rbtvgo
Member
- Location
- Absecon, new jersey
you have a faith to.
Why do we believe in God
- Thread starter Mr. Ed
- Start date
Warrigal
SF VIP
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
Energy can be created when matter is destroyed (E=mc^2), and the corollary is that matter can be created from energy (m=E/c^2). The principles of the conservation of matter (mass) and the conservation of energy predate the understandings provided by Einstein's mathematical work.
The Big Bang theory seems to imply that at the moment of the creation of the universe "creatio ex nihio" occurred. Religion does have its mysteries but so too does science. Religion requires faith, and science depends on objective observation, hypothesising, testing of collected data and constant revision. It is possible for one person to believe verifiable facts** and at the same time to have faith in a power higher than ourselves. Holding those two concepts simultaneously is difficult and requires a high level of intellectual thinking. Concrete thinkers will cling to one concept and reject the other as being antithetical.
**Mind you, there are people in this modern age who disbelieve verifiable, and actual verified facts.
Emotion plays a big part in what people do, or do not believe.
Well, abiogenesis, is a process that has never been observed to happen in nature and which cannot even be forced to happen in a laboratory under strictly controlled conditions. So yes, assuming that it is happening all over the universe is indeed tantamount to unscientific blind faith based on wishful thinking.I'm with you on dogs.
We're certainly special on this planet. And talking of blind faith, I have blind faith that life exists on other planets. It just seems, mathematically, to be incomprehensible that a process of mutation/evolution hasn't occurred elsewhere. We lack any evidence this is the case though, at least to the level that one could categorically claim life is out there. But that takes nothing away from amazing humans are, albeit we too often squander life's opportunity.
Also unscientific is the qualifying of coded information detected from space as indisputable evidence of an organizing mind, and then disqualifying it as not being evidence of an organizing mind when it is detected in DNA. Such a policy constitutes the fallacy of inconsistency which goes completely contrary to the unbiased objectivity that the scientific method demands.
Mr. Ed
Be what you is not what you what you ain’t
- Location
- Central NY
Sin came into being as a manipulative tool so mankind would seek salvation and forgiveness through Jesus Christ, However, except through faith there is such a thing as sin that needs to eradicated by believing in faith, sin does not exist. You have to have faith that sin exist in order to be forgiven. it's a paradox of faith that neither sin or forgiveness is necessary except through faith.
How did we humans become so gullible that we support the nature of religion based on words alone without tangible proof. Faith is the culprit for blindly believing in things that only the mind can see and feel through our emotions whether true or false what we choose to believe determines who we are and how we live.
I live on the basis of love and forgiveness as taught by numerous men and women of great knowledge and compassion, however I abandoned the narrow views of Christianity that love only exist through Jesus Christ and forgiveness of sin. There is truth however, whether sin exists or not, coming to terms, the righting of wrong doings, forgiveness and reconciliation will set you free from past transgressions. This you can do yourself without the rules and regulations of religion.
Why do I believe in god? In some way, hold myself accountable with the understanding and desire to be the type of person I want to be. God helps me do that because god taught me how to love, not Jesus. Do I have faith in god? I'm not afraid of life and I trust my instincts to make the right decisions. By knowing myself I'm able to live moment by moment without hesitation or worry. Should I make a mistake I know it is who I am and part of life. No regrets, it always works out by the nature of who I am.
How did we humans become so gullible that we support the nature of religion based on words alone without tangible proof. Faith is the culprit for blindly believing in things that only the mind can see and feel through our emotions whether true or false what we choose to believe determines who we are and how we live.
I live on the basis of love and forgiveness as taught by numerous men and women of great knowledge and compassion, however I abandoned the narrow views of Christianity that love only exist through Jesus Christ and forgiveness of sin. There is truth however, whether sin exists or not, coming to terms, the righting of wrong doings, forgiveness and reconciliation will set you free from past transgressions. This you can do yourself without the rules and regulations of religion.
Why do I believe in god? In some way, hold myself accountable with the understanding and desire to be the type of person I want to be. God helps me do that because god taught me how to love, not Jesus. Do I have faith in god? I'm not afraid of life and I trust my instincts to make the right decisions. By knowing myself I'm able to live moment by moment without hesitation or worry. Should I make a mistake I know it is who I am and part of life. No regrets, it always works out by the nature of who I am.
bobcat
Well-known Member
- Location
- Northern Calif
To be clear, nothing in the universe or the universe itself is actually created (As far as we know), and that includes energy. The meaning you are using is actually converted or generated. Concepts are created, but not material things. You can create a piece of furniture or a work of art, but you are simply rearranging something that already exists. From nothing, you get nothing. If you remove the M from the equation, it doesn't work anymore.
JustDave
Well-known Member
I always thought God was more important than Jesus. He is the one calling the shots after all, isn't he?
JustDave
Well-known Member
By that definition, all beliefs would be tentative. The intensity of the belief does not determine truth. But as pointed out, opinion is a good synonymy for belief.
bobcat
Well-known Member
- Location
- Northern Calif
Agree with the premise, but not the conclusion. Logic very often plays a part in belief. When I get on a plane, I believe I will arrive safely because over 300 billion miles are flown every year just in the U.S. and it is extremely rare for them to crash, which is the logic I use to support the belief. The same goes with the food I eat every day, I believe it to be safe because I have eaten it many times before, and I'm still alive. It's a belief supported by a logical reason.
VaughanJB
Scrappy VIP
Desperate? Oh, FFS! Are believers desperate not to offend you? HaHa.. Really, Vaughan, pull yourself together!
I meant in the context of the forum. This forum is a community, and I don't want to offend anyone here (although I still manage to sometimes, apparently!
)As to the wider world, I feel more judged by believers for not being a believer than I would ever judge them. But let's not go there.
Yeah, this is familiar trope in Bible-speak. If God has not presented himself to me, then it's *my* fault in some way. It couldn't possibly be that he's never bothered. But then, God doesn't have to explain anything, he's above questioning or mistakes. If something, anything, has gone wrong - that's me. If something, anything, goes well - it's by the grace of God.
You know, no personal offense intended, but it's thinking like this that just sinks the very idea of a God for me. It makes no sense, and becomes a closed little world where all questions are brushed off without due consideration. God, if there is one, could speak to me any time he wanted. He could take me up to heaven for a quick chat, appear in my living room, can do literally anything in order to save one of his creations. But he won't, because I've got original sin and free will, which - HE - granted to me.
Nah, does not compute for me. Not even close. But hey, he's spoken to you, so you're good.
VaughanJB
Scrappy VIP
What faith is that? Not believing for which there isn't sufficient proof doesn't require blind faith.
Lots of discussion here
I so wish I could take part
My faith is not blind, but I am
Can barely see to read posts
But
I've gotta say here
If one studies The Bible
With a prayerful heart
There's plenty of evidence
What did it for me was the prophecies
Mainly the ones in the books of Daniel and The Revelation
Impeccable accuracy
covering thousands of years
This will be my only comment
as my eyes are shot now
My heart is with you all, in your search for answers
Please pardon any typos
VaughanJB
Scrappy VIP
There is much we don't yet know. In terms of scientific discovery, we're around 2000 years into our investigations. Modern day science as we know it is around 480 years old. I don't think we can expect to have invented all the tech necessary to get us across light years of travel in order to discover life forms in such a short time.
What I am talking about is probability. As I said, it seems unlikely to me, given the number of planets out there (there are 2 trillion galaxies in the observable universe, 100bn stars, and 10 to the power of 25 planets orbiting those stars....) that one, just one other life form as we understand it has existed or exists. I've never met an alien, but I think it's highly likely they're out there. There's a probability there aren't any aliens though.
You are correct though in that we've never found evidence. That said, in all that grandeur, we've not even been able to travel more than 1.7m miles with a lander, and 238,000 miles with a human payload. I mean, we're not very likely to find developed life in such a minuscule distance.
What I'm saying is, what we are able to do today isn't a blip in time. What we can't do now, perhaps, we'll be able to do tomorrow.
One other factoid that I'll mention only because it occurred to me while getting the numbers... we flew a lander to Mars, which is 1.7m miles away. The nearest planet to us (outside our solar system) is 4 Light years away. One light year is about 6 trillion miles. So, the nearest planet is 24 trillion miles away. As such, I feel confident that at the end of the day, we don't really know.
VaughanJB
Scrappy VIP
Thanks for the kind sentiments - and sorry to hear about your eyesight, that's got to be a real challenge. Thank you for taking the time to reach out!
Paco Dennis
SF VIP
- Location
- Mid-Missouri
Gary, I am sorry that you are losing your sight. I love you!
Last edited:
Ultimately, dependence on an impossibility leads nowhere regardless of the degree of exploration since such an impossibility will continuously neutralize all human efforts to render the impossible possible. Life has been proven to arise only from life. There has never been any observation of life suddenly emerging spontaneously from water after water came up with information and then decided coding it in DNA form, then decided to provide a molecule machine called RNA read and understand that code. Then decided to assembled other molecules to carry out the RNA instructions, and decided that another molecule was needed to constantly check the code for mistakes and repair it.There is much we don't yet know. In terms of scientific discovery, we're around 2000 years into our investigations. Modern day science as we know it is around 480 years old. I don't think we can expect to have invented all the tech necessary to get us across light years of travel in order to discover life forms in such a short time.
What I am talking about is probability. As I said, it seems unlikely to me, given the number of planets out there (there are 2 trillion galaxies in the observable universe, 100bn stars, and 10 to the power of 25 planets orbiting those stars....) that one, just one other life form as we understand it has existed or exists. I've never met an alien, but I think it's highly likely they're out there. There's a probability there aren't any aliens though.
You are correct though in that we've never found evidence. That said, in all that grandeur, we've not even been able to travel more than 1.7m miles with a lander, and 238,000 miles with a human payload. I mean, we're not very likely to find developed life in such a minuscule distance.
What I'm saying is, what we are able to do today isn't a blip in time. What we can't do now, perhaps, we'll be able to do tomorrow.
One other factoid that I'll mention only because it occurred to me while getting the numbers... we flew a lander to Mars, which is 1.7m miles away. The nearest planet to us (outside our solar system) is 4 Light years away. One light year is about 6 trillion miles. So, the nearest planet is 24 trillion miles away. As such, I feel confident that at the end of the day, we don't really know.
Sorry but water doesn't have the brains along with the willpower nor the necessary appendages to manipulate matter in that way. So searching the universe expecting water to magically accomplish those things will prove to be a total waste of time. Furthermore, if indeed we find life out, there it will always be because a planning mind placed it there.
Also stubbornly insistence on holding one standard for codes detected by SETI and the another standard for the DNA code detected in organisms isn't science. Why? Simple! Because such a policy blatantly discards the objectivity which requires the recognition that code a is a code regardless of the manner in which it is coded and regardless of the material involved.
bobcat
Well-known Member
- Location
- Northern Calif
David777
Well-known Member
- Location
- Silicon Valley
Over eternity, DNA life has arisen at least once in the universe whether by natural means or artificial by an intelligent entity because that is what we intelligent entities now find with absolute certainty. If one assigns some kind of magic like god to having done so, that still won't address how "god" started for those with the non-sense logic everything needs a beginning except "gods".
I've directly addressed that this older thread:
Able to mentally grasp...stuff has always existed ?
Can you mentally grasp the possibility that stuff has eternally existed into the past? In other words there has never been a beginning to our endless eternal 3 dimensional universe regardless if the Big Bang Universe we currently exist within began 13.8 billion years ago. IMO, it did not come into being from nothing. IMO, before that, matter/energy/stuff eternally existed within space time in some way.
It is one of two possibilities. Either 1, matter/energy/stuff was created so had a beginning or 2, matter/energy/stuff always existed so didn't need to be created. To be created brings a need for some possibly magical like power to be involved or unimaginable circumstance of physical existence. Since we sentient entities, are witness to matter/energy/stuff existing at this moment, the easier, more likely logical conclusion is that, 2 is vastly more likely to be true. mr dave >>> It always existed...
-------------------------
So now we get to @Radrook's bull dog with a bone input that cannot at this point in science be proven either way nor will except that a majority of physics and chemical scientists would disagree that any hypothetical notion that a natural mechanism is inherently impossible. Especially since eternity past in an infinite 3-dimensional universe provides infinite opportunity.
A related incredibly complex side issue beyond discussion herein, is why is the universe we find, so incredibly fine tuned for life? IMO that also may be the result of some kind of physical evolution of matter/energy over an infinite past that once intelligence arose, forever changed the nature of matter/energy forward similar to Gaia mechanisms.
I've directly addressed that this older thread:
Able to mentally grasp...stuff has always existed ?
Can you mentally grasp the possibility that stuff has eternally existed into the past? In other words there has never been a beginning to our endless eternal 3 dimensional universe regardless if the Big Bang Universe we currently exist within began 13.8 billion years ago. IMO, it did not come into being from nothing. IMO, before that, matter/energy/stuff eternally existed within space time in some way.
It is one of two possibilities. Either 1, matter/energy/stuff was created so had a beginning or 2, matter/energy/stuff always existed so didn't need to be created. To be created brings a need for some possibly magical like power to be involved or unimaginable circumstance of physical existence. Since we sentient entities, are witness to matter/energy/stuff existing at this moment, the easier, more likely logical conclusion is that, 2 is vastly more likely to be true. mr dave >>> It always existed...
-------------------------
So now we get to @Radrook's bull dog with a bone input that cannot at this point in science be proven either way nor will except that a majority of physics and chemical scientists would disagree that any hypothetical notion that a natural mechanism is inherently impossible. Especially since eternity past in an infinite 3-dimensional universe provides infinite opportunity.
A related incredibly complex side issue beyond discussion herein, is why is the universe we find, so incredibly fine tuned for life? IMO that also may be the result of some kind of physical evolution of matter/energy over an infinite past that once intelligence arose, forever changed the nature of matter/energy forward similar to Gaia mechanisms.
Last edited:
JustDave
Well-known Member
That is the nature of the topic, I suppose. When something is beyond comprehension, some people become heavily invested in absolute knowledge about the topic. But it's still interesting to think about stuff and see how people process information, or the lack of it, even if it doesn't address the original question.
Warrigal
SF VIP
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
As a long ago junior high school science teacher, I was using the word "created" in the same sense that we taught at that time - i.e. matter cannot be created nor destroyed (conservation of mass). This was the principle that underpinned all of the maths that we performed to calculate the yield of a particular chemical process as a percentage. Similarly, the same principle was used in calculating the efficiency of mechanical and electrical devices.
Obviously, the sudden appearance of the birth of the universe presents novel concepts and new equations..
MarkD
Keeper of the Hounds & Garden
- Location
- San Francisco Bay Area
The topic only lends itself to being misunderstood easily. Anything better takes real application and perhaps luck.
Warrigal
SF VIP
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
Faith is an attribute in all humans. The only difference is where we choose to place our faith. For some, faith is placed in a charismatic leader, in others it is in own's own self, or in wealth and power. Infants have an instinctive faith in their caregivers.
There is a book by James Fowler that describes the nature and stages of faith in the same way that Piaget and Bruner describe stages of cognitive development. It is helpful in distinguishing between faith and belief. It also describes the angst experienced as with we begin to transition from one stage to a more mature level. His analysis applies not only to religious faith, but to faith in general.
The Stages of Faith According to James W. Fowler |
rbtvgo
Member
- Location
- Absecon, new jersey
Faith without response is what?? You're right, faith is an attribute, we all have the ability to place our faith in just about anything.
First time I have really had to think deeply about what is being said here. Why have faith in God, his son, the Scriptures , when I can have faith in just about anything that contradicts that pathway.
My only response is that God interacts with me. He talks to me, not in words but in thoughts that follow my thoughts. Not like I was dialoging with myself because the responses are not what I would have said to myself. Don't know if this make any sense.
He says things that completely stop me in my train of thought. Where did that come from? Then I stop, think about the response and try to understand. Doesn't happen every time but it happens.
Other then that interaction you are correct about faith.
I know he is there, He is not what you want or perceive as what a God should be like but he is the God that created us in the image of himself yet wants his creation to acknowledge him.
First time I have really had to think deeply about what is being said here. Why have faith in God, his son, the Scriptures , when I can have faith in just about anything that contradicts that pathway.
My only response is that God interacts with me. He talks to me, not in words but in thoughts that follow my thoughts. Not like I was dialoging with myself because the responses are not what I would have said to myself. Don't know if this make any sense.
He says things that completely stop me in my train of thought. Where did that come from? Then I stop, think about the response and try to understand. Doesn't happen every time but it happens.
Other then that interaction you are correct about faith.
I know he is there, He is not what you want or perceive as what a God should be like but he is the God that created us in the image of himself yet wants his creation to acknowledge him.
rbtvgo
Member
- Location
- Absecon, new jersey
just read this. You are really out there. Thank you.
He is there........just reach out and then be quiet and listen.
Wish you well
bob
He is there........just reach out and then be quiet and listen.
Wish you well
bob
Once more you avoid addressing the issue concerning the atheistic blatant inconsistency in the evaluation of codes. Which means that you prefer to respond by mindlessly chanting your beliefs instead of examining whether they are logically justified or not. Also, your premise is flawed since being an intelligent entity does not guarantee that any claim it makes is true. Instead, such claims must be examined objectively. If such claims are found to be flawed, then being an intelligent entity has absolutely no bearing on the veracity.
In short, Intelligent entities cease to be intelligent entities the moment they begin reaching illogical conclusions. So if an intelligent entity ignores the demands of the scientific method, which includes reaching logical conclusions, then being intelligent is irrelevant. Ironically, that is exactly what intelligent entities are doing in reference to DNA, via committing the fallacy of inconsistency.
As for the irrefutability of the abiogenesis, there is absolutely evidence to substantiate it, neither observational nor experimental. It is merely a concept treated as if it were a proven fact based on blind faith very often motivated by theophobic tendencies.
BTW:: Your comparing me to a bulldog rabidly defending a bone, only proves your inability to discuss a matter in a calm and decent way.
Definition
Name-calling is a fallacy of an Ad Hominem type of Red Herring logical fallacies. The synonym is mudslinging or character assassination. It’s a lowest possible type of argument where instead of addressing the issue in question, the opponent character or identity is abused without intent to discuss anything, instead of undermining his arguments.https://www.logical-fallacy.com/articles/name-calling/
Last edited: