The God Debate

[zidane21ps]

Edit: cutting this out completely, keep on moving - my mistake for making this a bible debate.

[Itsu]

We need someone to blame. Since we're all self-conscious being we cannot take responsibility for our own actions.

We think we have the right to indulge ourselves with what ever nature has to offer - This is where God comes in. "God created man in his image" - What..? God's a egocentric sociopath?

We created him as an answer to our unresolved questions. We need something to believe in, we need someone to blame for our mistakes.

[NPG]

I'm not entering this thread, but there is one thing I'll say:

Almost everyone here is confusing belief in god with belief in random religious dogma. Ofcourse you can sift through any organised religion and see a whole load of bullshit, but that has no impact on whether or not a god exists, only that their interpretation of a god is warped.

So again - Belief in God != Belief in Scripture/Organised religion.

[vidzey]

That is circular reasoning. The reason why you're 100% sure that a "God" is not to be blamed about how the Universe came to be, is because you don't want to call anything a God.

And yes, the fact that "you don't know who or what" created the universe implies that you know that there is a "Who" or "What" that created it. And that is "God".

okay then. what is god on your own definition?

I've answered that last question clearly: The Universe, as we know it, cannot have created itself, since all the laws of physics are violated by its own creation. So whatever It was that caused that rift in those Laws must be that which is called "God."

that still cannot answer why god can create himself and not the universe creating itself, or why is a god necessary for the universe's creation?

The Big Bang Theory proves Creation, and thus of something that had to have created the Universe. Whatever that Something is, I choose to call it "God".

It's funny how you're professing an atheistic standpoint and yet you're debating it from a religious point of view. The view that "God" must be some person walking amongst the heavens is quite a limited and backward one, and you seem to be taking that stance.[/QUOTE]

lolz. not in any of my reply did i implied that i'm looking at your god in an anthropomorphic plane. anything that had an omnifabulous quality can be human-like, right?

[kuroihikari]

okay then. what is god on your own definition?

God is that something which created the Universe.

that still cannot answer why god can create himself and not the universe creating itself, or why is a god necessary for the universe's creation?

What I said answers it perfectly. The Universe, like God, is something which Man has defined. The Universe follows certain laws that fit into our definition of it. And those laws disallow the Universe from creating itself.

So, either we define something external (i.e. God) that creates the Universe and itself, or we redefine our Universe in order to give it the ability to create itself. In the former, there is a God. In the latter, the Universe becomes "God". Both are valid, because both are just Man's redefinition of existence.

lolz. not in any of my reply did i implied that i'm looking at your god in an anthropomorphic plane. anything that had an omnifabulous quality can be human-like, right?

Yeah, you didn't. But you implied the Big Bang Theory disproves the existence of a God, but according to my definition, it definitely proves it.

I'm not entering this thread, but there is one thing I'll say:

Almost everyone here is confusing belief in god with belief in random religious dogma. Ofcourse you can sift through any organised religion and see a whole load of bullshit, but that has no impact on whether or not a god exists, only that their interpretation of a god is warped.

So again - Belief in God != Belief in Scripture/Organised religion.

Exactly! And that is why I wanted to discuss the existence of God from a non-religious viewpoint in this thread as opposed to a religious one.

There's also the inconvenience of people apparently scarred for life by the religious jumping at an opportunity to find something wrong in people they haven't met. I know their grievances, I hate and am ashamed of a certain portion of religious life and of the religious population, too, but let's respect each other's beliefs, okay?

[vidzey]

God is that something which created the Universe.

so, what other characteristic does this god have aside from creating this universe?

What I said answers it perfectly. The Universe, like God, is something which Man has defined. The Universe follows certain laws that fit into our definition of it. And those laws disallow the Universe from creating itself.

So, either we define something external (i.e. God) that creates the Universe and itself, or we redefine our Universe in order to give it the ability to create itself. In the former, there is a God. In the latter, the Universe becomes "God". Both are valid, because both are just Man's redefinition of existence.

i don't think so. what i understood from your reply is, "because the universe can't create itself (proof please!), then godditit!".

Yeah, you didn't. But you implied the Big Bang Theory disproves the existence of a God, but according to my definition, it definitely proves it.

then we're not meeting on the same plane.

while bbt is supported by a vast amount of scientific evidences, not in any of it was a god included. so unless you can provide a non-biblical/religious article about the universe's creation, then we can discuss this further.

[p.s. don't even think that it was a cop-out move. paulbee, at least it my opinion, accepts my explanation, unlike you].

[kuroihikari]

so, what other characteristic does this god have aside from creating this universe?

What does that have to do with It's existence?

i don't think so. what i understood from your reply is, "because the universe can't create itself (proof please!), then godditit!".

I explained it pretty clearly. The Universe can't create itself. All scientific laws (Laws of entropy, conservation of mass and energy, etc.) are broken if that were true. So we either redefine our concept of the Universe and the Universe becomes Creator (God), or we define something external to it (i.e. God).

Either way it's only a choice of definition. What makes one right over the other? That's right, because one has "God" in it, making it all wrong.

then we're not meeting on the same plane.

while bbt is supported by a vast amount of scientific evidences, not in any of it was a god included. so unless you can provide a non-biblical/religious article about the universe's creation, then we can discuss this further.

Apparently you're confused about the discussion I was presenting about the existence of a non-religious God.

Besides, the Big-Bang Theory brings forth the idea of a SuperForce which comprises all fundamental forces (weak and strong molecular forces, Gravity and Electro magnetic forces) which were somehow mixed up, among other unexplained masses of matter. What is this thing that caused this SuperForce to split up? Where did the matter comprising it Proto-Universe come from? Do either of these things still exist today? How can it affect Universe? If it can create something out of nothing, can it do it again?

A force that is that powerful to create such a universe is God. And I don't mean in a religious way.

[Itsu]

This is like... Why we should NOT allow religious debates.

No-one can define God... Hell, for all we know God's a monkey from a different time and space. We cannot prove that he does exist, nor that he doesn't either.

It's all just a question of faith and belief.
We choose what we want to believe in, and no-one should keep us from doing that. But when people go blind in the belief in some omnipotent god, and cannot accept the fact that not everyone conforms to their preconceived notions of God(s), I simply get PISSED.

And when religious people go as far as killing in the name of God, it's quite disturbing. I cannot quite grasp the idea to believe so strongly in a biased religion. It's like they're not allowed to have their own life but the life of a religious man.

As I've said earlier - Religion should be used as a guide, not a law.

[kuroihikari]

This is like... Why we should NOT allow religious debates.

No-one can define God... Hell, for all we know God's a monkey from a different time and space. We cannot prove that he does exist, nor that he doesn't either.

It's all just a question of faith and belief.
We choose what we want to believe in, and no-one should keep us from doing that. But when people go blind in the belief in some omnipotent god, and cannot accept the fact that not everyone conforms to their preconceived notions of God(s).

And when religious people go as far as killing in the name of God, it's quite disturbing. I cannot quite grasp the idea to believe so strongly in a biased religion. It's like they're not allowed to have their own life but the life of a religious man.

As I've said earlier - Religion should be used as a guide, not a law.

I wholeheartedly agree. I believe that each and everyone of us has his or her own unique view and understanding of the Universe and God, and as long as you don't hurt anyone, you're fine. It's our option to respect each other's beliefs.

And definitely plus on the "guide,not a law" part. Even if there truly were a God, we have free will for a reason.

[Archiel]

As I've said earlier - Religion should be used as a guide, not a law.

Or we can just like....not use religion at all...just a thought, you claim that religion can be peaceful etc etc etc, but it inevitably leads down the same path, it always has.

What are we defining god as right now, a set of fundamental principles that govern the universe? I don't really see how worshipping the laws of gravity does anyone any good...

Alright, too be honest my post isn't serious, none of you are actually gonna listen to me given that your obviously hiding behind your religious tolerance barriers, you deists can have fun finding god wherever you like...