistic things be realistic? It would be like saying everything is likely - a logical impossibility, but again, it defeats its own meaning - It cannot be likely that unlikely things are likely.

Also, saying something is unrealistic, doesn't rule it out. Ruling it out means you're saying it is not possible, which is not the same. You can't 'rule something out as unrealistic' any more than you can say 'x is true because it hasn't been ruled out'.
 
Last edited:
Mercia Blackcat said:
I don't accept this life is a punishment although I can see much suffering. The cycle of Samsara.....the engine of Greed, Hate and Delusion that propels us through the six realms of the Wheel of Life.....Devas (Happiness), Asuras (Power), Humans (Pride), Animals (Ignorance), Pretas (Insatiable Desire), and Hell (Hate and Suffering) is what could be interpreted as mental states that we pass through during this lifetime, possibly on a day to day basis. The same for the stages described in the Bardo Thodal (Tibetan Book of the Dead) for the intermediate state between death and rebirth which is also very similar to the rising and falling through the Chakras and is also something we continuously pass through during day to day living. Comparison could also be made to Humanistic Psychology and the Hierarchy of Needs.

So it is all a very living experience for all of us and I see no need to

If we call this life suffering then that is caused by the mind which is constantly changing. We are not born with that mental suffering. Buddha said that existence is suffering but by existence he meant mind rather than no-mind. He said suffering was selfish desire and that selfish desire can be removed. Surely that can be done in this lifetime. Truth is the Consciousness of Bliss. What greater truth could you aspire to?

Edit: So it is all a very living experience for all of us and I see no need to elaborate on. That just leads to further distractions. (that line should read)

Forget your theories of past and future live. Focus on this one.

Forget your theories of life, death and the afterlife. Focus on this life.

Only there can you become conscious of truth as the experience of bliss.

Distraction leads to procrastination and the delusion that we have plenty of time.
Click to expand...
Life is not punishment , to be punished is a self referent concept . The root of the invitation to suffering .

Wizards Sleeve said:
:lol: f***ing hell, he is as well.
Click to expand...
:eek::lol:
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top