Do you believe in God? Why or why not?

[mickey117]

Originally Posted by Frisbeetarian

No i am no longer a theist. I used to be quite pious in the Muslim sense. Used to pray everyday, go to the mosque every fridays, read the Quran on a continuous basis. Fasted every ramadan from the tender age of 9.

It is safe to say that after questioning these beliefs, and after seeking answers from Cheikhs, i found myself unsatisfied, thirsty for answers. Found myself unconvinced. And in so i longer believe in the existence of a divine being. Left with this void in my belief system, i started looking for answers by extensively revising history. I am on that path still. So i dont have an answer regarding the nature of my belief now.

I have the exact same situation except that I was christian, not muslim.

[Red Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Frisbeetarian

If god doesnt need a creator, why do we need a creator?

there is a little assumption here that ppl make which i myself grew to find unfounded.

the idea is that things have a start and an end.

but that's more of a human perception thing than fact reality.

for from our observation of this universe, we can assert that it is much more likely that this cosmos with all known and unknown factors does not have a de facto start no end mark, it keeps changing forever and emptiness, a prerequisite for the start-end theory, does not have a place here.

everything keeps changing and void is not an option.

hence, if this is the basic nature of the cosmos then there is no need to explain how things came from the void, no need to explain end and start marks and sure as heck no need to explain a god in the image and perception of man.

there might be some cosmic sentience or bigger 'biological' lifeform there that in essence wasn't created by anyone rather it's creating itself constantly and we are a part of it, but that cannot be proven and even if it's a cool idea this notion of 'god' is very very far away from the bearded moody god of our main regilions.

but remember, if change is the only constant and void is not a property of the cosmos then there is no need to explain anything.

can we explain the nature of the endless numbers after the decimal of pi ?

no, that's a property of a mathemitcal model that is a subpart of this universe.

i consider our big bang to be another phase of an endless cylce rather than the ultimate alpha of everything forever.

the fact that we do exist, in whatever form, mental/energy/physical, is as concrete as we can get, and from that we can try to draw out conclusions.

but to talk about a god fabricated by our novelists and politicians and nutjobs is of no use in a constructive philosophical debate on this matter.

earth's religions are more a matter of sociology than educated cosmic theology guesses really.

[TripolySunni]

Originally Posted by Red Phoenix

there is a little assumption here that ppl make which i myself grew to find unfounded.

the idea is that things have a start and an end.

but that's more of a human perception thing than fact reality.

for from our observation of this universe, we can assert that it is much more likely that this cosmos with all known and unknown factors does not have a de facto start no end mark, it keeps changing forever and emptiness, a prerequisite for the start-end theory, does not have a place here.

everything keeps changing and void is not an option.

hence, if this is the basic nature of the cosmos then there is no need to explain how things came from the void, no need to explain end and start marks and sure as heck no need to explain a god in the image and perception of man.

there might be some cosmic sentience or bigger 'biological' lifeform there that in essence wasn't created by anyone rather it's creating itself constantly and we are a part of it, but that cannot be proven and even if it's a cool idea this notion of 'god' is very very far away from the bearded moody god of our main regilions.

but remember, if change is the only constant and void is not a property of the cosmos then there is no need to explain anything.

can we explain the nature of the endless numbers after the decimal of pi ?

no, that's a property of a mathemitcal model that is a subpart of this universe.

i consider our big bang to be another phase of an endless cylce rather than the ultimate alpha of everything forever.

the fact that we do exist, in whatever form, mental/energy/physical, is as concrete as we can get, and from that we can try to draw out conclusions.

but to talk about a god fabricated by our novelists and politicians and nutjobs is of no use in a constructive philosophical debate on this matter.

earth's religions are more a matter of sociology than educated cosmic theology guesses really.

In the entire tottality of Human experience there is nothing without start or end, When researchers research the Big Bang they say we are researching the "Start" and they also theorize the "end" for example a while back the said that the universe will shrink and then end, Turns out that theory is wrong.

Thanks to the recent WMAP satellite and its readings we are now aware that the universe did have a starting point (a beginning) and we also know its age (13 billion years).

Now when you say that Religion is created for control, I ask who did Jesus Control? And What did Mohammad Gain exactly? the man Had Nothing, aside from the fact that he was illiterate.


Just one page Back I was talking about the Creation by Coincidence if you permit me to quote myself:
"Something I noticed in my short time here in this thread, is that the Atheist who is supposed to come from the Ratinal grounds and is supposed to be scientific as opposed to the us barbarians and is supposed to have no prejudice as opposed to the religious person who supposedly has it, This Atheist uses almost Only EMOTIONAL arguments such as:
-Why are some people born blind?
-Why is there InJustice in the world?
-Why didn't God send prophets to the Americans?
-Why is there so much suffering in the world?
.
.
.
Now the funny thing is that all the above questions do not prove that there isn't a God. ( Although he did send Prophets to the Americans and there is Justice for all creation). But those questions are from people who have the wrong idea about Life and its purpose.

Any way I came across some interesting info that I never knew before. A famous Swiss Mathematician called charles Eugene Guye was studying the Mathematical possibility of one single protein molecule as having come into existance by chance, And the probability was 10 to the power of 265 and that amount of matter needed would have been millions of times bigger than the known universe (which is supposed to be expanding) and the amount of time that it would have taken would be 10 to the power of 160 times the Length of the existance of the universe as we know it.
Now Statisticians ( people who deal with statistics) Unianimously Agree that any number which is 1 to the power of 100 is so improbable that it is considered impossible.

That is just one molecule, now how about a child which has 16 million ORGANIZED molecules which function together to produce a heart and a brain and lungs? what's the probability of that? If that happened it surely would have been a miracle ;)

Another guy French mathematician Denoy also spent time calculating the laws of probability for the formation of a single complex molecule to be formed by pure chance. He calculated that it would require billions of years. He concluded the following: “One molecule is of no use. Hundreds of millions of identical ones are necessary. Thus, we either admit the miracle or doubt the absolute truth of science.”

Yet we have people like this, Nobel Prize winner Dr. George Wald, from Harvard University, stated the following: “One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet, here we are as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.”"

Now if you believe that the Decimal "Pi" is Infinite, meaning that it is impossible for it to end Then Why Can't you realise that it is impossible for a universe to be Created on it's own?

The universe consists of matter and anti-matter, as well as many other things we probably haven’t discovered yet. According to the WMAP results, the universe is made up of 4% Atoms, 23% Cold Dark Matter, 73% Dark Energy. Thus 96% of the energy density in the universe is in a form that has never been directly detected in the laboratory. For all we know, there could be more than this. But space and time does not make up the entire universe on its own.

Most scientists today see "time" as both open and closed. While most atheists will take the opinion that "time" is open therefore infinite, whereas I choose the closed (finite) definition relative to the existence of this universe. Scientist’s use all of the descriptions mentioned above in some way or another and can be used for all kinds of theories and hypothesis. The topology of time is basically debatable, as is space.

[TripolySunni]

You beleive in Infinity of a Universe, That it has no beginning nor end. But Infinity is a concept. in fact discussing Infinity Is like discussing CREATOR which you Don't belive in.

I gave an example earlier, About "God" being created. I said that if you wanna lift a Box then you ask a person for help, and he says wait I need someone to help me help you then that third person says that he wants a fourth person to help him in doing so... The Box will never be lifted. UNIVERSE would never have come to existance.

Another one:
In order to cross a room I must first cross half the distance. Then half the remainder, then half of that.

There are an infinite number of half-distances all with values >0

Crossing any distance >0 requires time >0

Average time to cross (which is >0) multiplied by number of crossings (infinite) equals "total time to cross".

Any >0 number multiplied by infinity is infinity: therefore I can never cross a room.


We Say One God Created Time/Space, We say they are creatures like me and you, We say God created Dark Matter, Energy ect... And he is of a different Nature than all of those meaning that they do not apply to him. He Transcends creation.

[Red Phoenix]

Originally Posted by TripolySunni

In the entire tottality of Human experience there is nothing without start or end, When researchers research the Big Bang they say we are researching the "Start" and they also theorize the "end" for example a while back the said that the universe will shrink and then end, Turns out that theory is wrong.

start and end are human notions, the big bang is a part of a bigger recycling chain.

i am not debating here traditional erronous logic in the defense of this start end thingy.

i clearly stated that a difference of perception is required to view the universe in a different light.

no end, no begining, just constant change hence no need for a creator

i clearly stated that's my proposition, u don't have to accept it, but u cannot go back and debate me about this start end thingy, i told u i consider it a mere human perception.

the only certain proof we have now is that everything keeps changing and on that i am basing my idea.

the only constant is change and since we exist instead of the void then i suppose that existence instead of the void is the normal state of the ever changing cosmos. no need to do anything else if that is the case. and it's a very very simple proposition that sticks hence its appeal. at its very basic, i dont know what this cosmos/god is, but i am part of it. so instead of looking up 'how the cosmos was created' it's more prudent to take note of 'how the cosmos/god is being ever created' and we are an integrale part of this strange auto-reality.
again this is a matter of plausibility and simplicity that works, hence the appeal of the suggestion, and a suggestion it only is but one that is more logical than traditional explainations that don't convince at most levels.

let me reiterate, what i am proposing is far far away from tradition debating points of theology. it's totally different cuz i'm using a different axiom.

Thanks to the recent WMAP satellite and its readings we are now aware that the universe did have a starting point (a beginning) and we also know its age (13 billion years).

that is old news and it changes nothing of what i said, i told u, the big bang is only a phase in an endless looping cycle. that's much more likely to be the case than expecting a deuz ex intervention to create things.

Now when you say that Religion is created for control, I ask who did Jesus Control? And What did Mohammad Gain exactly? the man Had Nothing, aside from the fact that he was illiterate.

they spread their social memes, their beliefs, that's what they gain, and the ppl who inherited them used that as the basis for gaining power on the ground.

Now if you believe that the Decimal "Pi" is Infinite, meaning that it is impossible for it to end Then Why Can't you realise that it is impossible for a universe to be Created on it's own?

i told u again, this is not a game, i dont need to defend god cuz i dont need to defend santa clause. and both of them are of no consequence nor use when we propose a model of the universe that is self sustaining.

so far i got this universe, loud and clear, but nothing of the deity signs.

so i will limit my imagination, ochams razor.

The universe consists of matter and anti-matter, as well as many other things we probably haven’t discovered yet. According to the WMAP results, the universe is made up of 4% Atoms, 23% Cold Dark Matter, 73% Dark Energy. Thus 96% of the energy density in the universe is in a form that has never been directly detected in the laboratory. For all we know, there could be more than this. But space and time does not make up the entire universe on its own.

there is alot we dont know, and that is a known fact, but it changes nothing, if u want to dig into this scientific stuff then dig into chaos theory and quantum experiments, these clearly show that everything is freaky random with structures forming but tending to always break down again into a soup of chaos, all of these are not subject to our traditional way of thinking.

Most scientists today see "time" as both open and closed. While most atheists will take the opinion that "time" is open therefore infinite, whereas I choose the closed (finite) definition relative to the existence of this universe. Scientist’s use all of the descriptions mentioned above in some way or another and can be used for all kinds of theories and hypothesis. The topology of time is basically debatable, as is space.

everything is debatable in a philosophy class, but using the scientific method some ideas have more merit than others.

there is absolutely no need to look for an excuse for this cosmos in the form of a god. that's science.

whether god exist or not is irrelevant, human gods are compeltely out of context.

intelligent design is no where to be proven and from what we can tell so far is that 1-the universe exist, and 2-it changes

these are the only certainties, and from these we can put together a new perception of what is possibly the grand picture which is way more accurate than the picture of god the creator that our tree dwelling ancestors used to explain the universe.

our old definition of god has long expired

and any new attempt to define a new form of cosmic god by means of philosophy based on some loose scientific data will yield a god version completly not in the image of man.

in short, once we change a few axioms of thought, it becomes much more logical to suppose that the universe is self sustaining and ever changing than accept a logic that demands a god chef working in his cuisine starting at 5pm and finishing at 11.

our sun is the distant son of another sun that went supernova and went in an explosion a long time ago. the case of the big bang is similar although there is no way in hell for us to detect nor explain what happened/happens in the other cycles of the cosmic big bangs unless we manage to master time space and the higher dimensions and god knows what else.

the more our species survives alive the more we learn and the more we learn the less we remain humans. that's change.

to know more we need to survive long enough and become a different superior species.

no end no beggining, just change for better or worse, that's the universe.

all i can say that i am awed and proud to be witnessing this cosmos and i consider my person to be one more eye for this cosmos looking back into itself.

in short, & since i got such a small ego hehe, i consider me and everyone and everything else all part of the ever changing cosmos/god.

[Red Phoenix]

Originally Posted by TripolySunni

You beleive in Infinity of a Universe, That it has no beginning nor end. But Infinity is a concept. in fact discussing Infinity Is like discussing CREATOR which you Don't belive in.

I gave an example earlier, About "God" being created. I said that if you wanna lift a Box then you ask a person for help, and he says wait I need someone to help me help you then that third person says that he wants a fourth person to help him in doing so... The Box will never be lifted. UNIVERSE would never have come to existance.

Another one:
In order to cross a room I must first cross half the distance. Then half the remainder, then half of that.

There are an infinite number of half-distances all with values >0

Crossing any distance >0 requires time >0

Average time to cross (which is >0) multiplied by number of crossings (infinite) equals "total time to cross".

Any >0 number multiplied by infinity is infinity: therefore I can never cross a room.


We Say One God Created Time/Space, We say they are creatures like me and you, We say God created Dark Matter, Energy ect... And he is of a different Nature than all of those meaning that they do not apply to him. He Transcends creation.

all this is not a matter of whether leonardo or michealangelo are the coolest ninja turtles.

it's a matter of what is simpler and more plausible.

a self sustaing changing universe from our basic obversations is much more probable.

all we have to work on are

1-the universe exist

2-it changes.

there is nothing else here that would lead for us to suppose a god creator

even if by instinct we suppose start and end marks hence we end up supposing the existence of the creator/s also

as for human religions, they got buried by their own books and teachings that did not widthstand the test of time and science.

that's another topic and u won't find a single respectable scientist willing to bother himself debating traditional men of religion anymore.

it has been done to death before it and got people no where.

now philosophers might debate scientists and religious man at some rare occasions but that's pretty much it.

for every body it's a case closed in their own books hehe

cuz it's a completly different world that agnostic/atheist scientists live in and religious ppl.

einstien once said something to the effect of "the image of a probable god that i have in my mind has nothing to do with the image of traditional gods of religion"

now spirituality is a different thing, and ppl can have that in common but it has nothing to do with religious edicts.

perhaps we can focus on that instead :)

[TripolySunni]

Ok James I got ur Point,
And ur point is this: "no end, no begining, just constant change hence no need for a creator".
Which is not debatable since the Future is UnKnown, all we know is that the Galaxies will strech further and further away from eachother until the Lights go out in the entire universe as well as the sun in our Galaxy dying out after "A While". As for the Past we know nothing before the "Big Bang" So I cannot discuss whether i's a looping cycle or a oneshot comic book ;)

Peaces

[xcoder]

How to identify a religious man from an Atheist:

- Religious: Prove that god doesn't exist
- Atheist: Prove that god exists

I am with Logic ;)

[J. Abizeid]

Originally Posted by xcoder

How to identify a religious man from an Atheist:

- Religious: Prove that god doesn't exist
- Atheist: Prove that god exists

I am with Logic ;)

Do you believe in Ehad?
http://forum.tayyar.org/f80/do-you-believe-god-why-why-not-38015/index13.html#post984311

[J. Abizeid]

Originally Posted by Learned

I searched the forum and couldn't find any threads about God, so I thought I would start one. Before I go any further, I would like to make it abundantly clear that this thread is not meant as an insult to anyones personal beleifs or to any religion or faith for that matter, and it is not a thread intented to debate the differences between different religions (please don't turn this into a Christian-Muslim debate thread, because that is entirely besides the point here), or to delve into the specific aspects of any organized religion. If some of these issues are touched upon, do not take it personally, and I hope the mods can moderate the discussion in the spirit of open-mindedness, inquiry, and freedom of expression. The thread is certianly not meant as a platform for sectarianism, so those who have sectarian agendas and/or tendencies are kindly requested to refrain from making comments that would detract from the value of the topic.

And please, don't bring politics into this thread.


Human kind has reached a point in their extistance where the advancement of philosophical thought, mathematics, and science has allowed us to gain unprecidented insights into the realities of the universe around us, from the micro scale to the macro scale. And yet, at the root of all unquiry, there have been a number of central questions that thinkers, philosophers, ideologans, theologans, and scientists have struggled with for as long back as we can trace the existance of human civilization.

Even with the advancement of science and its contributions to our understanding of the workings of the universe, many of those central questions have remained unanswered, and with every new truth that we uncover, and answer that we gain, a whole new set of questions arise. There have been many who have attempted to prove or disprove the existance of God through reational means, and the debate about God's existance has only become more involved and complicated. Some have argued that science and emirical methods are not suited to prove or disprove God's existance, and have employed other means such as ontological arguments to make the case for God's existance. Still others have argued that regardless of the nature of the debate, one can never come to a final conclusion through rational means, and that each individual is left with a gamble: either not believe in God and risk suffering His wrath if you are wrong, or to believe in God even if you are not sure, just to be on the safe side. Some cannot bring themselves to believe in God without first understanding the reasons behind existance, creation, and this life, and still others have a problem accepting the notion that this life is merely a test that each human being either passes or fails by virtue of their conduct, judged in God's eyes.

There are many whose inquiries to these questions have left them without faith or belief in God, let alone any type of organised religion. There are others who may believe that some kind of Supreme Being exists, and yet they do not ascribe to any form of organized religion. And there are, ofcourse, the many followers of the religions of the world, who believe in thier scriptures, prophets, as saints and signs of God's existance and guidance.

On a personal level, do you believe in God, and more importantly, why? And what does your belief, or lack thereof, tell you about the nature of existance, life, creation, the universe, etc?

Not too long ago I heard an “educated man” bitching sarcastically about Allah; I told him: You know, Allah means God in Arabic; he replied back, Allah is the bad God. I told him my mother is a religious Christian who prays in Arabic every day for Allah, does that mean she’s praying for the Bad God?

What I’m trying to say without insulting anyone here: You need to describe the word “God” before you ask me if I believe in “God”.
I asked in a previous post if anyone believes in “Ehad” without describing the word “Ehad”. I got absolutely no reaction and no one asked me what I meant by Ehad…

Some call “God” a “he”. Is that a convenient assumption or a confirmed fact?
Some accuse you of insulting God if you declared yourself an atheist that don’t believe in God but how can you insult someone you are not aware of his/her existence?

The bottom line is: It’s a trick question.