Do you Believe In God

[GodCubed]

Now I used hinduism as an example because there is no founder unlike Christianity were the religion was started by Jesus

No it wasn't. Jesus was a Jew. Christianity merely followed Jesus, he didn't start any religion per se.

 

[donkarlito]

No it wasn't. Jesus was a Jew. Christianity merely followed Jesus, he didn't start any religion per se.

well he must of instigator it

 

[GodCubed]

well he must of instigator it

Didn't really instigate it. In theory, he was persuading people to be a Jew, and worship God. I may be wrong, but I don't think Jesus ever asked people to worship him.

 

[Chaz Sexington]

for brainwashing you need an agent or agencies (person or group of people) to compromised individual(s) actions thoughts whatever, if your saying religion is brainwashing how can people follow hinduism if there was no founder to start brainwashing them?
Now I used hinduism as an example because there is no founder unlike Christianity were the religion was started by Jesus

It still makes **** all sense. During the bronze and iron age (and I'm guessing from the dawn of mankind) humans venerated polytheistic pantheons to explain how the world worked, e.g. thunder and lightning was Thor riding across the heavens in his chariot drawn by two goats, swinging Mjoelner. These people then taught their children their view of the world. Same thing.

 

[donkarlito]

It still makes **** all sense. During the bronze and iron age (and I'm guessing from the dawn of mankind) humans venerated polytheistic pantheons to explain how the world worked, e.g. thunder and lightning was Thor riding across the heavens in his chariot drawn by two goats, swinging Mjoelner. These people then taught their children their view of the world. Same thing.

Its not brainwashing it how they saw the world those days. i think most if not all cultures had a god of thunder etc. I think Greeks may have started to look at science more to describe thing but they still worship gods of thunder sun etc, Romans possibly looked more at science. Can only think British empire after that, that didnt worship thunder gods etc.

You have to admit back in those days it was alot easier to explain things like you said "thunder and lightning was Thor riding across the heavens in his chariot"

 

[Chaz Sexington]

Its not brainwashing it how they saw the world those days. i think most if not all cultures had a god of thunder etc. I think Greeks may have started to look at science more to describe thing but they still worship gods of thunder sun etc, Romans possibly looked more at science. Can only think British empire after that, that didnt worship thunder gods etc.

You have to admit back in those days it was alot easier to explain things like you said "thunder and lightning was Thor riding across the heavens in his chariot"

It's how they viewed the world, and they passed on that knowledge, because they simply didn't know any better. Now that we do, there's no point in other than for studying culture. I don't think God magically starting the Big Bang is any less ludicrous than Thor creating lightning.

 

[Joel`]

Its not brainwashing it how they saw the world those days. i think most if not all cultures had a god of thunder etc. I think Greeks may have started to look at science more to describe thing but they still worship gods of thunder sun etc, Romans possibly looked more at science. Can only think British empire after that, that didnt worship thunder gods etc.

You have to admit back in those days it was alot easier to explain things like you said "thunder and lightning was Thor riding across the heavens in his chariot"

You contradict everything you've been saying on this thread with this sentence. Yes, back in those it was a lot easier to explain things with Gods. So why are we still doing it today, when we do have understanding? Makes zero sense, it's good to see you see that too.

 

[donkarlito]

You contradict everything you've been saying on this thread with this sentence. Yes, back in those it was a lot easier to explain things with Gods. So why are we still doing it today, when we do have understanding? Makes zero sense, it's good to see you see that too.

Is it now more about follows of a reilgion not whole cultures that believe e.g.all the greeks worship the Olympians. But today british culture doesnt worship a god, we all dont pray to a god of beer when we buy a pint. Because in the ancient times they didnt have the knowledge and understanding so they worship gods for everything, So its not contradicting because thats how people saw the world in the ancient times they didnt have knowledge to figure it out stuff or use a scientific method, If you think about mine and your great great ancestors at some point believed in god.
But today its more of choice whether we believe in god through a reilgion or personnel believe or you believe in science and there is no god, the problem is every theory that supports that gods exist has holes in it or can be explain scientifically on the other hand every theory that opposed to god existence also has holes in it or "missing links". So it is down to invididual belief system if they choose to beleive god or not.
I find it funny that people argue so much because someones invididual belief system is different form theirs

 

[Chaz Sexington]

Is it now more about follows of a reilgion not whole cultures that believe e.g.all the greeks worship the Olympians.

The sentence is FUBAR, but I'll try to explain. Cultures, on a whole, generally have the same religion, e.g. the West is predominantly Christian, much like the ancient Greeks worshipped Zeus, Apollo et al. If you look at a map of religious spread, you'll see they follow certain cultures, and when compared to science, where we debate certain theories such the extinction of the dinosaurs, we don't follow a specific culture.

But today british culture doesnt worship a god, we all dont pray to a god of beer when we buy a pint. Because in the ancient times they didnt have the knowledge and understanding so they worship gods for everything, So its not contradicting because thats how people saw the world in the ancient times they didnt have knowledge to figure it out stuff or use a scientific method, If you think about mine and your great great ancestors at some point believed in god.

The British countries is, as opposed to France, is officially Christian. And I doubt anyone prayed for beer, they would pray for good crops so they could make beer.

But today its more of choice whether we believe in god through a reilgion or personnel believe or you believe in science and there is no god, the problem is every theory that supports that gods exist has holes in it or can be explain scientifically on the other hand every theory that opposed to god existence also has holes in it or "missing links". So it is down to invididual belief system if they choose to beleive god or not.
I find it funny that people argue so much because someones invididual belief system is different form theirs

Seriously, spell and grammar check, I'm really struggling to understand you. It's not called believing in science, science simply explains and can be proven. And often people are so indoctrinated in a belief or are so possessive of their culture they can't accept they may be wrong, even when confronted with overwhelming evidence.

 

[donkarlito]

The sentence is FUBAR, but I'll try to explain. Cultures, on a whole, generally have the same religion, e.g. the West is predominantly Christian, much like the ancient Greeks worshipped Zeus, Apollo et al. If you look at a map of religious spread, you'll see they follow certain cultures, and when compared to science, where we debate certain theories such the extinction of the dinosaurs, we don't follow a specific culture.



The British countries is, as opposed to France, is officially Christian. And I doubt anyone prayed for beer, they would pray for good crops so they could make beer.



Seriously, spell and grammar check, I'm really struggling to understand you. It's not called believing in science, science simply explains and can be proven. And often people are so indoctrinated in a belief or are so possessive of their culture they can't accept they may be wrong, even when confronted with overwhelming evidence.

You cant accept that you may be wrong

 

[Joel`]

the problem is every theory that supports that gods exist has holes in it or can be explain scientifically on the other hand every theory that opposed to god existence also has holes in it or "missing links".

I didn't realise we called the complete absence of a theory to support God, just a "hole".

Science has discovered that the Earth wasn't flat (as the Bible claims), and that the Earth isn't built on pillars (as the Bible claims), and that the Earth isn't orbited by the sun (as the Bible claims). Need I go on? If Science had kept on being restricted by religion we would not know any of these things, and we would still be believing in the false claims of the Bible. That's a little bit more than a hole in the theory of the bible.

And as Chaz said, get some grammar, you're impossible to understand.

 

[donkarlito]

Let me use an example of what I'm trying to say.

Arguments for God:
The First Cause Argument
Also called “the cosmological argument”. The first cause argument seeks to prove the existence of God from the fact that the universe exists. The universe came into existence at a point in the distant past. Nothing can come into existence, though, unless there is something to bring it into existence; nothing comes from nothing. There must therefore be some being outside of the universe that caused the universe to exist. This argument, if it is successful, demonstrates the existence of a Creator that transcends time, that has neither beginning nor end.

Now you can say The Big Bang theory explains this. However Big Bang Theory has its problems as well i.e. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR).

Can you see there are problems with both arguments.

 

[Joel`]

Let me use an example of what I'm trying to say.

Arguments for God:
The First Cause Argument
Also called “the cosmological argument”. The first cause argument seeks to prove the existence of God from the fact that the universe exists. The universe came into existence at a point in the distant past. Nothing can come into existence, though, unless there is something to bring it into existence; nothing comes from nothing. There must therefore be some being outside of the universe that caused the universe to exist. This argument, if it is successful, demonstrates the existence of a Creator that transcends time, that has neither beginning nor end.

Now you can say The Big Bang theory explains this. However Big Bang Theory has its problems as well i.e. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR).

Can you see there are problems with both arguments.

Can you stop stating The Big Bang theory is the explanation of everything, no one with a decent understanding of Science believes this. Multiverse theories, string theory are all attempts to explain this, but we've yet to gain real world evidence as proof. However, experiments are being set up to begin to test these theories. Hopefully we find something to disprove religion once and for all (Even though they'll still refuse to accept they're wrong and cry out "LOLOL BIBLE A METAPHOR") because I struggle to see its benefits on society.

Can you see that if we just had religion we would never find the answer, as it's perfectly happy with not knowing.

 

[J4ck22]

If there was a God then Ipswich would have board members that actually could negotiate, so no there is no God...

In all seriousness, I'll believe it when I see it

 

[donkarlito]

Can you stop stating The Big Bang theory is the explanation of everything, no one with a decent understanding of Science believes this. Multiverse theories, string theory are all attempts to explain this, but we've yet to gain real world evidence as proof. However, experiments are being set up to begin to test these theories. Hopefully we find something to disprove religion once and for all (Even though they'll still refuse to accept they're wrong and cry out "LOLOL BIBLE A METAPHOR") because I struggle to see its benefits on society.

Can you see that if we just had religion we would never find the answer, as it's perfectly happy with not knowing.

Big Bang theory is the most common and the basics can be understood better then sting theory and Multiverse. also In 1927, Roman Catholic priest and physicist Georges Lemaitre independently calculated the Friedman solution and again suggested that the universe must be expanding. This theory was supported by Hubble when, in 1929, he found that there was a correlation between the distance of the galaxies and the amount of redshift in that galaxy's light.

Again playing devil's advocate I go back to Aristotle and the Greeks. Aristotle remains one of the most influential people who ever lived, however he worshipped Gods like the rest of the Greeks, Aristotle has a different view he represents God as self-conscious spirit. A rather mysterious spirit; for Aristotle God's never does anything; he has no desires, no will, no purpose; he is activity so pure that he never acts. He is absolutely perfect; therefore cannot desire anything; therefore He does nothing.
Which I believe if god is real that sums he up created the universe and then sat back does nothing.

Its people like Aristotle that taught us physics, metaphysics, poetry, theater, music, logic, rhetoric, linguistics, politics, government, ethics, biology, and zoology that gave us knowlege to move on and understanding things better.

 

[Joel`]

Big Bang theory is the most common and the basics can be understood better then sting theory and Multiverse. also In 1927, Roman Catholic priest and physicist Georges Lemaitre independently calculated the Friedman solution and again suggested that the universe must be expanding. This theory was supported by Hubble when, in 1929, he found that there was a correlation between the distance of the galaxies and the amount of redshift in that galaxy's light.

Again playing devil's advocate I go back to Aristotle and the Greeks. Aristotle remains one of the most influential people who ever lived, however he worshipped Gods like the rest of the Greeks, Aristotle has a different view he represents God as self-conscious spirit. A rather mysterious spirit; for Aristotle God's never does anything; he has no desires, no will, no purpose; he is activity so pure that he never acts. He is absolutely perfect; therefore cannot desire anything; therefore He does nothing.
Which I believe if god is real that sums he up created the universe and then sat back does nothing.

Its people like Aristotle that taught us physics, metaphysics, poetry, theater, music, logic, rhetoric, linguistics, politics, government, ethics, biology, and zoology that gave us knowlege to move on and understanding things better.

So what? You're still referring to The Big Bang as the beginning, which is incorrect. Don't see what you're getting at, the actual equations were derived by Friedman from Einstein. Why are you so obsessed with Artistotle? He created Physics, he had nowhere near the profound understanding that we have now, so why should he not believe in a God? It still offered explanation to what he could not himself explain.

P.S. Did you copy those arguments, since you go from near perfect grammar and spelling in the first two paragraph's, and then in your conclusions you fail to capitalise God (Which you did every other time in your arguments) and write phrases such as "if God is real that sums up" or "and then sat back does nothing". And numerous more errors in your conclusions when there were none in your arguments (a far larger sample text). Sorry if you didn't, but sure looks like it.

 

[Nixon]

So what? You're still referring to The Big Bang as the beginning, which is incorrect. Don't see what you're getting at, the actual equations were derived by Friedman from Einstein. Why are you so obsessed with Artistotle? He created Physics, he had nowhere near the profound understanding that we have now, so why should he not believe in a God? It still offered explanation to what he could not himself explain.

P.S. Did you copy those arguments, since you go from near perfect grammar and spelling in the first two paragraph's, and then in your conclusions you fail to capitalise God (Which you did every other time in your arguments) and write phrases such as "if God is real that sums up" or "and then sat back does nothing". And numerous more errors in your conclusions when there were none in your arguments (a far larger sample text). Sorry if you didn't, but sure looks like it.

Yes, he takes it from here.

 

[Joel`]

Yes, he takes it from here.

Ahh, knew it! Funny how he cherry picked out that it was a Catholic who solved the solutions, but Friedman solved them himself a fair few years earlier.

 

[donkarlito]

So what? You're still referring to The Big Bang as the beginning, which is incorrect. Don't see what you're getting at, the actual equations were derived by Friedman from Einstein. Why are you so obsessed with Artistotle? He created Physics, he had nowhere near the profound understanding that we have now, so why should he not believe in a God? It still offered explanation to what he could not himself explain.

If it wasnt for Artistotle you wouldnt have Physics.

 

[Joel`]

If it wasnt for Artistotle you wouldnt have Physics.

Yes we would. Aristotle thought about physical ideas. The actual application of Mathematics to Science was established in the 16th or 17th century, can't remember off the top of my head. But that was the foundation of Physics as we know it today. I don't believe that in over 2400 years we wouldn't have come across Physics by another man either, and unless you can show me where Aristotle applied Maths to his experiments and came up with Physical formulae (Go Google, seems you're good at that), then I believe we'd be where we are now anyway. Although I admit, Aristotle was a great thinker and inspired many, many scientists. And I still don't see why you're so hung up on Aristotle since it's not helping your (Googled) God argument in any way.

EDIT: Never mind, found a link: http://www.physlink.com/Education/A...cba56cfbf-5883B270-15C5-EE01-B95613888B82BF96

So there were glimmers of Science way before Aristotle's time any way, can we do away with you being hung up on him now?