I am still uncertain of which way i should look at this. For example i can think of many possibilities for a god to exist, but none have been proven, or even seen yet, but why not believe it if you can, even if there is a small chance. On the other hand i think about evolution and how there is some proof that life was created from chemical reactions and matter, and may have started along that basic path of construction throughout the universe, but we don't know for sure. Therefore i believe in unlimited possibilities, but as for God i can't seem to believe anything else than the possibility of advanced life forms, which may be the pirates/administrators of the universe, or the first speck of dust, but information is obviously very unknown. What are your thoughts about this, Totse?

No God

Evolution

Such advanced organisms can not just "be created" (see rock face analogy)

Fin.

there are other poeple that believe there is something beyond the universe that created it, constructed the laws of matter and energy. But the creator doesnt interfere. And the creator should not be worshiped in any way.

I myself dont know. The universe is such a big place we are FARRRR from even having the need to think of that. Maybe if we can travel the universe at will, and have masterd everything there is to know about energy and shit like that. then and only then should we start thinking about whats next

"The trouble is that God in this sophisticated, physicist's sense bears no resemblance to the God of the Bible or any other religion."

Richard Dawkins

Idk... Im kinda a Deist in these matters, like their could be a god, but all religion is wrong... Religion is simply to explain the unexplainable...

There is no God. Unless god is a metaphor for the singularity, or whatever's over the veil of an event horizon.

God surely exists. Just not literally.

Life surely comes from nothing. But not literally nothing. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif) Aint that right.

quote:Originally posted by PermanentLapseOfStupidity:

but information is obviously very unknown



On matters that are unknown, keep your mind open to all possibilities. Don't feel ashamed to doubt something that you wrestle with in your head, and don't feel like just because others claim to be "enlightened" that somehow your thoughts or perceptions aren't just as valid as their own.

Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.

Voltaire (1694 - 1778)

quote:Originally posted by boozehound420:

"The trouble is that God in this sophisticated, physicist's sense bears no resemblance to the God of the Bible or any other religion."

Richard Dawkins

Exactly. Why do they keep calling reality "god"?

Dawkins was wrong. It does resemble the God of the bible and many other religions.

Examples:

Reality is everywhere, hence omnipresent.

Reality contains all information ever discovered and all that will be discovered, hence it is Allknowing.

If Reality did not exist, we could not exist, hence it is the creator.

Reality presents itself to us in many different ways, hence different 'gods' could just be different aspects of reality. (which is found in Hinduism)

If everything that IS, is made of reality then there is no independantly existing self. (a concept found in Buddhism and Taoism)

If we look at the conflict in the Bible of good versus evil we can compare it to yin/yang (taoism) and to matter versus anti-matter or positive/negative. And so 'God' would be both. An idea found in Hinduism and Tibetan Buddhist dieties.

Of course, I'm not trying to put together a serious arguement for my opnion. I'm just making some observations.

quote:God surely exists. Just not literally.

Life surely comes from nothing. But not literally nothing. Aint that right.



You actually just contributed nothing to this conversation. But not literally nothing.

quote:Originally posted by Seriously:

Dawkins was wrong. It does resemble the God of the bible and many other religions.



That quote flew right over your head. The sophisticated, physicist's God he/we are talking about is somebody or something that layed out the laws of the universe, and set everything in motion. This resembles nothing of the bible.

quote:Originally posted by Seriously:



No, it's nothing like the theist's God. The physicist's God has no personal qualities and does not intervene in the world.

My mistake then. It was said that 'they', meaning the physicist's, "keep calling reality God." I intended to answer that question. Could you perhaps describe this 'sophisticated, physisist's God"?

quote:there are other poeple that believe there is something beyond the universe that created it, constructed the laws of matter and energy. But the creator doesnt interfere. And the creator should not be worshiped in any way.

That first sentence sounds like the god in the bible to me. The second, well it could be answered but it would take awhile and a lot of assumptions. The third is personal opinion.

quote:The physicist's God has no personal qualities and does not intervene in the world.

Personal qualities? Like anger, love all that? I'm not saying the physicist's god and the god found in different religions match exactly. I'm saying they do slightly resemble eachother in more than one respect.

quote:Originally posted by Seriously:

Dawkins was wrong. It does resemble the God of the bible and many other religions.

Examples:

Reality is everywhere, hence omnipresent.

Reality contains all information ever discovered and all that will be discovered, hence it is Allknowing.

If Reality did not exist, we could not exist, hence it is the creator.

Reality presents itself to us in many different ways, hence different 'gods' could just be different aspects of reality. (which is found in Hinduism)

If everything that IS, is made of reality then there is no independantly existing self. (a concept found in Buddhism and Taoism)

If we look at the conflict in the Bible of good versus evil we can compare it to yin/yang (taoism) and to matter versus anti-matter or positive/negative. And so 'God' would be both. An idea found in Hinduism and Tibetan Buddhist dieties.

Of course, I'm not trying to put together a serious arguement for my opnion. I'm just making some observations.

You're observations are flawed. Try reading some Descartes.

Reality is what we sense it to be, we can only experience reality through our five senses.

Therefore if we did not sense something, then it is not real. Hence "reality" is not an entity and it is not all-knowing.

There is no god.

The laws of the universe weren't created, they are simply natural in a rational universe. From our observations, there doesn't appear to be anything irrational in the universe's function. This means no external forces are messing with anything, which rules out any intervention from a god. So if there is no intervention, and the laws are natural to the function of the universe, there is no need for any god to exist. Really, there isn't even any evidence at all for us to believe in god(s) other than abstract thoughts. God(s) is/are just wishful thinking of the poorly educated and misinformed masses. Religions were just created to solidify the beliefs of a population to strengthen the power of the men who control it. Kings, Church, noblemen, politicions, wealthy elite, so on. It's also good for the economy since most religion emphasize hard work.