God, or gods came from the need for early man to explain events that humans could not reason out. Why does it rain, why do earthquakes happen, why do volcanoes happen, why are there stars in the night sky, why does the sun come up every day, why is the moon there, etc. If they couldn't explain it any other way then one god or another was responsible. Slowly, through the ages, we have discovered the true nature of these events which, in my mind, leaves us with basically one unexplained phenomena, what is the origin of life. When or if that can be explained and duplicated god will have been put to rest. God is a creation of the human mind and in so far as his influence on human behavior has been beneficial (at least in some religions) the continued belief in God by the masses still has positive impacts. Personally, I have deep doubts concerning the existence of a single supreme being but the recent determination that over 75% of the universe is beyond our grasp raises many possibilities in my mind.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

Attempting to quantizise nature, or extracting parts of it for closer examination, makes us better able to know or give answers to specific questions which are supposed to be part of the complete picture.

For now, none of the Laws of Physics which currently tries to explain the universe are not able to give an explanation for the possible existence of God.

If we happen to ask ourselves why we are living on this earth, the final or ultimate answer to this question might very well be through the birth of the universe by means of the Big Bang.

This is the place where everything started. We may possibly assume a divine force being the reason behind everything, but for now it is not possible to neither prove nor comprehend such a thing.

Currently we assume that the universe was created by means of the Big Bang and that the ensuing inflation following this event was a result of certain events which initially created it, as well as the fact that galaxies and clusters of galaxies are shown to be moving away from each other, at least relatively speaking.

We also think that the birth of the universe took place some 13.8 billion years ago, even though there may be alternative theories when it comes to possible other solutions or explanations.

One such theory about the creation of the universe is the "Steady State Theory", by British astronomer Fred Hoyle.

Really it should be said that neither this theory nor scientist for that matter has been my preferred choice when it comes to given theories about the birth of the universe.

When it comes to the Big Bang, we might possibly assume that everything began in a singularity. In the same way, we may be thinking of Black Holes as containing a singularity.

In my opinion, these two concepts are not the same and for now we are not even able to speak about the properties of a singularity inside a Black Hole, or even the notion of time, for that matter.

In the same way, we are not supposed to be speaking about the notion of a possible God, not possibly because it is about religion and not necessarily about science, but rather because such a question should be regarded as being beyond our level of understanding and rather should be dealt with by means of philosophers.

In the same way, since there happens to be things around which can not be readily explained, such things are not supposed to be readily visible either. We only are able to deduce the existence of Black Holes through observations of objects like Cygnus X-1, or M87, of which the first is a Black Hole being the remnants of an exploding star in the Milky Way, the second a supermassive Black Hole in the center of a giant elliptical galaxy which may have swallowed countless individual stars during its lifetime.

Because Black Holes are supposed to be the end of massive stars, the same thing could perhaps be said when it comes to the universe as a whole. We may be able to assume that gravity could decide the final destiny for a whole galaxy, but even though gravity is supposed to be the ultimate winner of all forces, inflation right now rather could make us think that the destiny of the universe rather is the oblivion.

Therefore, philosophy is perhaps about giving a thought about where everything came from and where everything is supposed to be going. In the meantime we only supposed to be living a short time and assume that we most likely are coming and going in a similar way, but over a much shorter time, because like the universe itself, we happen to be a product of creation.

In the same way as speaking about creation, we could well be speaking about the end of things as well. Religion by means of possible belief and faith is a notion about the possible divine and when such a thing becomes a fact, we may be likely to be reminded of the opposite of the possible divine as well, a certain thing which likely could give those people not having a specific reason to believe a point when it comes to having a particular view about this subject.

http://www.milwaukeemag.com/2015/08/17/faith-no-more/

Such a badly written article. But it contains a lot of the standard Atheist arguments, so its a good way to cover some of them and point out some flaws.

Theism makes a positive claim about the nature of reality: “God exists.”

An over generalization of what religious people believe, but fine, most do make a positive claim. And yes, its a pretty difficult claim to prove with the lack of evidence and all that. But then again, the author (and a lot of atheists) are imposing the rules of the scientific method on a metaphysical being. The problem with that is that metaphysical things just fall outside the realm of science due to their metaphysical nature. You can't apply science on them, nor does it necessarily make sense to say that because you can't do that the thing therefor does not exist. Science is a human construct and it has severe limitations on what it can and cannot do.

Atheism is simply the lack of that belief.

The author should have stopped there. Yes, if your atheism is simply the lack of faith because you lack evidence, cool, good for you, thats an intellectually honest position. But it is also a personal choice. The author wants proof before he believes something, ok cool, but do keep in mind that some people don't mind believing in something without needing scientific proof first. That is their personal choice and respect that choice.

Sadly, the author did not because he went on.

Atheism makes no claims.

Only if you ignore like half of the Atheists, only if you ignore Dawkins and his crew and his army of internet trolls. They do make a claim, they do claim that God does not exist. The burden of proof therefor most certainly also falls on certain atheists.

Certainly, if God manifests himself in reality, we should be able to detect him in some way.

Really? That presumes that if God manifests himself, he manifests himself as God, holding up a sign that says 'hi I'm God'. Even in the bible God doesn't reveal himself that openly that often (if at all), he usually uses angels, visions or some type of disguise. It also presumes that you are looking at just the right moment in space at just the right time. The universe is a big place, our range of vision is limited, so the odds are stacked against us. And what if he doesn't manifest himself directly as God, but as a burning bush, or a fiery tornado, or as a pattern on toast? We would see him, but would we ever believe it was God? And of course, this all is based on the idea of a God that takes a personal interest in this planet. Could be that God doesn't really give a damn about our species and then the odds of us detecting him are even smaller.

If he doesn’t, then he would be indistinguishable from nonexistent and should be treated accordingly.

Just because you can't see something doesn't mean its not there. It might just mean you havent found the right tools yet to detect it. To put it this way, we haven't detected any sign of alien life yet ever, despite us searching for it. Should we therefor treat it as indistinguishable from nonexistent and treat it accordingly (aka, give up looking for it)? Well no, because it would be rather premature to claim that because we haven't heard of aliens yet they probably don't exist or we should at least pretend they don't exist.

Faith means belief without – and, increasingly these days, against – evidence. Faith, therefore, is intellectually dishonest. Faith creates a false certainty, which subjugates rationality.

Well, if faith goes against evidence, yeah someone is doing it wrong. But without evidence? Meh, harmless for the most part, and in some cases its probably even healthier for the average human being. I mean, just think about all the things you believe in even though there is absolutely no evidence to support it. The belief that you are somehow linked to millions of other people you have never met? The belief in free will? The belief in meaning? If we were to follow this guys argument through, everyone on this planet should be a nihilist and fatalist. Life is meaningless and you have absolutely no control over any aspect of it, personal responsibility does not exist and if you are poor and miserable, tough luck, this was your only shot at life and you lost the lottery by being born in the wrong womb. What a miserable world that would be, and what a miserable species we would be.

It makes good people do evil things and it makes otherwise intelligent people say and do senseless things. It forces its influence where it has no business. It flies airplanes into buildings.

For a guy that pretends to be all rational, he really says a lot of stupid nonsense. Faith makes people do evil things? It also makes people do good things. And people do evil things for plenty of other reasons as well. Money, power, nationalism, ideology, those have collectively far more blood on their hands than faith has. Also, how do those religious fanatics kill people? Just with stones, or do they use modern weapons as well. And who build those weapons? Scientists. Rational people. People who this author pretends are inherently good people because they don't believe in God. They have enabled humanity to wipe itself out. Sure, they won't pull the trigger or push the red button, but that hardly diminishes their responsibility in the various bloodbaths that humanity has created. Oh wait, I forgot, the author doesn't believe in personal responsibility, because thats irrational. But if thats the case, then he can hardly blame religious fanatics as well, because they also don't have personal responsibility.

Well, so much for the intellectual honesty of the author, he either measures with double standards, or he just pick and chooses what he has faith in.

Faith is arrogant. It places humanity at the center of the universe and each believer as the apple of the creator’s eye.

Yes, faith is arrogant, but science isn't? Science basically says that it will discover everything there is to know about the universe, and everything it can't know it simply disregards as non existent. Also, if we were to drop the arrogance we get from having faith, what would we get?Rational nihilism and fatalism. Is that better? Personally I feel more comfortable thinking I'm the center of the universe and master of my own actions, rather than an insignificant, meaningless speck of dust which moves around on cosmic winds.

It also presumes that you are looking at just the right moment in space at just the right time.

The above is what mysticism is all about.

Just because you can't see something doesn't mean its not there. It might just mean you havent found the right tools yet to detect it. To put it this way, we haven't detected any sign of alien life yet ever, despite us searching for it. Should we therefor treat it as indistinguishable from nonexistent and treat it accordingly (aka, give up looking for it)? Well no, because it would be rather premature to claim that because we haven't heard of aliens yet they probably don't exist or we should at least pretend they don't exist.

Completely agreed.

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Science basically says that it will discover everything there is to know about the universe, and everything it can't know it simply disregards as non existent.

I never heard or read a scientist disregarding anything.

I never heard or read a scientist disregarding anything.

Science disregards anything that is considered metaphysical. That is understandable because things that are metaphysical are impossible to detect using your senses, and therefor can never be 'proven' to exist. It is important to note here though that it is science itself that has defined how and when something is proven, and that through its own definition it has shut out the metaphysical.

I never heard or read a scientist disregarding anything.

Science disregards anything that is considered metaphysical. That is understandable because things that are metaphysical are impossible to detect using your senses, and therefor can never be 'proven' to exist. It is important to note here though that it is science itself that has defined how and when something is proven, and that through its own definition it has shut out the metaphysical.

To me quantum mechanics is very metaphysical.
Even spooky as Einstein said:)

There is no incontrovertible evidence for the existence of any god anywhere, there never has been and there never will be. If people wish to believe in one, or are brought up to believe in one, then fine, carry on, be my guest. I have better things to do with my life thank you.

Wo be the man that seeks the truth and once shown it denigh's it

Never say Never

Science points to the possibility of a God just not the type of Fire and brimstone

And you sir should have a open mind being some one that would have some understanding of String Theory & Multi Verses .

---

There is no incontrovertible evidence for the existence of any god anywhere, there never has been and there never will be. If people wish to believe in one, or are brought up to believe in one, then fine, carry on, be my guest. I have better things to do with my life thank you.

Yes i'll agree there

In the meantime there is beer in the fridge

Isn't that what ya spose ta do rest on the 7th day :-)

String theory is just gobbledegook to me, I don't understand any of it.Also I don't believe in multi-verses either.

And there I was thinking you where uber smart , what your just a commoner !

mmmmm :))

---

String theory is easy peasy. How long is a piece of string? Get a tape measure and measure it! What is the problem?

In physics, string theory is a theoretical framework

In other words nobody can prove it, nobody can disprove it. Send me an email if anything changes.

theoretical?
Of course. thats what theoretical scientists do.
Lot's of theories yet to prove or disprove.
Thats why it's called a theory.
Eisteins theory of general relativity has not been proved in full yet.
Actually it doesnt work in black holes.

How long is a piece of string?
You cannot measure length with certainty in the quantum world.
That is a big problem.
And subatomic particles can be at many places at once!

I have the "perfect" string theory :-)

(Broken down cars + Beer + Seti Forums) + (keeps 'em off streets) = safe streets for the rest

And there I was thinking you where uber smart , what your just a commoner !

Glenn Buddy, I'll stack "you're just a commoner,"
up against any "uber smart" any day of the week.

Kings and Scholars may come and go, but
we the people shall always be here!

---

And there I was thinking you where uber smart , what your just a commoner !

Glenn Buddy, I'll stack "you're just a commoner,"
up against any "uber smart" any day of the week.

Kings and Scholars may come and go, but
we the people shall always be here!

Amen brother :-)

And there I was thinking you where uber smart , what your just a commoner !

We are all commoners on these boards.
But we believe in science not in religion.

There are enough contemporary accounts from the time just 2000 years ago to confirm that a man known as Jesus did proclaim his ministries in the area of the Eastern Mediterranean we call the Holy Land.

There are? Care to provide some sources? To my knowledge there are no sources prior to Paul's letters some 20 years after the crucifixion. For non-Christian sources there's Josephus in the 90s and Tacitus 20 or so years later (or about 80 years after the crucifixion). If a book were to be written today on the oil crises of the 1970s, would you say that was also a contemporary account?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

There are enough contemporary accounts from the time just 2000 years ago to confirm that a man known as Jesus did proclaim his ministries in the area of the Eastern Mediterranean we call the Holy Land.

There are? Care to provide some sources? To my knowledge there are no sources prior to Paul's letters some 20 years after the crucifixion. For non-Christian sources there's Josephus in the 90s and Tacitus 20 or so years later (or about 80 years after the crucifixion). If a book were to be written today on the oil crises of the 1970s, would you say that was also a contemporary account?

And it has been asserted that the Josephus account (which what I've heard is very brief) was later inserted into his writings by a Christian. If so, then not even Josephus serves as a slightly later than contemperaneous Jesus accountant.

Faith is arrogant. It places humanity at the center of the universe and each believer as the apple of the creator’s eye.

Yes, faith is arrogant, but science isn't? Science basically says that it will discover everything there is to know about the universe, and everything it can't know it simply disregards as non existent. Also, if we were to drop the arrogance we get from having faith, what would we get?Rational nihilism and fatalism. Is that better? Personally I feel more comfortable thinking I'm the center of the universe and master of my own actions, rather than an insignificant, meaningless speck of dust which moves around on cosmic winds.

As a non-entity, science cannot be arrogant.
At best, we can have arrogant scientists.
Those that are perhaps do not fully understand something underpinning science.
Math has been called both the Handmaiden of the Sciences and the Queen of the Sciences. Either way, their work and assertions, based on evidence, depend on the (small set of axiomatic) assumptions made in mathematics. For example, using statistics to test hypotheses, and then to speak of the degree of certainty with which we can reject a null hypothesis depends on the axioms of calculus and probability.

As I stated years ago, no, not all things can be known. Not in mathematics and therefore, not in science either. There will always be something to discover.

Your suggestion of what happens when faith is removed is false. I've heard statements from a number of atheists that they believe, since they have no evidence of an afterlife, that they must make this life on Earth the best they possibly can (often by helping others).

make this life on Earth the best they possibly can

Right on!


edit:
Even if they have it wrong, they will get it right....

---

I never heard or read a scientist disregarding anything.

Science disregards anything that is considered metaphysical. That is understandable because things that are metaphysical are impossible to detect using your senses, and therefor can never be 'proven' to exist. It is important to note here though that it is science itself that has defined how and when something is proven, and that through its own definition it has shut out the metaphysical.

I will assume it is simply lack of knowledge that made you say something false, rather than intentional distortion or flat out lying.

Research on prayer.

Research on near death experiences.

Weight of the soul?.

All three of these come too close to your metaphysical, which you claim scientists would run screaming from and continue to run for miles. I have provided evidence to the contrary.

Does his power include the ability to revoke his power such that he can't get it back?

Paradoxes such as those do not apply to God. The concept of God is beyond human comprehension.

How convenient.