Is there a God?

[Jeremy]

mockney piers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> How do the laws of physics explain thought or conciousness?

Totally different thing. We can't explain how conciousness comes about, but we can scientifically prove it's existence (octopus in front of a mirror, etc).

[Narnia]

Brendan, what are you talking about? It's a simple question and nothing to do with needing to believe anything. I'll see you in the Lounge!

[Brendan]

Which laws of physics are we talking about here? The ones that we are familiar with in our day-to-day lives do not apply in all s tuations. In the bit of the world that we inhabit every action has an equal and opposite reaction and something cannot be in more than one place at a time but that doesn?t mean that every action has an equal and opposite reaction and something cannot be in more than one place at a time.

[Jeremy]

Brendan Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Which laws of physics are we talking about here?

The ones we know about.

[silverfox]

Jeremy said:

'...The existence of God is physically impossible, as is "afterlife"...

I may regret entering this debate but here goes.

However noble the intentions of this new 'The Drawing Room' section, questions such as 'Is there a God?' will not be resolved on this forum no matter how intelligent the participants are. However, I'm going to stick my neck out on this one and say I do believe in God, and by that I mean a supernatural omnipotent being who has called this universe into existence. Yes it is a question of belief and I have no tangible proof. I believe partly because I am not convinced by arguments that try to discount the existence of God.

A number of things trouble me but perhaps the biggest is in the science versus religion debate of the Big Bang. Even accepting that the 'Big Bang' theory is in all probability correct, it still does not answer the question of what caused the Big Bang, ie, the pre-existing conditions which allowed the point of singularity to spark into existence, create all the matter/anti-matter and elements which form our universe. Scientists now propose theories seeking to explain this such as multiple universes continually sparking into existence and dying out again: or string theory where all-pervasive waves of energy populate a multi-verse and spark universes into existence where they touch. It's all too intellectual, complex mathematics for me, as fascinating as it sounds, and in my opinion is just a competing belief system.

Evolution doesn't trouble me. By definition it's not beyond the wit of a supernatural, omnipotent being to put in place a primeval soup from which unlimited life forms can emerge and evolve (including Attenborough's eye-boring worms). The theory of evolution doesn't disprove the existence of God.

These are only two examples. Over the years I have tried to read and understand some of the great minds on this , albeit in an amateur way (let me qualify this by saying in the Western Tradition), flirting with philosophy and theology. And on a more modern level regard the writings of athiests such a Richard Dawkins in the highest esteem, while remaining unconvinced about his arguments.

As an intelligent species occupying a position in the outer suburbs of an unremarkable galaxy in a universe teeming with billions of galaxies and countless stars I find it hard to believe it is all some sort of an accident, mere chance. In fact I understand that the mathematical probability of humans evolving from all the variables borders on the absurd.

In short, my point in picking up on Jeremy's "The existence of God is physically impossible..." statement is that we are still trying to work out what the universe is, how it works, what are it's physical laws, how do they break down as in black holes, how many dimensions are there, does time bend back onto itself etc to dismiss the possibility that higher forms of existence and consciousness can exist.

[Brendan]

Oh and by the way I'm not in any way trying to argue for the existence of god just against the existence of definites. I think too much importance is put on the question of whether ?God? exists for people to actually explore the questions of, what the fuck is going on? and, why do we all think that way?

[Brendan]

silverfox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

... what caused

> the Big Bang, ie, the pre-existing conditions

> which allowed the point of singularity to spark

> into existence, create all the matter/anti-matter

> and elements which form our universe.

Isn?t the idea that time started with the big bang so there wasn?t any ?before??

[louisiana]

If you're already decided that he doesn't exist, you might like to join the group of atheists performing Thriller on and around the 4th plinth Sunday 3.50-5pm.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=716435926&ref=profile#/event.php?eid=113752157492&ref=nf

[Narnia]

'But let's say my bad deeds were worthy of demotion to insect-life - surely that has to be a life badly lived, and our purpose is to create a society which

a) discourages such behaviour

b) failing that, punishes such behaviour'

We are born alone and we die alone. Why would our purpose be to create any type of society? We may find it useful to have one and find it difficult to avoid but there has got to be more of a purpose than merely that surely?

[Brendan]

louisiana Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If you're already decided that he doesn't exist,

> you might like to join the group of atheists

> performing Thriller on and around the 4th plinth

> Sunday 3.50-5pm.

You see this is what I find interesting. You are so sure of what you aren't believing in you even use a personal pronoun for it just like the people who do believe do.

[mockney piers]

Again with you Brendan.

I don't know and really I don't much care, enough to worry about.

I think the idea of a god with his rule book and points system is nherently absurd whether it's karma or time spent in purgatory.

I do find any sort of absolute statement as disturbing and generally based in faith of some sort or other.

Science merely says according to what we've tested this is what we know and for our purposes our conclusions work for us.

I'm more inclined to put my faith in scientists hard work than theologians because it makes much more sense.

But claiming there is no God is a)arrogant and b)pointless

Mind you I know where Smg is coming from in the harm that religins cause, but then it's not all bad, art and architecture throughout the ages have been immesurably enriched by our search for the divine and the patronage of religious institutions (nasty things though they are on the whole)

[Brendan]

Declan Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> We are born alone...

No we aren't. At least one other person has to be around.

[silverfox]

Isn?t the idea that time started with the big bang so there wasn?t any ?before??

It would appear Brendan that the answer is not necessarily. That would make sense if time was seen as linear. Scientists are now debating what time is, how is may have several dimensions, how it may bend back onto itself, how it was faster at the big bang (allowing inflation) than it is now.

[Brendan]

And why is it slower on Friday afternoons...

[SeanMacGabhann]

Well, partly self-preservation surely. Without society, our lives would be much shorter and much more brutish. And it's no small feat in itself so a "higher purpose" would have to be pretty special

Just what would that be? What would be "higher"? If we are beholden to a creator and will indeed suffer judgement, then I would argue that our lives are LESS meaningful than they are without a creator. We are all part of some divine reality show? Shoot me now...

As for MP's statement

is the corollary true - ie Claiming there IS a God is a)arrogant and b)pointless

because if that's true, then given the equal footing on both sides of the argument, can we remove religion from schools and and civil law and let people who want to believe believe and people who don't don't? That would work for me

But if it's not true then it sound like people are giving more weight to one side of the argument than the other

[mockney piers]

"is the corollary true - ie Claiming there IS a God is a)arrogant and b)pointless"

being clever types in here innit, I assumed this to be rather obviously implicit in what I was saying.

Mind you, arrogant perhaps, but hardly pointless when it comes to keeping the man down, the burqah, the cloistes gold encrusted up etc etc etc

[Jeremy]

mockney piers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But claiming there is no God is a)arrogant and b)pointless

Why - if that's what I believe, why is it arrogant? I think I have an informed opinion and have listened to both sides of the argument for a long time now.

I will concede that there is a slim chance that our understanding of science is not sufficiently advanced to understand how such a phenomenon could be possible. And there is no way we can disprove a theory which is impossible to observe. But in my judgement the chances are so slim that for all purposes it's negligible.

That doesn't mean I wish to shout deists down and tell them they are wrong... that's not my intention at all and I'm sorry if I came across that way. But at the same time I don't see why I shouldn't discuss my beliefs without being accused of arrogance.

[mockney piers]

The key word is beliefs.

I believe in god and I believe there is no god are fine. Live and let live.

There is a god and there is no god implies some higher knowledge. Deists have yet to prove anything to me, deinialists(nice) likewise.

Just pointing out the obvious. I find both latter positions arrogant.

[Brendan]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think I have an informed opinion and

> have listened to both sides of the argument for a

> long time now.

The way I see it is it?s doesn?t only have 2 sides nor is it an argument.

[mockney piers]

The key word is beliefs.

I believe in god and I believe there is no god are fine. Live and let live.

There is a god and there is no god implies some higher knowledge. Deists have yet to prove anything to me, deinialists(nice) likewise.

Just pointing out the obvious. I find both latter positions arrogant, but that's just my belief.

[Brendan]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think I have an informed opinion and

> have listened to both sides of the argument for a

> long time now.

The way I see it is it?s doesn?t only have 2 sides nor is it an argument.

[HAL9000]

Today, science postulates a cosmos whose space-time continuum began expanding out of nothing 13.7 billion years ago, where the past, present and future co-exist within a time dimension and in which our perceptions are limited to one of an infinite series of alternative realities. And where the earth lies at the exact centre of the observable universe.

At the very cutting edge, many have come to the scientifically derived conclusion that we exist within a simulation running on some kind of quantum supercomputer whose origin and nature we can never know.

If they are right then science is now postulating that we are the dreams of a superior, omnipotent and omniscient agent that pervades the cosmos: science has reinvented God.

Edited to add this link: Are we living in a simulation?

[Narnia]

Why does it have to be a question of belief? Religions in my opinion sell God and their beliefs on the basis of 'if you don't follow us you will be punished by God'(apologies to any religion out there which doesn't operate this way). If God were God (as in the concept) he would hardly give us life to make us fearful of doing something he wouldn't like, for the duration of it. Thus the only way of knowing what God wants is to know God. He may not want anything apart from our discovering him. My suspicion is that there may be a 'God' that exists in a realm where our human consciousness rarely touches, if ever. By our nature we are always wishing to be happy. It dosen't always happen though and lots of us can be miserable for one reason or another. However there is a part of us seeking something better all the time. Sometimes we achieve our goal and find that that isn't enough and thus we set a new goal. Perhaps our ultimate goal is to find God but only if we choose to. We may settle for something less than total fulfillment (that being the experience of finding God..........in theory). It will remain a theory until you experience it. If you do you are unlikely to be able to prove it. It's an individual thing by definition.

So to answer my own question. There is a God.

[mockney piers]

I guess bottom line is we're lucky enough to live in a society where it needn't impact us one way or another. It was only a couple of hundred years ago a Scottish student was hanged for saying it's all a load of nonsense made up by men.

It's lucky noone would think of introducing blasphemy laws in this post enlightenment world isn't it.

...

How exactly do you spell the sound of a tumbleweed.

And HAL, that's what science says it, really, is it?

I prefer the backs of elephants thing.

[HAL9000]

The answer may be as simple as this: during the course of evolution man acquired the ability to foresee his own mortality and contemplate the meaningless of his existence. The only reason man survived and flourished despite that knowledge was because spirituality co-evolved as a counter measure against those self-destructive thoughts.

Without it, we wouldn?t be here.