What are your beliefs on religion, god?

[crowTrobot]

Who knows what happens though? What if you die and the Jehovah's witnesses were right? They could be, you don't know. Hindu's? Maybe they are right. Won't know until you die.

if you can know anything at all you can know jehovah's witnesses/hindus (etc) are not right. there is as much evidence that traditional human religious beliefs are false as there is that the earth revolves around the sun.

 

[magnifier661]

By the way mags,I just repped you for being the one to bring acid trips into the discussion. A lot can be learned through the introspection inspired by tripping.

I know there are many straight edge people here regarding drugs. But I see psychedelics much differently than the common drug to get you high. Until people experience them; they won't be able to see its true power. You can dive into the deepest parts of your own mind and see wonderous or terrifying things. The best part is the brutal honesty it puts before you. There is no hiding yourself when taking them.

 

[magnifier661]

God is something that can't really be proved or disproved. I hate it when people who believe in a religion think that people who don't believe in their religion are morons and vice versa. Just because someone believes something differently than you (whether that be christianity, judism, islam, hindu, or just plain not believing) doesn't make them dumb or mean they are going to hell because they don't believe what you do.

So to those who believe, keep on believing. But if I choose to not believe in some of your teachings, don't judge me or look down upon me as I've experienced MANY churches and church-goers do. It's like ok...I drink alcohol. Don't act like I'm a hoodlum because I drink. In a lot of cases the person judging me for drinking alcohol was an alcoholic before they became "saved."

True story. One of my best friends growing up was the son of a pastor. I went to a church camp with him when we were 15. We got to the camp before any other kids, so we found a cabin, put our stuff in it, changed into shorts and went to the gym to play basketball. 30 minutes later, people chase us down and say we need to move to another cabin since we put our stuff in a girls cabin (cabins were not identified or anything, so we just picked the cabin we wanted since we had never been to that camp before). So we go back, get our stuff and move to another cabin. Later that night, I notice I'm missing my jacket and we realize I must have left it in the previous cabin. So we go to the girls cabin and I see my jacket inside, I ask for it without stepping inside of the cabin, and receive the jacket. the next morning my buddy and I get pulled aside and get in trouble for going to the girls cabin. A "leader" of the camp tells us we have bad attitudes and are going down the wrong path. If we aren't careful we will be whipped by chains and hit with baseball bats in a dark alley and the only thing that can save us is Jesus.

Funny thing is I've never done anything "bad" and I pretty much was a great kid growing up.

The truth is, no one will know if there is a God or not until you die. And if there is a God, he is going to judge people for what they have done, we shouldn't be the ones to judge people for what they believe in, His judgement would be the only one that mattered anyways.

/rant

Well in the Christian faith Jesus said "the man without sin cast the first stone". There isn't a man on this planet that can cast judgement on anyone. Also; true Christianity believes that even the most wretched can come into the kingdom of heaven.

So as a Christian; I respect that you don't see faith like I do. What's right is what's right for you. I would only ask the same in return. I think it's responsible for everyone in any belief study as much as they can and truly seek truth.

Maybe the scientists got it all right or maybe the Christians. Who knows maybe the Buddhists are right. Whatever the case; I think it's amazing that so many people have so many different ideas. That's what makes us so special!

 

[oldguy]

Man you are way too obsessed with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Yeah, nobody should worry about people in power that have clearly stated that we need to die. That they need to insure that the following generations need to be trained to maintain that hated toward us. Instead, we should just ignore that shit, and send them gifts of jets and tanks. That will surely make things better between us.

I'm happy for you if that works for you. It doesn't work for me.

Go Blazers

 

[JfizzleBlazer]

if you can know anything at all you can know jehovah's witnesses/hindus (etc) are not right. there is as much evidence that traditional human religious beliefs are false as there is that the earth revolves around the sun.

Proof?

 

[Eastoff]

You mean smelling colors and tasting sounds? You are aware that it actually did happen right? Smell, taste and vision are all forms of perceptions. And you can scientifically see that a snake can see heat through it's receptors in it's tongue. Doing Acid will open parts of your physical self to observe things in a different perspective.

nope, I'm not talking about synsethesia. I was talking about your "if the rules were broken, the universe would break."

 

[tlongII]

Not really since in science to call something false you need to be able to disprove it. There are no experiments that can be set up to test the hypothesis that god (or Christ, or Holy Ghost) does not exist. Since we can not prove it, it is not as seen through the lens of science objectively false.

Scientific experiments are set up to prove hypotheses, not disprove them. It is on the religious sector to prove God exists.

 

[Eastoff]

Scientific experiments are set up to prove hypotheses, not disprove them. It is on the religious sector to prove God exists.

Not exactly true, but pretty close. Sometimes they disprove their hypothesis and publish that.

 

[Further]

There are two possible hypotheses regarding the existence of God that someone may wish to test (although there are no tests for proving either)
1) God exists
2) God does not exist

I understand that you may consider that #2 is actually the null hypothesis, and technically you are correct, but in common thinking on the subject most people would consider either a valid hypothesis.

 

[magnifier661]

Scientific experiments are set up to prove hypotheses, not disprove them. It is on the religious sector to prove God exists.

Actually you are mistaken. In the general testing protocol; scientific theory is to try and disprove. If there is something that can be 100% proven without change; then it becomes a scientific fact "Usually associated with a mathematical equation that could endlessly repeat without change or error"

 

[crowTrobot]

Scientific experiments are set up to prove hypotheses, not disprove them.

false. the intent of experiments can be either. frequently it is both - set up to provide evidence for one hypothesis and against another competing one.

It is on the religious sector to prove God exists.

how without using science? philosophy alone won't do it. personal revelation is demonstratably unreliable. what other tool do they have?

 

[magnifier661]

nope, I'm not talking about synsethesia. I was talking about your "if the rules were broken, the universe would break."

Yeah that thinking is out there; but if you really think about it; it makes a lot of sense. Everything in this Universe is pretty "A Matter of Fact". There really isn't "gray area" in reality. It could be things we haven't discovered that makes a gray area; but the existence of the Universe, time and space are all part of the program.

Let's say a man was able to travel back in time. Let's assume that that same person comes in contact with his previous self. They are both part of the same "energy". What if the same energy and mass from past and future come in contact? How would that even work?

 

[Denny Crane]

There are two possible hypotheses regarding the existence of God that someone may wish to test (although there are no tests for proving either)
1) God exists
2) God does not exist

I understand that you may consider that #2 is actually the null hypothesis, and technically you are correct, but in common thinking on the subject most people would consider either a valid hypothesis.

Devil's advocate position.

I see a tree. God made the tree. Therefore there is a god.

Plus he sends me PMs.

 

[magnifier661]

how without using science? philosophy alone won't do it. personal revelation is demonstratably unreliable. what other tool do they have?

I agree. I think that (Proving or disproving) time may come sooner than later.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Devil's advocate position.

I see a tree. God made the tree. Therefore there is a god.

Plus he sends me PMs.

If god is giving you PMS you must of done something to piss him off.

 

[crowTrobot]

There are two possible hypotheses regarding the existence of God that someone may wish to test (although there are no tests for proving either)
1) God exists
2) God does not exist

there are no tests for proving anything at all in the sense you mean here. science deals in probabilities, not absolutes. to repeat last night's example, there are no tests to 'prove' god didn't create an old-looking but undetectably young earth. but there are plenty of tests that indicate that's improbable, just as there are plenty of tests that indicate the existence of Yahweh, Ra, Zeus, Thor (etc.) is improbable.

there are no tests for "god" only if you leave the definition of god so vague as there's nothing specific even available to test.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

"You know why the rain dance always worked? Because they danced until the rains came."

 

[MadeFromDust]

I think this is a solid video as an argument for the existence of God

[video=youtube;Sr5lY0TcdAw]

 

[crowTrobot]

I think this is a solid video as an argument for the existence of God

some world class KCA bullshit there. that guy must be a real WLC fanboy.

 

[magnifier661]

I wish you would post a separate link like this along with the embedded video

 

[magnifier661]

some world class KCA bullshit there. that guy must be a real WLC fanboy.

I thought it made a lot of sense. I mean do you think the universe always existed? If you answered yes; then it contradicts that a finite thing can be infinite. If you dont believe the universe always existed; then the concept that nothing cant create something finite. there is always the beginning and something had to be without the boundaries of matter space and time to create something with matter space and time. Sounds pretty simple.

 

[Eastoff]

I thought it made a lot of sense. I mean do you think the universe always existed? If you answered yes; then it contradicts that a finite thing can be infinite. If you dont believe the universe always existed; then the concept that nothing cant create something finite. there is always the beginning and something had to be without the boundaries of matter space and time to create something with matter space and time. Sounds pretty simple.

There's a big jump from "what pushed the big bang?" to "Christian god did it"

 

[magnifier661]

There's a big jump from "what pushed the big bang?" to "Christian god did it"

No the concept of the Big Bang still lacks the beginning brother. My question to you is "do you believe that something can be created from nothing?"

 

[Eastoff]

I think this is a solid video as an argument for the existence of God

[video=youtube;Sr5lY0TcdAw]

PS the answer is "nothing" created Everything. It's been repeatedly observed. ;]

at about 4:20 he starts describing things that are definitely against accepted scientific knowledge about the expansion of space being real.

at 5:27 he also claims you cannot be seen without matter, which is QUITE, QUITE WRONG. You cannot see anything without photons, Photons are not matter, they are electricity. So not only can you see things without matter, you could not see things without this non-matter.
He then goes on to say that something that is without space is omnipresent, which is clearly not true. If something was everywhere like omnipresent, it would require space. That's just a flat lie to fit into his mold of Yahweh

 

[MadeFromDust]

some world class KCA bullshit there. that guy must be a real WLC fanboy.

Can you show me where he was wrong?

 

[magnifier661]

PS the answer is "nothing" created Everything. It's been repeatedly observed. ;]

How so? What evidence supports nothing created everything?

 

[crowTrobot]

I mean do you think the universe always existed? If you answered yes; then it contradicts that a finite thing can be infinite.

the argument used is: an infinite sequence of events can't be created from a starting point by successive addition. but if the universe is an infinite sequence of events there IS NO starting point by definition, so the argument doesn't even apply.

straw man to put it kindly. to put it more accurately it's a bullshit argument used by con men who absolutely know better (like William Lane Craig) to appeal to people who aren't used to using objective analysis over intuition.

If you dont believe the universe always existed; then the concept that nothing cant create something finite. there is always the beginning and something had to be without the boundaries of matter space and time to create something with matter space and time. Sounds pretty simple.

even if the universe is finite (which there is no reason to think is true) at best that's an argument for deism.

 

[MadeFromDust]

PS the answer is "nothing" created Everything. It's been repeatedly observed. ;]

Repeatedly observed? You mean like protons and electrons popping in and out of existence? That has nothing to do with the finitude of matter/time/space. If you want to believe everything literally came from nothing (and I'd like to know what your definition of "nothing" is), then fine go ahead and believe that. But I don't know how you could call believers in God wrong. There is a plethora of air-tight arguments for a Creator, the beginning of the universe/space/time, and historical method that we can validate the Bible with. Not only does God exist, but that the biblical God is our Creator.

 

[magnifier661]

the argument used is: an infinite sequence of events can't be created from a starting point by successive addition. but if the universe is an infinite sequence of events there IS NO starting point by definition, so the argument doesn't even apply.

straw man to put it kindly. to put it more accurately it's a bullshit argument used by con men who absolutely know better (like William Lane Craig) to appeal to people who aren't used to using objective analysis over intuition.




even if the universe is finite (which there is no reason to think is true) at best that's an argument for deism.

It's funny that you portray Craig as a con men; yet some of the most brilliant minds can't beat him in a debate. Usually a con can be exposed. Guess his con is iron clad eh?

 

[MadeFromDust]

the argument used is: an infinite sequence of events can't be created from a starting point by successive addition. but if the universe is an infinite sequence of events there IS NO starting point by definition, so the argument doesn't even apply.

straw man to put it kindly. to put it more accurately it's a bullshit argument used by con men who absolutely know better (like William Lane Craig) to appeal to people who aren't used to using objective analysis over intuition.

If the universe is infinite then why is it operating on a finite timescale? Scientists know the universe had a beginning and know it will not always exist. There is a reason why when it was discovered that the universe had a finite beginning it was a huge thorn in the side for naturalists and materialists.