Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Do you believe in God?

Page 52 of 88 [ 1403 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55 ... 88  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Do you believe God exists?
1) God is a being, that one can have a personal relationship. A person God. 29%  29%  [ 55 ]
2) God is an impersonal force that guides reality as it is. He decrees our laws of physics, but does not intervene to break them. 12%  12%  [ 22 ]
3) God does not exist. Reality can be explained by scientific inquiry and the scientific method in by itself. 33%  33%  [ 62 ]
4) I am not sure. There is the possibility that God does exist, or does not. We must follow the preponderance of evidence when drawing our conclusion. 26%  26%  [ 48 ]
Total votes : 187

drlaugh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2015
Posts: 3,360

19 Apr 2016, 4:44 pm

Thanks B. C.

I never heard of weak atheism.

D. L. :o


_________________
Still too old to know it all


BaalChatzaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,050
Location: Monroe Twp. NJ

19 Apr 2016, 4:48 pm

drlaugh wrote:
Thanks B. C.

I never heard of weak atheism.

D. L. :o


Atheism in its "strong" form is a denial of God's existence. Unfortunately there is no more evidence that God does not exist than there is evidence that God does exist. So it is not a matter of -knowing-. It all comes down to belief.


_________________
Socrates' Last Words: I drank what!! !?????


drlaugh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2015
Posts: 3,360

19 Apr 2016, 5:02 pm

So Atheism is a strong belief that God doesn't exist.

Did I understand correctly?

me.. not that kind of doctor ...


_________________
Still too old to know it all


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

19 Apr 2016, 6:14 pm

You can definitely be an atheistic agnostic, and vice versa.

An agnostic is a skeptic. An atheist is somebody who doesn't believe in deities/God.

I don't preclude the possibility that a "superior force" exists, though I doubt it. Hence, I'm a skeptic, an agnostic

I don't believe in the existence of God/deities; hence, I'm an atheist.



drlaugh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2015
Posts: 3,360

19 Apr 2016, 6:48 pm

Thanks for the clarification.


_________________
Still too old to know it all


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

19 Apr 2016, 6:51 pm

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
But you're welcome to recite the Gettysburg Address in Mandarin Chinese. Sounds interesting.

Is this a zen riddle? It came without any postmarking, consequently no one knows who it was to or what it's supposed to mean.


It was addressed to AspieOtaku.

AspieOtaku just said above that he is a quick study of languages and taught himself Mandarin Chinese in no time flat. So if he wanted to take a break from baiting religious folks - I am inviting him to recite the Gettysburg address in Mandarin if he wants.



Deltaville
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 941
Location: SystemShock Universe

19 Apr 2016, 6:54 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
I would love to have been around when the universe began (or was it created?)

We really don't have the answer to that question; I tend to doubt that we will ever come up with a conclusive answer.


I would not recommend for anyone to be around the time of creation. The initial electromagnetic wave, still visible as the CMB (cosmic microwave background) from t=0 would blast anything in its way. Moreover, if inflation is ever proven correct, anyone present during creation would have almost instantly been incinerated to subatomic particles (which actually, did not even exist at that time, as things were too hot for any atomic formation). About four minutes later, nuclear synthesis began and the seeds for the first atoms were planted.


_________________
Sebastian

"Don't forget to floss." - Darkwing Duck


techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,693
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

19 Apr 2016, 7:45 pm

Deltaville wrote:
I would not recommend for anyone to be around the time of creation. The initial electromagnetic wave, still visible as the CMB (cosmic microwave background) from t=0 would blast anything in its way. Moreover, if inflation is ever proven correct, anyone present during creation would have almost instantly been incinerated to subatomic particles (which actually, did not even exist at that time, as things were too hot for any atomic formation). About four minutes later, nuclear synthesis began and the seeds for the first atoms were planted.

That and with the plume I'd think there'd be nothing to see until one was roasting in it.

The thing they did at the end of Lucy at least pulled on my heart strings in a 2001 'flying into the monolith' sort of way but I doubt it was that kind of show.


_________________
The loneliest part of life: it's not just that no one is on your cloud, few can even see your cloud.


NoahYates
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2016
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 545
Location: Kentucky

19 Apr 2016, 8:28 pm

On the difference between atheism and agnosticism as classically defined:


_________________
“In the same way that you see a flower in a field, it’s really the whole field that is flowering, because the flower couldn’t exist in that particular place without the special surroundings of the field; you only find flowers in surroundings that will support them. So in the same way, you only find human beings on a planet of this kind, with an atmosphere of this kind, with a temperature of this kind- supplied by a convenient neighboring star. And so, as the flower is a flowering of the field, I feel myself as a personing- a manning- a peopling of the whole universe. –In other words, I, like everything else in the universe, seem to be a center… a sort of vortex, at which the whole energy of the universe realizes itself- comes alive… an aperture through which the whole universe is conscious of itself. In other words, I go with it as a center to a circumference.”~ Alan Watts


drlaugh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2015
Posts: 3,360

19 Apr 2016, 8:36 pm

Thanks. N. Y.
I only had interest to watch a few minutes.
That persons initial definition is how I categorized the 2 words.

His humorous use of the difference being one of "guts" is interesting.

Thanks to all for sharing their experience and data.

I'm a believer. 8)


_________________
Still too old to know it all


AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

19 Apr 2016, 8:44 pm

Deltaville wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
I would love to have been around when the universe began (or was it created?)

We really don't have the answer to that question; I tend to doubt that we will ever come up with a conclusive answer.


I would not recommend for anyone to be around the time of creation. The initial electromagnetic wave, still visible as the CMB (cosmic microwave background) from t=0 would blast anything in its way. Moreover, if inflation is ever proven correct, anyone present during creation would have almost instantly been incinerated to subatomic particles (which actually, did not even exist at that time, as things were too hot for any atomic formation). About four minutes later, nuclear synthesis began and the seeds for the first atoms were planted.

Including God, and any plans he may have had.



AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

19 Apr 2016, 8:48 pm

Deltaville wrote:

Any attempt that tries to deliver naturalistic solutions to why the universe exists, has generally not succeeded due to chronological issues. In 1982, I think Alexander Vilenkin thought that he managed to solve the issue of why there is something rather than nothing by a process known as quantum tunneling. Unfortunately, Vilenkin is not the sharpest pencil in the pencil case, and it didn't take long until physicists pointed out that the quantum tunneling method utterly ignores time (as it is based on the Wheeler-DeWitt formula, a stone age attempt at a theory of everything) and thus, does not contain a workable time vector.

Utter nonsense. There are many plausible theories that explain the existence of the universe. The failure of one can't prove supernaturalism.



Deltaville
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 941
Location: SystemShock Universe

19 Apr 2016, 9:44 pm

AspE wrote:
Deltaville wrote:

Any attempt that tries to deliver naturalistic solutions to why the universe exists, has generally not succeeded due to chronological issues. In 1982, I think Alexander Vilenkin thought that he managed to solve the issue of why there is something rather than nothing by a process known as quantum tunneling. Unfortunately, Vilenkin is not the sharpest pencil in the pencil case, and it didn't take long until physicists pointed out that the quantum tunneling method utterly ignores time (as it is based on the Wheeler-DeWitt formula, a stone age attempt at a theory of everything) and thus, does not contain a workable time vector.

Utter nonsense. There are many plausible theories that explain the existence of the universe. The failure of one can't prove supernaturalism.


Utter nonsense. As someone who has just began his thesis in the metrics of the very early universe, I can tell you there are none. If I have not told you before, I have just returned to university to complete my PhD in Theoretical Physics with concentration in Physical Cosmology.


_________________
Sebastian

"Don't forget to floss." - Darkwing Duck


AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

19 Apr 2016, 10:19 pm

Deltaville wrote:
AspE wrote:
Deltaville wrote:

Any attempt that tries to deliver naturalistic solutions to why the universe exists, has generally not succeeded due to chronological issues. In 1982, I think Alexander Vilenkin thought that he managed to solve the issue of why there is something rather than nothing by a process known as quantum tunneling. Unfortunately, Vilenkin is not the sharpest pencil in the pencil case, and it didn't take long until physicists pointed out that the quantum tunneling method utterly ignores time (as it is based on the Wheeler-DeWitt formula, a stone age attempt at a theory of everything) and thus, does not contain a workable time vector.

Utter nonsense. There are many plausible theories that explain the existence of the universe. The failure of one can't prove supernaturalism.


Utter nonsense. As someone who has just began his thesis in the metrics of the very early universe, I can tell you there are none. If I have not told you before, I have just returned to university to complete my PhD in Theoretical Physics with concentration in Physical Cosmology.

So you are a student, therefore you can't be wrong? OK dude.



Deltaville
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 941
Location: SystemShock Universe

19 Apr 2016, 10:25 pm

AspE wrote:
Deltaville wrote:
AspE wrote:
Deltaville wrote:

Any attempt that tries to deliver naturalistic solutions to why the universe exists, has generally not succeeded due to chronological issues. In 1982, I think Alexander Vilenkin thought that he managed to solve the issue of why there is something rather than nothing by a process known as quantum tunneling. Unfortunately, Vilenkin is not the sharpest pencil in the pencil case, and it didn't take long until physicists pointed out that the quantum tunneling method utterly ignores time (as it is based on the Wheeler-DeWitt formula, a stone age attempt at a theory of everything) and thus, does not contain a workable time vector.

Utter nonsense. There are many plausible theories that explain the existence of the universe. The failure of one can't prove supernaturalism.


Utter nonsense. As someone who has just began his thesis in the metrics of the very early universe, I can tell you there are none. If I have not told you before, I have just returned to university to complete my PhD in Theoretical Physics with concentration in Physical Cosmology.

So you are a student, therefore you can't be wrong? OK dude.


Not just any student; a student versed in heat/thermal physics and physical cosmology.


_________________
Sebastian

"Don't forget to floss." - Darkwing Duck


Deltaville
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 941
Location: SystemShock Universe

20 Apr 2016, 5:29 am

Here is Luke Barne's refutation of Richard Carrier's (author of the subtly titled 'Why the Resurrection is Unbelievable' and 'Why Christianity is False') 'refutation' of the fine tuning argument. It is a guaranteed laugh: https://letterstonature.wordpress.com/2 ... er-part-1/


_________________
Sebastian

"Don't forget to floss." - Darkwing Duck