Is God Real?

  • Kurtni

    Kurtni (10125)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    28
    Location:
    United States
    The Pies Endure:
    I'm not mistaking the Big Bang Theory for anything. I actually learned about the BBT before I really understood what the Creation story was about, so please don't assume what I'm thinking when I'm referring to the BBT.
    I don't think I assumed anything; I was going off what you said in your posts.
    The Pies Endure:
    The Big Theory postulates that the universe started from nothing [This is the majority view, as it is, where did the singularity come from, and explosions have causes]. Explosions don't come from nothing.
    You clearly have some misconceptions, or you wouldn't claim (you said it twice, actually) the big bang theory says something came from nothing. That's one of the most common and incorrect ideas about the big bang theory, and implies it's somehow about ultimate creation when it's not.
    February 12th, 2012 at 04:04pm
  • rosewater tide.

    rosewater tide. (130)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    23
    Location:
    United States
    I don't deny that there's a driving force in the world, but I consider myself to be agnostic as I do not believe in a god, per-say. Some of my ideals could be considered LaVeyan, I suppose. I'm not going to be quick to say a figure is there when there very well could not be. However, I'm not sure how I feel about religious theory of creation or of the Big Bang Theory. I'm sure other theories exist, but I'm not knowledgeable of any others. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Big Bang Theory seems to imply spontaneous generation while the religious view seems to be just as far-fetched. What proof is there for either one? (Not about people, about the creation of the world)
    February 13th, 2012 at 06:03am
  • leaf's a buzzard

    leaf's a buzzard (100)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    30
    Location:
    United States
    Adam Gontier.:
    I don't deny that there's a driving force in the world, but I consider myself to be agnostic as I do not believe in a god, per-say. Some of my ideals could be considered LaVeyan, I suppose. I'm not going to be quick to say a figure is there when there very well could not be. However, I'm not sure how I feel about religious theory of creation or of the Big Bang Theory. I'm sure other theories exist, but I'm not knowledgeable of any others. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Big Bang Theory seems to imply spontaneous generation while the religious view seems to be just as far-fetched. What proof is there for either one? (Not about people, about the creation of the world)
    Concerning Big Bang theory, unless I'm missing something... it's actually unrelated to the creation of the Earth. Not directly anyway. The universe was created through the Big Bang, but matter flying through space (obviously post-bang) slowly accumulated into the masses we now know as stars via gravity, and any matter surrounding it did the same while orbiting, creating the planets and moons (and asteroid belts, where planets failed to form) of varying degree in every solar system.

    Not big bang theory. Just a lot of varying elements colliding into each other and pushing others away via gravity. How life was created on earth is another matter...
    February 13th, 2012 at 08:26am
  • ThePiesEndure

    ThePiesEndure (115)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    34
    Location:
    Australia
    Kurtni:
    You clearly have some misconceptions, or you wouldn't claim (you said it twice, actually) the big bang theory says something came from nothing. That's one of the most common and incorrect ideas about the big bang theory, and implies it's somehow about ultimate creation when it's not.
    That's what I learned in science. At a fully atheistic university. It's just an oversimplification of one concept of the Big Bang Theory. It doesn't imply anything. Especially not of an ultimate creation.

    Maybe it's just because as humans we marvel at the fact that the universe we know started from a singularity and we wonder what came before. Some scientists don't believe there was anything before our universe. Therefore that is where the 'something came from nothing' view comes from. It has nothing to do with whether there is a creator or not.
    February 13th, 2012 at 12:20pm
  • rosewater tide.

    rosewater tide. (130)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    23
    Location:
    United States
    leaf's wierd:
    Concerning Big Bang theory, unless I'm missing something... it's actually unrelated to the creation of the Earth. Not directly anyway. The universe was created through the Big Bang, but matter flying through space (obviously post-bang) slowly accumulated into the masses we now know as stars via gravity, and any matter surrounding it did the same while orbiting, creating the planets and moons (and asteroid belts, where planets failed to form) of varying degree in every solar system.

    Not big bang theory. Just a lot of varying elements colliding into each other and pushing others away via gravity. How life was created on earth is another matter...
    Oh. Facepalm So it really has nothing to do with life on earth at all. I was not aware. XD I feel kinda dumb. lmfao

    What are some scientific theories about how life got here, though? The only thing I've ever really heard was stuff about amino acids.
    February 13th, 2012 at 02:36pm
  • Kurtni

    Kurtni (10125)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    28
    Location:
    United States
    Adam Gontier.:
    Oh. Facepalm So it really has nothing to do with life on earth at all. I was not aware. XD I feel kinda dumb. lmfao

    What are some scientific theories about how life got here, though? The only thing I've ever really heard was stuff about amino acids.
    It depends on what you mean by theory. In science, for something to be a theory, it has to be testable. For it to be a credible theory, like the big bang theory, many people test it over many years and get the same results, or new results that shape the theory. Like kafka said, there are a lot of scientific ideas on how life began, but they're not legitimate scientific theories of the same caliber as say, evolution or gravity.

    The Miller-Urey abiogenesis model would probably be the most compatible idea with evolution, in terms of a creation theory, and their experimentation shows you can make organic molecules from inorganic.
    February 13th, 2012 at 03:56pm
  • xCrusafictionx

    xCrusafictionx (100)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    23
    Location:
    Philippines
    To put it simply: there is no proof. That's why people tell you to have faith, because faith is believing in something without evidence. And trust me that an unanswerable mystery does not prove the existence of a god or a higher intellectual power. It proves only that human intellect is still yet to flourish further.
    April 24th, 2012 at 11:22am
  • ThePiesEndure

    ThePiesEndure (115)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    34
    Location:
    Australia
    xCrusafictionx:
    To put it simply: there is no proof. That's why people tell you to have faith, because faith is believing in something without evidence. And trust me that an unanswerable mystery does not prove the existence of a god or a higher intellectual power. It proves only that human intellect is still yet to flourish further.
    Actually, as a Christian I'm taught not to have blind faith, I'm taught to look for evidence of God. Science isn't the only place evidence can be found. And the faith I have is not believing something without evidence. My faith is grounded in it. It really comes down to the definition of evidence. Obviously there isn't scientific proof of God. But that's not the point. He's beyond science so science can't have the answers to His existence.
    April 24th, 2012 at 03:53pm
  • charming.

    charming. (135)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    28
    Location:
    Australia
    The Pies Endure:
    Actually, as a Christian I'm taught not to have blind faith, I'm taught to look for evidence of God. Science isn't the only place evidence can be found. And the faith I have is not believing something without evidence. My faith is grounded in it. It really comes down to the definition of evidence. Obviously there isn't scientific proof of God. But that's not the point. He's beyond science so science can't have the answers to His existence.
    But if we accept for the sake of argument that God was 'created' so that primitive humanity could explain things they did not understand, scientific development has been, for some time, carving off things God was created for - the origin of the species, meteorological phenomena, the creation of the Earth, the 'movement' of the Sun, disease (to an extent), etc. Death, the meaning of life, and what happens after death have not been scientifically reasoned, but the first two can be explained by "that's what the world is like" and "there is no meaning, sorry" and the afterlife could be explained as not existing; so other than those, there's just "how did the Universe actually begin?" and asking how something came from nothing isn't solved by positing the existence of a supernatural being (since that just begs the question of, what created that being?)

    What sort of evidence do you believe we have to justify faith? (Or to create faith?)
    April 25th, 2012 at 06:18am
  • ThePiesEndure

    ThePiesEndure (115)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    34
    Location:
    Australia
    pravda.:
    But if we accept for the sake of argument that God was 'created' so that primitive humanity could explain things they did not understand, scientific development has been, for some time, carving off things God was created for - the origin of the species, meteorological phenomena, the creation of the Earth, the 'movement' of the Sun, disease (to an extent), etc. Death, the meaning of life, and what happens after death have not been scientifically reasoned, but the first two can be explained by "that's what the world is like" and "there is no meaning, sorry" and the afterlife could be explained as not existing; so other than those, there's just "how did the Universe actually begin?" and asking how something came from nothing isn't solved by positing the existence of a supernatural being (since that just begs the question of, what created that being?)

    What sort of evidence do you believe we have to justify faith? (Or to create faith?)
    The thing is I don't believe that God was created. Obviously if he was then there would have to be evidence that we just haven't found yet. But, God has 'always' been. He created time.

    Personal experience is the evidence I hold to. I've had God moments in my life that affirmed my faith. I personally think that science points to God as well. And that's no mean feat considering the course I studied was not geared in a way conducive to thinking that way.

    Then there's the evidence of people's testimony's and then there's The Bible. [Which even as a Christian I tend to take with a grain of salt. I take it seriously, but not always literally].

    NB: When I seem to be making absolute statements, I mean from my viewpoint, not strictly stating as fact.
    April 25th, 2012 at 11:04am
  • charming.

    charming. (135)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    28
    Location:
    Australia
    The Pies Endure:
    The thing is I don't believe that God was created. Obviously if he was then there would have to be evidence that we just haven't found yet. But, God has 'always' been. He created time.

    Personal experience is the evidence I hold to. I've had God moments in my life that affirmed my faith. I personally think that science points to God as well. And that's no mean feat considering the course I studied was not geared in a way conducive to thinking that way.

    Then there's the evidence of people's testimony's and then there's The Bible. [Which even as a Christian I tend to take with a grain of salt. I take it seriously, but not always literally].

    NB: When I seem to be making absolute statements, I mean from my viewpoint, not strictly stating as fact.
    -nod- okay, fair enough.

    Question: If someone, from their viewpoint, gives evidence by way of testimony that in every moment of their life, God has not been present - that there is definitely an absence of God, that they have always felt - spiritually/internally, though they are happy with their life/friends/family - alone, that they are certain there is nothing more - is this evidence?

    Or, maybe a more interesting question - why hasn't God made His presence known? Why hasn't He revealed himself to all people? Why does He let some people go off and be Satanists and Buddhists and Jews and into Hinduism and Baha'i and Shinto, why doesn't he show them the truth of Christianity? Why are the only Christians those who were raised that way, or converted by others? (Ignore for a moment the minority who were exposed to it and then at some moment - of crisis or revelation - believed they did have such an experience; I'm asking why all people don't have this.)

    Why would God let people feel spiritually comfortable in another faith, worshipping another God, living what they considered good lives, if He intended to damn them for eternity for not accepting Jesus' sacrifice? (Assuming He is, to any degree, a loving God.)
    April 25th, 2012 at 11:21am
  • ThePiesEndure

    ThePiesEndure (115)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    34
    Location:
    Australia
    pravda.:
    -nod- okay, fair enough.

    Question: If someone, from their viewpoint, gives evidence by way of testimony that in every moment of their life, God has not been present - that there is definitely an absence of God, that they have always felt - spiritually/internally, though they are happy with their life/friends/family - alone, that they are certain there is nothing more - is this evidence?

    Or, maybe a more interesting question - why hasn't God made His presence known? Why hasn't He revealed himself to all people? Why does He let some people go off and be Satanists and Buddhists and Jews and into Hinduism and Baha'i and Shinto, why doesn't he show them the truth of Christianity? Why are the only Christians those who were raised that way, or converted by others? (Ignore for a moment the minority who were exposed to it and then at some moment - of crisis or revelation - believed they did have such an experience; I'm asking why all people don't have this.)

    Why would God let people feel spiritually comfortable in another faith, worshipping another God, living what they considered good lives, if He intended to damn them for eternity for not accepting Jesus' sacrifice? (Assuming He is, to any degree, a loving God.)
    Interesting questions that really make me think. Thank you :)

    Anyway, to answer.

    1. I don't believe it is. I think it just means they want to be in control of their lives. Being a believer essentially means we have to die to ourselves. We have to be willing to completely let go for God. People who don't believe don't want to lose control because maybe it scares them? And because they feel content and happy with their lives they don't feel they need to.

    2. I think God makes His presence known to everyone, just some people don't realise it. [And that's the simple answer lol], They think they can find whatever they need to find in their religion and it's not a matter of God not being able to persuade them, but more them being in control, once again. It in a sense boils down to human control. I think in an odd way other religions because they often have rules that need to be followed to 'save' them that the believer feels like that they're in control at least a little bit. Whereas in Christianity, really the only one who should be in control is God.

    I hope that makes sense :)
    April 25th, 2012 at 11:38am
  • charming.

    charming. (135)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    28
    Location:
    Australia
    It really intrigues me how religious believers see non-theists as "in control" of their lives; for me, I think it's a dizzying loss of control to say that whatever makes you, you, is not something special or unique or eternal; and that there is not a force which will protect you, and that meaning and morality is something you have to try and find for yourself - from a position outside of religion, religious belief/doctrine looks like it offers security and answers. So I find it interesting when people tell me that I have chosen to "take control" of my life. I guess, in a way, being a non-believer means I acknowledge my personal responsibility, over my life and actions, but I feel like I have far, far less control over the universe, the future, etc, than a religious person (would perceive that they have.)

    So maybe not feeling control is actually a part of the human experience. I still, personally, think that acknowledging the lack of control and trying to make something out of that - out of that chaos or meaninglessness - is the more... mature? (I don't think that's quite the right word) response. Trusting your fate to a system (here, belief) and the authority over that system (here, God) just seems a frightened response.

    However, I can see how the alternative looks like arrogance (and I can see why it is frightening) and, again just personally, I think that whilst the structures ('religions', churches) have done a lot of harm (particularly those which are dogma/doctrine-driven) I think the spiritual side is generally beautiful. Not necessarily admirable, in and of itself, but it's great that people have belief to draw on. (Even if they are misattributing their own personal strength/ability to God/religion - that's one of the parts I don't like, you know, I was able to stop my drinking problem because of God - no, you stopped drinking because you found the strength to stop drinking, you did that, it was you. I don't like when religion encourages people to sell themselves short; I don't like when it encourages debasement, attitudes of "I am dirt, I am so unworthy" - if God did make us, I don't see how he could have created us to hate ourselves or see ourselves as worthless. If you created something with the ability to be good, then told it that it didn't deserve the life you'd given it because it had an ability to be bad, I would suggest you have some serious personality issues.) (That was too much in parentheses and not really on topic.)
    April 25th, 2012 at 12:13pm
  • ThePiesEndure

    ThePiesEndure (115)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    34
    Location:
    Australia
    I see where you're coming from inn all of that. I can't quote everything, but to respond to your bit in brackets God never created us to hate ourselves. The point isn't for us to feel bad, it's for us to worship God. Compared to God we are dirt, compared to God everything is dirt. But it isn't meant to be an esteem thing. God loves us and wants us to be worthy of Him, and we become worthy in Christ. And, sure that may sound like it debases us as humans, but remember God did originally create us as worthy.

    After all if we were worth nothing He would not have sent Jesus to die for us on the Cross. :)

    [And yes this really doesn't have much to do with whether God is real or not lol)

    But to tie it in, I believe God exists because of the life I've lived. And because to me the world makes no sense without Him.
    April 25th, 2012 at 01:07pm
  • charming.

    charming. (135)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    28
    Location:
    Australia
    The Pies Endure:
    To me the world makes no sense without Him.
    How would you live / feel if you were [somehow] presented with proof that He didn't exist?
    April 25th, 2012 at 01:13pm
  • ThePiesEndure

    ThePiesEndure (115)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    34
    Location:
    Australia
    pravda.:
    How would you live / feel if you were [somehow] presented with proof that He didn't exist?
    Hmmmm...I'd probably still live the same and just go...well okay...let's get straight down to proving that evolution is concrete fact lol. I'd be really bored on Sunday mornings too...lol /slightlytongueincheek
    April 25th, 2012 at 01:18pm
  • Velocity Destroya

    Velocity Destroya (100)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    21
    Location:
    United States
    When you really think about it, there isn't any proof that God is real.
    Some people try to use the bible as "proof" of God's existence, but it's not actual proof. The same as when people use beliefs and try to use them as proof. A belief is not proof, it's a belief. It is what they believe, but has not been proven to be true, so it can't be used as proof or be forced on someone as proof.
    Some say God created us. If God created us, then what created God? Nothing?
    It's like trying to find a theory to evolution. It can't, and still hasn't been done and most likely never will be done.
    There is no actual form of proof of God's existence other than beliefs, which do not classify as proof.
    May 19th, 2012 at 10:46am
  • Kurtni

    Kurtni (10125)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    28
    Location:
    United States
    Velocity Destroya:
    It's like trying to find a theory to evolution. It can't, and still hasn't been done and most likely never will be done.
    There is no actual form of proof of God's existence other than beliefs, which do not classify as proof.
    It's absolutely nothing like evolution. Evolution has an endless amount of evidence to support it, tangible evidence anyone can see or test if they were so inclined to.
    May 19th, 2012 at 02:03pm
  • ThePiesEndure

    ThePiesEndure (115)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    34
    Location:
    Australia
    Velocity Destroya:
    When you really think about it, there isn't any proof that God is real.
    Some people try to use the bible as "proof" of God's existence, but it's not actual proof. The same as when people use beliefs and try to use them as proof. A belief is not proof, it's a belief. It is what they believe, but has not been proven to be true, so it can't be used as proof or be forced on someone as proof.
    Some say God created us. If God created us, then what created God? Nothing?
    It's like trying to find a theory to evolution. It can't, and still hasn't been done and most likely never will be done.
    There is no actual form of proof of God's existence other than beliefs, which do not classify as proof.
    In answer to your bolded question? You're right 'nothing created God' because God has 'always' been. God wasn't Created. God is the Creator.

    And what are you trying to say? That evolution isn't true?

    Also, believers have faith in God we don't need concrete proof. What God does for us is enough individual proof for us to put our faith in Him. Having scientific proof is not what we want or need.
    May 20th, 2012 at 08:58am
  • pessimism

    pessimism (150)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    26
    Location:
    United States
    I definitely have my doubts on if there is a God out there. But most people don't need proof.

    Me personally, I don't like any religion. I believe that they all have their faults and I normally don't associate myself with something that gets shoved down other people's throats.

    To answer the question: Yes, there may not be much proof in a God. But people who are these religions and believe in them fully don't need proof. They believe in their God, with or without proof, and enjoy the religion.
    May 20th, 2012 at 02:06pm