Post aspects of the world/universe that make you believe there is a god (because its so great) and aspects so bad that make you believe there is no god.

At the end we'll determine if there is or isn't.

Ok, I'm first:

Proof for: TOTSE :)

Proof against: Imitation lego. :mad:

Proof for: Creamy Peter-Pan peanut butter.

Against: Being sick the day before I leave for vacation. God's kicking me in the balls right now. Asshole. :mad:

For: Nothing

Against: Everything

proof for : p0rn

proof against : hitler

For: Nothing

Against: Everything


:rolleyes:
You could swap those around and it'd still be valid.

imo;

For: Universe could not exist without something to keep it in check.

Against: Organised religions r teh suxxzorz.

:rolleyes:
For: Universe could not exist without something to keep it in check.


Explain that one, please.

For:You can't disprove a negative.
Against: You can't prove it.

How do all the forces in the universe stay as they are?

Why doesn't the nature of gravity change suddenly and the universe falls apart?

What makes all the galaxies stay in one place? (or move in the same direction)

The answer is either nothing, and the universe is stable - or that something is keeping everything the way it is.

EDIT: If you can answer any of these questions, please do.

Also; whether or not this is something that could be labelled as a 'god' is a matter of opinion.

I do however believe that if such a thing existed, i could only see it as divine.

Hmm... it seems i have killed the thread - apologies, i just happen to think that this is as important a question as what caused the universe to be created.

How do all the forces in the universe stay as they are?

Why doesn't the nature of gravity change suddenly and the universe falls apart?

What makes all the galaxies stay in one place? (or move in the same direction)

The answer is either nothing, and the universe is stable - or that something is keeping everything the way it is.

EDIT: If you can answer any of these questions, please do.

Also; whether or not this is something that could be labelled as a 'god' is a matter of opinion.

I do however believe that if such a thing existed, i could only see it as divine.
The simple answer would be that we have no answers... yet.

But to believe in a God simply because you can't explain something is both stupid and irrational.

When people could not explain why there is day and night, they gave God credit.

When people could not explain the stars in the sky, they gave God credit.

When people could not explain how we formed, they gave God credit.

-

Evolution is still widely thought of as false, but every day more and more Creationists apply it to their current beliefs.

Many, many, MANY things that were once so misunderstood that they were thought of as miraculous are now understood completely.

As time passed and our world discovered what the universe was and whatnot, they started claiming it was from God also.

Early religious documents don't mention God creating the universe (Directly, at least) for one simple reason: They had no idea that there was anything other than the Earth, the Sun, the moon and the stars.

Attaching God and miracles to things we do not yet understand is like attaching a god or a miracle to a mathematical equation that has not yet been solved.

It is completely retarded, and unless it gets proven false, then it is only a matter of time until we find the solution.

*cough*





Against: Organised religions r teh suxxzorz.

I believe that more than a few people have had plenty of opportunity to get it wrong - i'm just looking at a question without trying to find the answer atm.

If it turns out that something is indeed controlling the balance of the universe, that thing itself would have to be created.

I also actually believe in evolution too - however it is possible that 'God' or whatever put the schematics in place for evolution to come about.

Please don't confuse my reasoning with that of a person who has been indoctrinated into a systematic belief structure.

E: It may also turn out that one day science does actually prove the existence of an hyper-real entity, in which case all bets are off - no longer is it the field of religion, it would be the field of science.

Essentially, looking through the eyes of a person who champions science above all else; God cannot exist, even if we find something powerful enough to 'be' God.

If it turns out that something is indeed controlling the balance of the universe, that thing itself would have to be created.

If existence itself is impossible without a creator, then what explains the existence of the creator itself?

If existence itself is impossible without a creator, then what explains the existence of the creator itself?

High ammounts of energy = matter.
No creator needed.
Batteries not included.

For: Everything.

Against: Everything.

If existence itself is impossible without a creator, then what explains the existence of the creator itself?

A good question, and i only have one answer;

This is but one facet of reality - as such, the creator created this reality and entered into it himself, almost as if it were some sort of 'real' VR.

What exists outside of this?

That is something i feel i could never answer or know, even if after death - but there is something, it's as if it were on the tip of my tongue.

I suppose the best answer i could give to that would be pure, chaotic energy.

As for giving it a name, i suppose i could call it whatever the fuck i wanted.

EDIT: I suppose that this reasoning supports the case for parallel dimensions, too.

:)

A good question, and i only have one answer;

This is but one facet of reality - as such, the creator created this reality and entered into it himself, almost as if it were some sort of 'real' VR.

What exists outside of this?

That is something i feel i could never answer or know, even if after death - but there is something, it's as if it were on the tip of my tongue.

I suppose the best answer i could give to that would be pure, chaotic energy.

As for giving it a name, i suppose i could call it whatever the fuck i wanted.

EDIT: I suppose that this reasoning supports the case for parallel dimensions, too.

:)

String theory seems to explain your questions.

Look it up.

I had thought of that, thanks.

I was just thinking about the nature of this reality and the 'hyper-reality' outside it.

Suppose you had a swimming pool that was old - ancient, even, and it was filled with water.

Now because the pool is old, there would be cracks in the bottom of it, and water seeps through into the soil beneath it.

Now replace the water with pure energy - as such, that energy would become seperate from the main body, and because of this it would even gain it's own identity due to being disjointed from the 'true' reality and becoming another.

I suppose however that this reasoning requires there to have been energy in the first place.

I could question myself over this all day and still not come up with anything definitive.

EDIT: Oh, and for the support of the God arguement; the energy is chaotic and therefore due to infinite time an entity would spawn out of it and start doing things with the energy around it.

I suppose however that this reasoning requires there to have been energy in the first place.

I could question myself over this all day and still not come up with anything definitive.

It would also require for energy to 'behave' like water.


I still stand by my case.

For god: Everything(We just DON'T know how things started).

Against it: Everything(We just DON'T know how things started).

I'm gone. Time to start my day.

It would also require for energy to 'behave' like water.


I still stand by my case.

For god: Everything(We just DON'T know how things started).

Against it: Everything(We just DON'T know how things started).

I'm gone. Time to start my day.

I have nothing wrong with your case.

I was just using that example to put my thoughts into coherent ideas.

For: Wrong Forum
Against: Wrong Forum

Needmoney is absolutely correct. My God.


Entheogenic

How do all the forces in the universe stay as they are?

Why doesn't the nature of gravity change suddenly and the universe falls apart?

What makes all the galaxies stay in one place? (or move in the same direction)

The answer is either nothing, and the universe is stable - or that something is keeping everything the way it is.

EDIT: If you can answer any of these questions, please do.

Also; whether or not this is something that could be labelled as a 'god' is a matter of opinion.

I do however believe that if such a thing existed, i could only see it as divine.

Hmm... it seems i have killed the thread - apologies, i just happen to think that this is as important a question as what caused the universe to be created.


i'll interrupt rolling my joint for this one. there is a fact concerning colliding galaxies; they aren't travelling in the same direction. and when they collide they sometimes fall apart. othertimes they make uber galaxies. and the uhhhhhh gravity not changing is relative to the physical mass of any object. gravity is exerted upon a smaller mass, thus in turn the stabilizing force is gravitational attraction... and you'll learn in life that MOST thing aren't proved with actual factual things - but they're indeed mostly theorized and only exist in hypothetical situations...

you'll be alright believing we could die tomorrow. that's what i do...

OK,
Here you go,

Back in the days when the crusades and such were going on (one of many examples), if you were in charge of a large group of people (The Catholic Church), you legitimized your power in 1 way which was that God decided that you were in charge. Now, if someone else comes along with a different belief system (the muslims), than that becomes a slight to your authority. How could you both be correct? So, how do you keep your power? Say that God disapproves of them and kill them in the name of God. But really, it's just your attempt to keep your power.

Not sure if that made sense, just say if it doesn't and I'll type it up again and put more time into it.

you'll be alright believing we could die tomorrow. that's what i do...

I don't do that because I value my sanity... seriously man, that's a worldview that would make you go crazy fast.

For: The fine-tuning of the universe, the odds that a randomly made universe would sustain life are 1 in 10^120 (a gamble even multiverse theorists have difficulty explaining), and that's for the cosmological constant alone, there are dozens of other forces that have ridiculously low chances of being precise.

Against: Absolutely no empirical evidence for a creator, the universe might as well been made by a quantum ray, or it could be a simulation... there is equal amounts of proof for all of these.

Wow... I just agnosticized myself.

For: The fine-tuning of the universe, the odds that a randomly made universe would sustain life are 1 in 10^120 (a gamble even multiverse theorists have difficulty explaining), and that's for the cosmological constant alone, there are dozens of other forces that have ridiculously low chances of being precise.

Wow... I just agnosticized myself.


I don't remember what the name of the principal that I'm thinking of it, but I remember reading it in A Brief History Of Time. Basically, the question would be "Why is it that everything hit so perfectly when the universe created that made everything fit for human survival?" The Answer: "Because if it hadn't happened that way, you wouldn't be able to ask that question"

I don't remember what the name of the principal that I'm thinking of it, but I remember reading it in A Brief History Of Time. Basically, the question would be "Why is it that everything hit so perfectly when the universe created that made everything fit for human survival?" The Answer: "Because if it hadn't happened that way, you wouldn't be able to ask that question"

It's called The Anthropic Principle, and I have heard of it. I once used it as the chief explanation for the reason to believe in a God, but I now realize the logical fallacity of such a statement.

First, the Principle avoids the question, the question being: "Why is everything so perfect?", the answer doesn't directly attack the question, it doesn't say how it happened, nor does it make an assumption or an observation, it just says "It happened because we're here asking that very question". The principle answers the question "What would have happened had it not occured perfectly?", not the reasons behind why it did. Compare these 2 answers to the same question...

Q: Why is this the way it is?
A1: Because if it wasn't, we wouldn't exist.
A2: God put it there so that we would exist.

That's the main reason I no longer appreciate the Anthropic Principle. Imagine a different field of science applying this philosophy; for example, biology.
Darwin wouldn't have formulated the theory of evolution because (pursuant to A1), he would have claimed that "If life wasn't somehow created, we wouldn't be here answering the question", or (pursuant to A2), he would have claimed divine intervention and left it at that. This may also be applied to Chemistry, Physics, whatever.

Both answers are in direct conflict with the spirit of science, they douse curiosity instead of asking us to explore the real reason. It would be nice if our existence could be explained by a simple play on words, but sadly, that's not how the universe works.

If this argument has completely destroyed your philosophy (probably not, but we can all hope), you can find solace through other explanations here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe#Naturalistic_possibilities).

Actually my point was (thanks go to nshanin - i'm going to coin a phrase here) that the universe works well enough for us to exist, therefore holds the 'perfect conditions' for existence.

My question is 'Why does it continue to be perfect'?

Actually my point was (thanks go to nshanin - i'm going to coin a phrase here) that the universe works well enough for us to exist, therefore holds the 'perfect conditions' for existence.

My question is 'Why does it continue to be perfect'?

The universe is taking its course... eventually, the perfection will discontinue; look up heat death.

there is no proof for or against the existence of God, and i am pentecostal. it just comes down to how much faith your willing to put into something that maybe don't exist. the way i see it is, i would rather get right with God and try to live a clean life then find nothing as apposed to not believe and end up in hell or something. either way, i get along better with atheists who do not believe in a God more than i do "Christians" who are hypocritical.

the Principle avoids the question

The world only seems perfect because it's you observing it as opposed to a silicone based life form that breathes a gas that cannot exist in our world. You assume there's only one sort of universe with something capable of asking why. Hell, we're composed of a complicated mass of various minerals. We're talking rocks. Another type of universe might sustain gas based life and they'd be asking why is everything so perfect to have resulted in their existence. Everything rides on the assumption that an environment facilitating our existence is the only good result from the dice roll and that makes it seem almost impossibly improbable while actually we're just one of many possible outcomes completely oblivious of what could have been

The world only seems perfect because it's you observing it as opposed to a silicone based life form that breathes a gas that cannot exist in our world. You assume there's only one sort of universe with something capable of asking why. Hell, we're composed of a complicated mass of various minerals. We're talking rocks. Another type of universe might sustain gas based life and they'd be asking why is everything so perfect to have resulted in their existence. Everything rides on the assumption that an environment facilitating our existence is the only good result from the dice roll and that makes it seem almost impossibly improbable while actually we're just one of many possible outcomes completely oblivious of what could have been

Understood, but what does that prove?

For: http://media.urbandictionary.com/image/large/dope-15595.jpg


Against: http://www.somorescene.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/mcr_theblackparade.jpg

Understood, but what does that prove?

It just shows that the question is pointless