Research on Belief in God

Page 19 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Descender said:
What do you mean the law of gravity and rainbows are man-made concepts?

The Law of Gravity is the explanation for a proven fact: gravity.

Rainbows are phenomena of nature that arise when the light of sun passes through the condensed droplets of water in the atmosphere.

God and unicorns have never been close to being proven.
But there is MUCH more evidence for "God as Creator" than there is for "Unicorns". MANY more scientists believe in "God as Creator" than believe in "Unicorns" right? Thousand and thousands and thousands more.

Although if Unicorns ever turn up, it will fit nicely with the God as Creator thing. If they fart rainbows, that would be icing on the cake.
 
Polish said:
But there is MUCH more evidence for "God as Creator" than there is for "Unicorns". MANY more scientists believe in "God as Creator" than believe in "Unicorns" right? Thousand and thousands and thousands more.

Although if Unicorns ever turn up, it will fit nicely with the God as Creator thing. If they fart rainbows, that would be icing on the cake.
What scientists believe has no necessary bearing on the truth, let us not forget about that.

What is all that evidence in favour of God as Creator as opposed to evidence in favour of unicorns? After all, these days most believers, be them scientists or not, have given up using evidence to support their beliefs, and cite "faith" instead.
 
Oct 8, 2010
451
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
OK.

But if the thread runs adrift, or upsets people, I will likely close it.
Nice standard: "if it upsets people, I will close the thread." Okay, mommy, thanks for protecting us from those big bad words and ideas. What kind of crap European thinking is this?

Guess what... Don't worry about whether discussions hurt people. We don't need you to be the feelings nanny for people on the Internet. But thanks for treating us like we're all 9 years old and need to be chaperoned by a smart, educated adult like yourself.
 
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Descender said:
What scientists believe has no necessary bearing on the truth, let us not forget about that.

What is all that evidence in favour of God as Creator as opposed to evidence in favour of unicorns? After all, these days most believers, be them scientists or not, have given up using evidence to support their beliefs, and cite "faith" instead.
Faith in "God as Creator" is important. Faith in "Unicorns" not so much.
That is why there is so much more faith in God as Creator.

And is faith in "God as Creator" just a human thing? Or do cats and dogs and trees and rocks feel the pull of faith in their own way too? I think so.

Does faith pervade the Universe? I think so.

Where and when did faith spring forth? Was it embedded in the Primeval Atom? Or did it evolve a bit later.
Why do sooo many scientists have faith? What fuels faith?

I think faith fuel is the strongest evidence of God as Creator.
Gosh, it would be funny if faith fuel turned out to be unicorn tears.
Would that be ironic or what.
 
Apr 15, 2012
4
0
0
I don't believe in the God written about it the Christian or Islamic bibles.
I'm open to the idea that there is life after death for some people, although I doubt it for myself.
I do believe in supernatural forces due to some experiences I had on a Ouija board in my life.
 
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Descender said:
Nowadays, having researched more about evolution, I find it hard to figure out why a supreme higher being would choose evolution to create life.
In the beginning there was no life. The universe existed for many billions of years before life sparked. A lifeless universe of matter for billions and billions and billions of years. And during those billions of years matter was evolving.
Until life was breathed into matter. Evolution is Incredibly Beautiful. Albert and many many other scientists recognized the beauty and the majesty.
They are in AWE.

Albert, btw, did not believe in the Big Bang at first. The Belgian Cathlolic Priest who first did the math and hypothosized the "Primeval Atom" was critisized by Albert. Only later did Albert see the light, and he and the father became friends.

But back to evolution....much much later after life sprang from matter, consciousness sprang from life. Again, Evolution is Awesome! How did it do that? And here we are today. What will be next? What will spring forth from conciousness? Who knows. Certainly not you or me or any human. Like a rock foreseeing life. Or early life fungus understanding consciousness. Not going to happen.

So, why WOULDN'T a ''higher being" chose evolution? What SHOULD have been chosen instead? . Instant Rainbow Unicorn Universe? Good loving healthy immortal unicorns? Or maybe a universe of Instant Hemoroidal Tissue? Evil hateful burning itchy hemoroidal tissue universe? Day after day, Unicorns or Hemoroids. No change. No evolution.

All major Christian denominations denied evolution for decades. The literal interpretation of the bible was the way to go. But then evolution was proposed and proved... but fear not! Now it turns out that evolution feats God to a T, don't you see!
Yes, religion is evolving.
Live and learn.
Evolution is helpful that way.
But why is love part of evolution. Why is hate in there too?
Good and evil have erupted due to evolution.
And how about survival of the fittest? Survival instincts?
Are they offset and tempered by Faith?
That is all part of evolution. All due to evolution.

I find it a bit ironic that Darwin was religious at first, then turned agnostic because he could not find proof nor disprove God as Creator.
Dude, it was staring you right in the face. Duuuuude:)
 
Polish said:
Faith in "God as Creator" is important. Faith in "Unicorns" not so much.
That is why there is so much more faith in God as Creator.

And is faith in "God as Creator" just a human thing? Or do cats and dogs and trees and rocks feel the pull of faith in their own way too? I think so.

Does faith pervade the Universe? I think so.

Where and when did faith spring forth? Was it embedded in the Primeval Atom? Or did it evolve a bit later.
Why do sooo many scientists have faith? What fuels faith?

I think faith fuel is the strongest evidence of God as Creator.
Gosh, it would be funny if faith fuel turned out to be unicorn tears.
Would that be ironic or what.
Again, I'm not trying to be rude, but I honestly couldn't make any sense out of your post.

Faith is a product of the human mind. Why it would have anything to do with the fuel of the universe or why it would prove a creator God is beyond me.
 
Polish said:
In the beginning there was no life. The universe existed for many billions of years before life sparked. A lifeless universe of matter for billions and billions and billions of years. And during those billions of years matter was evolving.
Until life was breathed into matter. Evolution is Incredibly Beautiful. Albert and many many other scientists recognized the beauty and the majesty.
They are in AWE.
Agreed, except for the "breathed" bit.

Albert, btw, did not believe in the Big Bang at first. The Belgian Cathlolic Priest who first did the math and hypothosized the "Primeval Atom" was critisized by Albert. Only later did Albert see the light, and he and the father became friends.
Yup.

But back to evolution....much much later after life sprang from matter, consciousness sprang from life. Again, Evolution is Awesome! How did it do that? And here we are today. What will be next? What will spring forth from conciousness? Who knows. Certainly not you or me or any human. Like a rock foreseeing life. Or early life fungus understanding consciousness. Not going to happen.
Indeed, good points.

So, why WOULDN'T a ''higher being" chose evolution? What SHOULD have been chosen instead? . Instant Rainbow Unicorn Universe? Good loving healthy immortal unicorns? Or maybe a universe of Instant Hemoroidal Tissue? Evil hateful burning itchy hemoroidal tissue universe? Day after day, Unicorns or Hemoroids. No change. No evolution.
Don't presuppose and don't divert with jesting. ;)

We should ask why a higher being WOULD choose evolution. Why couldn't he just have created life as it is today, like the Bible, Quran etc. say he did?

Yes, religion is evolving.
Live and learn.
Problem is, religion claims and has always claimed to be absolute. You can't have changing absolutes.

Evolution is helpful that way.
But why is love part of evolution. Why is hate in there too?
Strange wording, but consider struggle for life.

Good and evil have erupted due to evolution.
And how about survival of the fittest? Survival instincts?
Are they offset and tempered by Faith?
What??

I find it a bit ironic that Darwin was religious at first, then turned agnostic because he could not find proof nor disprove God as Creator.
Dude, it was staring you right in the face. Duuuuude:)
I guess it wasn't. :cool:
 
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Descender said:
Agreed, except for the "breathed" bit.
:
I used "breathed" because oxygen (O) was required. Water (H2O) too.
I suppose I could have said "gurrgled" or "percolated", but I liked "breathed".
Anyway, what do you think evolved first - life or rainbows?
Probably evolved just around the same time. But I hope rainbows came first. I can't imagine Life without Rainbows.

"Why are there so many
songs about Rainbows
and whats on the other side?".

Indeed Kermit, indeed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSFLZ-MzIhM&feature=youtube_gdata_player
.
.
.
.
 
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Master50 said:
This may be true today but a few devout christians have died as heretics for proposing such things as the earth goes round the sun.
Yes, but you have to remember the Church of Science was closely aligned with the Church of God back in those days. And BOTH science and religion have advanced since then. Maybe the scientists of today should apologize for some of their actions way back then. Maybe they can do it on the 550 year anniversary of Galileo? It'd be nice.
 
Jul 13, 2009
283
0
0
Polish said:
Yes, but you have to remember the Church of Science was closely aligned with the Church of God back in those days. And BOTH science and religion have advanced since then. Maybe the scientists of today should apologize for some of their actions way back then. Maybe they can do it on the 550 year anniversary of Galileo? It'd be nice.
Which actions should they be apologising for?
 
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Carlo Algatrensig said:
Which actions should they be apologising for?
The scientific community during Galileo's time was highly critical of him and his ideas. He was critisized by scientists at least as much as by the church.
When the church made Galileo recant, you can conclude many scientists were happy too.

The church has apologized, just saying the scientific community should too. Be nice.
 
Polish said:
Yes, but you have to remember the Church of Science was closely aligned with the Church of God back in those days. And BOTH science and religion have advanced since then. Maybe the scientists of today should apologize for some of their actions way back then. Maybe they can do it on the 550 year anniversary of Galileo? It'd be nice.


What the hell is the Church of Science?

Science has made humankind advance since it was able to free itself from the yoke of religion.

Religion has only acted as the brakes that slow down that advancement.
 
Polish said:
The scientific community during Galileo's time was highly critical of him and his ideas. He was critisized by scientists at least as much as by the church.
When the church made Galileo recant, you can conclude many scientists were happy too.

The church has apologized, just saying the scientific community should too. Be nice.
And who exactly should do the apologies? The Science Pope?

The scientific community was and is not an organisation. The Church is.

Not to mention that fellow scientists (science wasn't a fully defined discipline back then anyway), did not seize Galilei and threaten him.
 
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
The Hitch said:
Some mindblowing stuff about life in our universe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSPvKiofm_c&feature=relmfu
Mindblowing stuff I doubt it.
I find Dawkin's understanding of evolution about as simpleton as one can get. Only took a minute to know that "intelligent design" is silly. I guess I can thank Richard for that lol.

But what was the "mindblowing stuff" about life in our universe.
Make it easy - what did you find most mindblowing?
 
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
rhubroma said:
....as the ancient Greeks have shown us, is only a human fabrication to give meaning to the continuous cycles of nature. Hence, taken in the historical sense and out of the context of natural forces (which is really all the pagan gods were, personifications of natural forces), God too is a human construct as is salvation, for the reason of man essentially being a coward I set down before.
Yes, and the ancient greeks also showed us the universe was composed of concentric crystalline spheres. And yes again, God is a human construct. A symphony of man-made religions going back to our beginning.

But is God ONLY a human made construct? Or have non-humans also sensed God? I would argue that God is a "consciousness construct" - not just man. All of consciousness feels the pull. Higher levels of consciousness feel the pull in a different way. Thats part and parcel of evolution.

If consciousness evolved in other places in the universe - do you think we humans are the only ones who thought up God? Gee, that would make us kind of special;)
 
Polish said:
Yes, and the ancient greeks also showed us the universe was composed of concentric crystalline spheres. And yes again, God is a human construct. A symphony of man-made religions going back to our beginning.

But is God ONLY a human made construct? Or have non-humans also sensed God? I would argue that God is a "consciousness construct" - not just man. All of consciousness feels the pull. Higher levels of consciousness feel the pull in a different way. Thats part and parcel of evolution.

If consciousness evolved in other places in the universe - do you think we humans are the only ones who thought up God? Gee, that would make us kind of special;)
And why exactly would you argue that? What do you base that assertion on?
 
Polish said:
Mindblowing stuff I doubt it.
I find Dawkin's understanding of evolution about as simpleton as one can get. Only took a minute to know that "intelligent design" is silly. I guess I can thank Richard for that lol.

But what was the "mindblowing stuff" about life in our universe.
Make it easy - what did you find most mindblowing?
The bit about "life in our universe" which is why I specified "life in our universe".

Perhaps you missed that bit it in your desperation to point out how simple you find Richard's understanding of evolution, which had little to do with the bit where he was talking about "life in our universe":rolleyes:

Personally I find the idea that life might have found a way in other places millions of light years away, mindblowing, but maybe its just little things pleasing little minds.
 
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
The Hitch said:
The bit about "life in our universe" which is why I specified "life in our universe".

Perhaps you missed that bit it in your desperation to point out how simple you find Richard's understanding of evolution, which had little to do with the bit where he was talking about "life in our universe":rolleyes:

Personally I find the idea that life might have found a way in other places millions of light years away, mindblowing, but maybe its just little things pleasing little minds.
What I found mindblowing was that Dawkins seems to suggest that evolution began when life first sparked up on earth. Overlooks the fact that matter had been evolving ever since the Big Bang. Billions and billions and billions of years of evolution. His views on chimps is pretty simplistic too.

And as far as life in other places of the universe...not that mindblowing sorry. The fact that we humans have not discovered it yet in this day and age is suprising I guess - but the universe is big. If it ever was proved that we are alone in the universe, that would be very creepy yikes.

http://www.universetoday.com/44713/vatican-holds-conference-on-extraterrestrial-life/
.
.
.
.
 
Polish said:
What I found mindblowing was that Dawkins seems to suggest that evolution began when life first sparked up on earth. Overlooks the fact that matter had been evolving ever since the Big Bang. Billions and billions and billions of years of evolution. His views on chimps is pretty simplistic too.

And as far as life in other places of the universe...not that mindblowing sorry. The fact that we humans have not discovered it yet in this day and age is suprising I guess - but the universe is big. If it ever was proved that we are alone in the universe, that would be very creepy yikes.

http://www.universetoday.com/44713/vatican-holds-conference-on-extraterrestrial-life/
.
.
.
.
you are right. the discussion as to whether there is life beyond this earth and how life comes to exist is pretty simple stuff. totaly undeserving of the adjective "mindblowing".:rolleyes:
 
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
The Hitch said:
you are right. the discussion as to whether there is life beyond this earth and how life comes to exist is pretty simple stuff. totaly undeserving of the adjective "mindblowing".:rolleyes:
Sorry The Hitch, but hearing Dawkins suggest that there may or may not be life elsewhere in the universe - and his opinion on the matter - was not mindblowing to me.

Understand though, back in college I had some wonderful hallucinations while doing peyote that WERE truly mindblowing. I have to assume they were hallucinations lol. So my "mindblow" threshold is a bit high.

Now if some Krikkit Killer Robots would have stormed the radio station where Dawkins was plugging his book - THAT might have blown my mind. If Orson Welles was doing the interview, even better.




Woop Woop
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY