WELL I THINK THIS CONVO HAS GONE FAR OFF THE SUBJECT. WHY DON'T WE CLOSE. THE SUBJECT WAS, HOW WOULD LIFE BE IF A GOD EXISTED? ASSUMING THIS IS TRUE, WE WERE SUPPOSED TO WRITE OUR THOUGHTS. A FEW OF THE MAIN OPINIONS WERE
1) WE WOULDN'T LIVE OUR LIVES WITH MUCH MOTIVATION, KNOWING THAT GOD HAS A DESTINY FOR US.
2) WE WOULD LIVE BASED ON GOD'S STANDARDS.
3) A MIRACLE CAN'T BE RELATED TO GOD, BECAUSE YOU ARE ANALYZING IT AS A SUPER NATURAL PHENOMENON. IF MIRACLES DID HAPPEN, THAN WE WOULD ALL BELIEVE.
4) IF MIRACLES WERE TO HAPPEN CONTINUOUSLY, WE WOULD BECOME IGNORANT OF GOD'S EXISTENCE.
NOW THE DEBATE HAS GONE TO WHETHER A GOD EXISTS OR NOT. I THINK THAT basvanopheusden, HAS VERY SPECIFICALLY CONCLUDED THIS QUESTION IN A VERY SCIENTIFIC MANNER. WE CAN'T PROVE ANYTHING WHICH DOESN'T EXIST, BECAUSE WE HAVE NO PROOF. ANYONE WHO OBJECTS THIS IS A CHUMP, WHO NEEDS SOME EATING TO DO. I BELIEVE THAT THE PEOPLE WHO CHANGE SUCH GREAT SUBJECTS TO SUCH LOW-QUALITY SUBJECTS ARE VERY FAT. VERY BIG CHUMPS. THEY ARE CHUMP OF CHUMPS.

@Furball

Please don't yell. I'm in a library.

@CM

"Okay, but you also metioned God being outside of the universe not being able to change anything about the universe. "

I said no such thing.

I think most everyone here agrees that we won't be proving God's existence in the near future. I'm impressed that this conversation has gone this long without too many people banging their heads against walls over that issue. But, let's just completely put an end to that discussion, because that horses has been beaten to a bloody pulp.

The issue should be, given we don't know, should we assume (or believe) that there is a God. This is really two questions: Is there a God and is this God the God of one of the specific religions we've encountered over the years (Yahweh, Thor, Zeus, FSM)?

To the first I say: Maybe, but why does it matter? We are like children in a wonderful playground (the Universe). We're in the playground (Space/Time), we know how it was made (Big Bang) and with what (Matter/Engergy). Does it really matter who dropped off the pieces? Let's learn everything we can about *this* playground and then move on.

To the second I say: What possible justification is there for believing a specific God? This I just don't get. I've had many people try to explain it, and I listen carefully, but it still isn't clear. I understand that Churches have a number of benefits (charity, social networking, sense of community, etc) but none of those require a God to follow. As I've said before, the probability of any one particular God being correct is 0. Doing good things is great, but modifying what you eat, when you do things, etc to please some being that mathematically isn't there, doesn't make any sense.

I'd put another question between your two:
Does God care what we do?
If not then whilst creation etc will have been explained (a massive step for science), ethically it will be equivalent to there not being a God (albeit with the bonus of proving Dawkins wrong).

@abgemacht - Faith is why believers like myself believe. Faith, by it's very definition, is not rational any more than emotion, and yet it is an essential element to a believer's personality and thier walk with their chosen God. i say this because I belief in a supreme being, but also believe man's attempts to understand Him fall short and miss the target. These attaempts are what make up the specific religions and denominations within those religions. But to strive to do something we know we will never fully accomplish is a quest to better ourselves. To not bother trying because you think it is unattainable will never get you the benefits of the journey.

Mankind may not reach put a person on another planet in my life even if we try, but not even trying means a loss of the things we would have gained while trying (something the fools in Washington don't realize).

@abgemacht: "Can you please give me a source for that NASA quote?"

It was at:

http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/universe_level2/universe.html


@ Crazy Anglican:

"Show me where NASA refutes multiple universes theory and you might have something."

I can't quote NASA outright refuting multiple universes, but I can quote NASA saying that from a scientific standpoint the question is essentially pointless:

"There is no way to observe any universe other than our own. This is not a practical issue (like there not being good enough telescopes), but rather a fundamental theoretical issue. By definition, our universe is self-contained. No other universe can affect anything in our universe, so we cannot gather evidence about its existence.

"Applying Einstein's laws of general relativity, it is possible to come up with solutions that connect one universe to another via a spinning black hole. However even if we were to observe such a thing, it would still not tell us if there was another universe on the other side or if the other side was part of our own universe.

"So, from a scientific standpoint the question is moot, but from a philosophical standpoint, it is fascinating."

- Jonathan Keohane, NASA (link: http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980301 .html)


@ abgemacht: "Doing good things is great, but modifying what you eat, when you do things, etc to please some being that mathematically isn't there, doesn't make any sense."

abgemacht +1

Crazy Anglican, I have just one final question for you:

Seeing as you believe in the multiple universes theory, do you believe that god created ALL universes, or just our universe? If he created all universes, does this mean he exists 'outside' the multiverse?

@Jamiet99uk

"I can't quote NASA outright refuting multiple universes, but I can quote NASA saying that from a scientific standpoint the question is essentially pointless:"

Again, you're using language to dismiss the scientists who study multiple universes. For them it is certianly not pointless from a scientific standpoint. The Keohane quote is an astronomer who says basically "We don't know how to build a telescope to see another universe, and even if we saw it we couldn't distinguish it from our own universe" and so from the standpoint of "astronomy" it's not a part of their study. Like I said before your post, astronomy has a working definition of a universe.

it might very well be "scientifically moot" (in that they cannot study it with their instruments) for astronomy, but from the standpoint of physics, however, it's a theoretical model. It's clearly not scientifically moot for physicists. Like you said, you couldn't find NASA refuting multiple universes theory, so you still seem to be fabricating a disagreement where none exists.

** the possibility of multiple universes**

@Jamiet99uk

Your final question to me appears to be an attempt to change the subject. Why attempt to solicit a claim from me that would enable you to needlessly muddy the water? I never claimed that God created this universe. It’s my belief that he did, but I have no interest in proving it. What I claimed was that science can be used to show that your refutation of the first cause argument is lacking. Aquinas spoke only of this universe and the causes and effects within it as far as I know. So let’s keep the conversation to relevant questions please.

If you’re pinning your hopes on God being a special case as a refutation of the first cause argument, then multiple universes theory undermines that. If you’re attempting to use the views of astronomers to undermine a theoretical model developed and used by physicists, then I think you can see the problem there. It’s a bit like having a chemical engineer monitoring the processes in your nuclear reactor. The two disciplines are just not the same, so intimate knowledge of one doesn’t necessarily qualify you to speak authoritatively on the other.

Let me clarify, astronomy is basically the study of objects and phenomena in this universe. So it should come as no surprise that their definition of the universe is basically anything that they have a reasonable expecation of one day being able to measure. What the astronomers are saying is completely in line with their discipline and right for them. However, if one were to eventually to be able to perceive another universe then it's likely (from the looks of thing right now) that the study would emerge from physics not astronomy.

@Jamiet

"http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/universe_level2/universe.html"

This is a site for CHILDREN. Hardly relevant to this discussion.

@Draug

I see what you're saying and please correct me if I'm wrong, but although you have faith in a God, it seems (from my discussions with you) that you don't subscribe directly to everything a particular religion says.

@ Crazy Anglican: "Your final question to me appears to be an attempt to change the subject. Why attempt to solicit a claim from me that would enable you to needlessly muddy the water? I never claimed that God created this universe. It’s my belief that he did, but I have no interest in proving it. What I claimed was that science can be used to show that your refutation of the first cause argument is lacking. Aquinas spoke only of this universe and the causes and effects within it as far as I know."

I do not accept that you have demonstrated that my refutation of the argument from first cause is lacking.

@Jamiet99uk

Likwise the article that you referred to is in response to the question "Can there be other universes". Notice he doesn't say no. What he says is:

"... there is no way to observe any universe other than our own. This is not a practical issue (like there not being good enough telescopes), but rather a fundamental theoretical issue. By definition, our universe is self-contained. No other universe can affect anything in our universe, so we cannot gather evidence about its existence."

Here is a poll by David Raub of 72 top physicists that dates back to 1998 (the same year as your Keohane quote):

"Political scientist" L David Raub reports a poll of 72 of the "leading
cosmologists and other quantum field theorists" about the "Many-Worlds
Interpretation" and gives the following response breakdown [T].

1) "Yes, I think MWI is true" 58%
2) "No, I don't accept MWI" 18%
3) "Maybe it's true but I'm not yet convinced" 13%
4) "I have no opinion one way or the other" 11%

Amongst the "Yes, I think MWI is true" crowd listed are Stephen Hawking
and Nobel Laureates Murray Gell-Mann and Richard Feynman. Gell-Mann and
Hawking recorded reservations with the name "many-worlds", but not with
the theory's content. Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg is also mentioned
as a many-worlder, although the suggestion is not when the poll was
conducted, presumably before 1988 (when Feynman died). The only "No,
I don't accept MWI" named is Penrose.

astronomers ARE trained in physics.

Chemists are NOT trained in the nuclear physics required to run a reactor.

The difference is between two groups of physcists, and NASA people (astronomers) may not expect to actually to find multiple Universes (suggested by theoretical physicists) in this Universe however that doesn't say anything about the probability that the multiple worlds theory is correct.

If it is correct it is not currently testable, hence it is not currently important to our worldview.

As for first cause, I think you can either accept that some thigs cause themselves or not. However cause and effect can only be seen if you distinguish between parts; that is you identify me, you weather, God and tomatoes.. and the weather causes me to be cold, and me being cold cause me to eat tomatoes...

But if you consider a system it is all just some interaction of molecules and the specific causes and efects become fuzzy (poorly defined, or hard to find the language for) We have evolved to see thigns in terms of identifiable parts, it is useful, but it does not neccesitate some fndamental part of the philosophy of the Universe/God.

There is no reason to believe that the problem/paradox first cause is neccesarily anything more than the product of our warped imaginations.

@jamiet99uk

"I do not accept that you have demonstrated that my refutation of the argument from first cause is lacking."

I doubt that you personally ever will; but if consider your worldview to be based upon science, I'd take a closer look at the science you're basing it upon. I have shown you a theoretical model of physics in which your refutation may be meaningless (therefore it's lacking) because cause and effect in one "universe" need not be followed in another.

however strong the theoretical case for the MW interpretation, oczam's razor would fall down on excluding it as an unnecesary comlication - unless you understand quantum theory...

and within quantum thoery you also get self-creating 'virtual' particles, which exist everywhere, and apparently are NOT caused by anythign other than themselves. (a particle-antiparticle pair producing themselves and then annihilating - note no cause - note also they can be seen as one particle stuck in a time loop... what does time look like from the prespective of that particle?)

@orathaic

Once again the point isn't "God exists, or that he created anything" but Jamiet's refutation of first cause is lacking. The belief that God created the Universe or that he exists at all is based upon faith. I believe those things and realize that they are faith based. I'm not making a statement at all about science supporting or denying the existence of God or that he created of the Universe. I merely pointed out the flaws in that particular rebuttal.

The point where we divide is that you make the statement "it cannot be meased therefore it's not currently important to our worldview". Which worldview would that be? Not everything that's important to my worldview needs to be measureable.

@ Crazy Anglican: "I have shown you a theoretical model of physics in which your refutation may be meaningless (therefore it's lacking) because cause and effect in one "universe" need not be followed in another."

I don't think you have, but this is becoming a totally circular discussion. I'm out.

I always find it interesting when "atheists" decide that need to be vocal about their beliefs. their claim is that they have no belief, that we are all just accidents of the universe, that in fact if a person believes in God it is simply something that is an evolutionary response to the socialization of homo sapiens...In other words, religion is natural to humanity (just look at the number of religious people versus the number of *true* athiests). In other words, if you rail against religion, you are railing against a natural outcome of evolution, which you believe we are all derived from. If God did not make religion, than it is man's evolved brain that did so....and quite spectacularly, I might ad, given it's prevalence. People can't stop being religious any more than a homosexual can stop being homosexual....yet I'll bet you will defend to your dying breath a homosexuals right to live their life in that way.

If it is the speaking out about religion, you don't have to listen, any more than religious people don't have to listen to you atheism. But the idea that you want to speak out - in fact try to repress - religion is to speak out and try to repress your very beliefs -- i.e. evolution of the brain, from which religion had to come in the absence of a God.

Instead of deciding that you need to speak out more openly about your atheistic beliefs, why don't you just lead by example and be quiet about your beliefs, which is what you think people ought to to do, I believe. You will *never* conquer religion and abolish it. It is simply impossible. If you take a bunch of babies and let them be raised by monkeys in the woods apart from any civilization, they will come to worship the moon and the sun and the stars, nature itself, all on their own. it is simply the way things work...so give it a rest.

Have you ever had somebody try to convert you to the love of Jesus? They'll come to your goddamn house at 8 am on a Saturday.

I've never even heard of an atheist doing the same to talk about atheism. Doesn't happen.

But we speak out because we understand how difficult it is for people who have realized that religion is static to live openly. I have family members who refuse to talk to me because I'm atheist and unashamed of it. They figure it automatically makes me a terrible human being because I don't have a God to fear.

I'm sorry if you don't understand, but I've never thought of you as somebody who is capable of understanding other people's perspectives.... its not a huge shock.

maybe atheists have more important things to do at 8 am on a saturday (sleep, for instance)

@Jack - but what our original poster is suggesting (right in his first posts) is that he feels the need to BE more vocal and outspoken.

I've had plenty of people at my front door - brats selling magazines, people trying to sell me windows and siding, people wanting my returnable cans. Rarely do I get a religious person, and usually they are incredibly polite and come in the evenings when they know people are home.

As far as me not understanding other people's perspectives - what the hell crawled up your butt?? I haven't posted much of anything in months. Thank you for demonstrating how out of touch you are, and judgmental. In fact, you **completely** missed my point (on purpose, no doubt), and have just decided to rant hatred against me. How sad. How pathetic of you.

In fact I did not endorse religion other than to suggest it is an outcome of the very human evolution that every atheist believes in, and to fight against such a *very* natural human thing is to be rather extremely hypocritical, given that other beliefs and behaviors your will defend to the end.

Sad to see that you can not recognize this argument and even try to address it, instead of just slinging insults like an angry child. Maybe you have no valid counter-argument, which is why you simply reverted to your emotional ploy. Again..sad, and disappointing. I thought this perhaps might bring a new argument that frankly I have never seen addressed in these forums, yet which has *extremely* valid points to argue. If there is no God, yet religion is so prevalent, then religion MUST be a result of evolution, and is therefore natural and normal. Deal with it, my angry little fellow.

@krellin, I have to recognize that you made an interesting point. Here's what I can conclude:
if homosexuals feel the need for living like they live, that's up to them.
If some religious people, like my grandma, feel the need of trying to convince other people there's a God, I can respect them (I do in my grand ma case, and if I don't respect so much certain obssesive saturnday early riser Jehova Witness, it's not just because of that need)

Then,
If some atheist feel the need to try to convince other people there's no such God (WHICH DOESNT MEAN REPRESS), would you explain me again what's exactly the contradiction?

(and this was for your previous message, sorry)

@principians : The difference is religious people have an "active" belief, if you will grant me the terminology. they actively believe that they have a certain knowledge which has prevented them from some future doom, and if they keep the knowledge to themselves they will thus cause other people to suffer some eternal doom. To *not* spread their knowledge is, in fact, the most hateful thing they can do towards another human being: doom them to eternal hell. Their belief requires action.

The athiest, on the other hand, has an "inactive" belief. He claims to believe in nothing (in the realm of spiritual matters) and as such they believe that whether you believe or do not believe in God, there will be no consequneces to your life either in the now or the eternity that religious people believe in. If an athiest "converts" a religious person to athiesm, he has accomplished exactly nothing - as he believed that the person previously believed in fiction and now believes in nothing: the outcome is equal to an athiest.

What is the purpose of an atheist wanting to cause a person to believe in a "negative".

If the athiest's concern is proselytizing, then he had better wake up an smell the coffee. As we all know, religion is excessive throughout humanity, throughout all cultures, throughout all of human history. It is not likely to go away because a bunch of Dawkinites decided to get vocal. In fact, it will most likely have the reverse effect - they will here more religious people rising up in defense of their evolutionary belief of religion.

So, since by any reasonable analysis of the outcome of athiests being more vocal will actually be MORE vocal expression of religion, you have to conclude that the real goal of athiests is to abolish religion from humanity...which is either an evolutionary impossibility (if you are an athiest and have the balls to admit that religion is an evolutionary outcome of brain development) or an impossibility because God will not allow it, if there is a God. Either way, it is pointless and self-destructive if your goal is to hear about religion less often.

(Thanks for the intelligent reply, by the way.)

just want to remind you that there are different kinds of atheists Krellin