Do you believe in God?

[SnailyBoy]

Thanks for supplying that information, that's interesting. I guessed when I said around a billion.I don't know why I was asked the question perhaps it was to test whether I was at all aware that the Universe had been in existence for such a long period of time.

To some believers the period of time is not so relevant in relation to the existence of God, because time itself is created by God,and time isn't measured in in the same way. Its more about the beginning, the very cause of any form of life that's of greater interest, the very first particle that started it all off.

 

The Universe is 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years old.

 

Have you seen the Wonders of the Universe series with Professor Brian Cox?

[carosio]

What has that quote from Christopher Hitchens have to do with that earlier comment you made,and the question I asked?

I'm a Christian,i have a only a vague knowledge of Hinduism.

One thing I do know is that their beliefs are as diverse as Christians and many of them worship Jesus as a great prophet,believing that the very first Christian apostles were telling the truth.

Do you believe in the existence of those apostles Peter & Paul for instance?

 

They don't worship him, they acknowledge him.

 

Does anyone know what denomination Janie is?

[Obelix]

Someone told me the other day that I should believe in God and that just because I couldn't see him it doesn't mean he doesn't exist. He then tried to say that just because I couldn't see air it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Crazy!

 

You can see air though. Why is the sky blue etc....

[epiphany]

Science is far more humble than religion when it comes to admitting how much we don't know.

 

Science is always open to scrutiny, whereas religion is closed on a number of contentious issues.

 

Science has a rigorous and methodical process for deconstructing complex problems, whereas religion simply says "it in the book, therefore it true".

 

In spite of what many religious people claim, science does not absolutely reject the possibility of a god existing, it just has zero evidence as of yet. It must be considered in exactly the same way as any other premise without evidence.

 

Science is concerned with objective truth, not the whims and infallibilities of subjective experience.

 

Science teaches us to be sceptical, critical thinkers and question authority, whereas religion's survival is dependent upon people unquestionably repeating dogma based on the mere thread of faith that it is morally "right". Transfer this mindset to politics and you can see why many of the world's leaders get away, quite literally, with murder.

Edited April 8, 2013 by epiphany

[Lockjaw]

I knew you would resort to the insult tactics in the end, isn't that part of the training!.

 

If you will indulge me, janie, I'd like to go a bit further than Obelix with this point because it genuinely interests me and you have made such accusations against me in the past, the most confusing instance being in response to a question.

 

So, can you highlight, for us, which parts of FJ's post you consider to be insulting?

 

---------- Post added 08-04-2013 at 11:43 ----------

 

To some believers the period of time is not so relevant in relation to the existence of God, because time itself is created by God,and time isn't measured in in the same way. Its more about the beginning, the very cause of any form of life that's of greater interest, the very first particle that started it all off.

 

Indulge me a bit more and have another look at the above statement. This is a perfect example of why I consider "theists" to be deluded (Stop right there - the last sentence was about me. I am not insulting you.).

 

Can you not see that, as soon as the known facts start to threaten the belief, or faith, or whatever, that the faithful always dodge the issue by crying "irrelevence" or claim something like "time isn't measured in the same way" for which there is no basis whatsoever except that it helps to solve the little personal faith challenge that has just been experienced?

 

Now, you could revert to type here and dodge the issue by accusing me of insulting you or spouting some riddle-me-ree or, you could let us know what you, genuinely, think about my points above. I await with interest.

Edited April 8, 2013 by Lockjaw

[Ryedo40]

...Not only to introduce them to the belief, but to spread the messages of hope, peace, justice, and charity,as well as a belief in the afterlife.

 

I refute your suggestion about the early Christians "having a fad for martyrdom" some may have but I doubt there were that many.Its documented that those earliest Christians suffered terrible tortures and afflictions from the hands of the Romans before the Romans themselves converted after the time of the Roman Emperor Nero,i've read about it before and there have been a number of books that have been published about those events. I am providing one source from the BBC history site.

 

Some of earliest of Christians had the idea that Jesus - who they'd been told had died for them - would soon return to cast judgement and destroy everything that's "wrong" with the world. It was pretty much a death and doomsday cult(if I remember correctly, there are accounts of people giving up their lively-hoods and homes because they were taken in by those claims - just like those of modern day doomsday cults). Like modern day cults, they offer messages of hope: a better life in the hereafter if you follow and obey. They also have messages of justice: where those who aren't part of the cult will be punished. And, like Christianity, modern day cults have messages of peace - or non-violence. They also usually attract the poor, ill(including mentally) and those who have had a raw deal in life; including a poor education. However, Christians weren't at all peaceful: they scorned the rest of society and viewed those with other gods with contempt. So where those who worshipped others gods pretty much got on with each other and shared festivities, etc, Christianity came along and introduced intolerance of religion: disturbing the peace: causing others to react and complain to Roman authorities(who, with the interests of keeping a stable society had to act).

 

Yes, there were isolated occasions where Christians were persecuted, but it wasn't as widespread or on going like Christians have made out. And when they were persecuted, it was mostly - not always - a result of their own exclusive and intolerant attitudes.

 

I also didn't say ALL Christians had a fad for martyrdom, but letters by Pliny and writings by the likes of Bishop Ignatius(who craved martyrdom) show there was a fad for it.

 

That article you've posted refuted nothing.

[RootsBooster]

Why not? Aside from the fact I'm arguing that "gods" probably exist, not "God" the omnipresent prime mover.

Because it doesn't matter if we mistake them for gods, that doesn't actually make them gods

Our epistemology isn't up to it. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…

If it looks like an illusionist (Dynamo) walking unsupported on water (the Thames) and it sounds like an illusionist walking unsupported on water, does that mean it really is an illusionist walking unsupported on water?

I didn't actually say it is "safe" to assume, I said "fair".

You're quite right, I've had a look back and I don't know where I got that from, my bad.

I noticed something else I missed before...

 

It's not a baseless assumption.

 

Regardless, let's leave the nomenclature out for a moment, and just see if we can agree that there's a high probability that beings, with minds and abilities immeasurably superior our own (to lift from Herbert Wells for a moment), exist, somewhere in the universe.

 

I'm asserting that to assume otherwise (that Earth harbours the only examples of intelligent life in the universe) is essentially special pleading.

 

Anything wrong with that view, in isolation?

the word "immeasurably" changes my opinion, I can no longer agree with it. It may be possible that there are immeasurably superior beings but what makes you think it will be probable?

 

---------- Post added 08-04-2013 at 13:19 ----------

 

i think for anyone who believes in god we all, no matter what religion, believe in the same god. Apart from slight variations they all say the same thing.

 

Apart from polytheistic gods

 

---------- Post added 08-04-2013 at 13:22 ----------

 

I think that would be the old testament you are quoting.

 

Does that mean the Old Testament should be ignored or something?

[spilldig]

 

Does that mean the Old Testament should be ignored or something?

 

Yes, because it was a re-write.

[Phanerothyme]

Because it doesn't matter if we mistake them for gods, that doesn't actually make them gods

My point is there is no difference between functional and actual gods. If they have the qualities we have ascribed to gods (awesome power, prophesy, mastery of time, space and matter) then they qualify, unless you stipulate that in order to fit the description of "god" a thing must not exist.

If it looks like an illusionist (Dynamo) walking unsupported on water (the Thames) and it sounds like an illusionist walking unsupported on water, does that mean it really is an illusionist walking unsupported on water?

Obviously it's a figure of speech, meaning a thing is what it is - your analogy presupposed that we know the man walking on water is attempting to deceive us.

You're quite right, I've had a look back and I don't know where I got that from, my bad.

I noticed something else I missed before...

 

 

the word "immeasurably" changes my opinion, I can no longer agree with it. It may be possible that there are immeasurably superior beings but what makes you think it will be probable?

 

That's simple. In the set of all sentient beings in the multiverse (or simply universe) the subset of beings that are not exceeded in capability or understanding is very small. Similarly the subset of beings that are exceeded in capability and understanding by all other sentient beings is very small. By far the largest set is that of sentient beings for whom there are greater and lesser sentiences. Thus the probability that we belong to that group is very, very high indeed, close to 100%.

 

So at one end we have proteans, zooplankton etc, and at the other end we have ultrabeings.

 

Humans are to zooplankton as ultrabeings are to humans.

 

How does an amoeba or a zooplankton relate to a human? Are our capabilities and understanding measurable to them?

[flamingjimmy]

That's simple. In the set of all sentient beings in the multiverse (or simply universe) the subset of beings that are not exceeded in capability or understanding is very small. Similarly the subset of beings that are exceeded in capability and understanding by all other sentient beings is very small. By far the largest set is that of sentient beings for whom there are greater and lesser sentiences. Thus the probability that we belong to that group is very, very high indeed, close to 100%.

 

That argument does not wash.

 

What if the set I'm working with is the numbers 1 - 1000.

 

Lets follow your reasoning, the subset of numbers within my set that are not exceeded in value is very small, only one number in fact. Similarly the subset of numbers that are exceeded in value by all the other numbers is very small, also only 1 number. By far the largest set is that of numbers that are neither. Thus the probability that there are numbers higher than 1000 in a set that does not include any numbers higher than 1000 is close to 100%.

 

Exactly the same argument.

 

Another objection: Your argument cannot possibly be true because it leads to infinite regression. Lets say for the sake of argument I concede that your argument does show that tit is highly likely that there are higher intelligences than us. It also shows that it is highly likely that there are intelligences higher than them, it also shows that it is highly likely that there are intelligences higher than them, it also shows...

 

 

---------- Post added 08-04-2013 at 16:27 ----------

 

Humans are to zooplankton as ultrabeings are to humans.

 

Not so! Humans and zooplankton are real!

Edited April 8, 2013 by flamingjimmy