Do You Believe in God?

[rdl]

One could make that claim about the liberal tradition of any religion.

The world makes perfect sense without your impulse to insert Allah into it, which was the point I was getting at.

I'm pretty conservative when it comes to religion, but i do get your point.

[Slim]

Slim how do you think the universe came into being?

I think it spontaneously came into being from the big bang without the aid of a supreme being, of course.

That being said, it's not something I dwell upon too much. I don't see how the exact process through which the universe began is relevant to mankind. Even if we were to assume that there were some sort of creator, I believe it's apparent that he does not intervene in human affairs, thus making his existence ultimately insignificant. The universe functions exactly as it would if there were no god. Even in the remote possibility that there were some sort of abstract figure who created the universe, it would not make any religious doctrine any more credible--all of which I find absurd and obviously man-made. What I can say with confidence is that the scientific explanations that we have now for the origins of the universe are a hell of lot more accurate than anything any creation myth has to offer us.

[Veal]

I think it spontaneously came into being from the big bang without the aid of a supreme being, of course.

That being said, it's not something I dwell upon too much. I don't see how the exact process through which the universe began is relevant to mankind. Even if we were to assume that there were some sort of creator, I believe it's apparent that he does not intervene in human affairs, thus making his existence ultimately insignificant. The universe functions exactly as it would if there were no god. Even in the remote possibility that there were some sort of abstract figure who created the universe, it would not make any religious doctrine any more credible--all of which I find absurd and obviously man-made. What I can say with confidence is that the scientific explanations that we have now for the origins of the universe are a hell of lot more accurate than anything any creation myth has to offer us.

Okay.

uh yeah I don't have anything to add to this, I was just wondering.

[Lance Corporal Atlas]

Religion exists and/or is practiced to either explain the unexplainable(this applies mostly to early civilizations), maintaining control(Best seen in Rome and some periods of Europe), as a custom(tribal people, druids, all those creeps, and modern day people with no actual belief in their religion), and to philosophize on how one should live(Confucius, Buddhism).

There is also the chance that the person actually believed that the event transpired and that the event did in fact occur, but that's unprovable.

[Travis]

I'd say I'm pretty agnostic.

[Hippopo]

I think it spontaneously came into being from the big bang without the aid of a supreme being, of course.

Spontaneous creation?  Can you rationalize for me where the material for the big bang came from?

I don't see how the exact process through which the universe began is relevant to mankind.

Oh boy...  Think about what you said. By insinuating this is a pointless discussion, you're bashing the very heart of human curiosity and creativity.  If the human race followed your line of thought, our culture wouldn't have progressed passed 700 BCE in technology or science.  Remember, the applied sciences stem from philosophy which is interested in pondering about the universe....  So this type of pondering can lead to advances for mankind.

What I can say with confidence is that the scientific explanations that we have now for the origins of the universe are a hell of lot more accurate than anything any creation myth has to offer us.

Really?  ...  REALLY?!  HAHA!

You, my friend, are trusting blindly in the sciences just as the religious are trusting blindly in their faith.  If you think science is truth, you are not using your reason.  Even scientists are suppose to question the theories that arise in their field.  There are constant contradictions floating around the scientific community, just like there are contradictions in faith.

Don't believe me?  The world was once believed to be flat because people trusted what they observed.  You couldn't see past a certain point in the horizon, so it must be the end of the world!

Hmm...

But wait..  In around 300 BCE, Aristotle wrote down the world was round!  ROUND!  This was years before it was "scientifically proven."  How did he make this conclusion?  He trusted his reason more than his observations.  It turned out to be more accurate than what science was saying.

So don't discredit human rationality so quickly.  The scientific explanations of the universe right now can be (and probably are) just as wrong as "myth."  Don't say "with certainty" that they are more accurate.

[guff]

But wait..  In around 300 BCE, Aristotle wrote down the world was round!  ROUND!  This was years before it was "scientifically proven."  How did he make this conclusion?  He trusted his reason more than his observations.  It turned out to be more accurate than what science was saying.

uh doesn't the story go that he noticed that the sails and whatnot of large ships appeared to be lower as they sailed further off into the horizon which implied the said curvature sounds kind of like observation to me

Spontaneous creation?  Can you rationalize for me where the material for the big bang came from?

the thing about science is that it's okay with not having an answer for everything at the moment 

Even scientists are suppose to question the theories that arise in their field.

and historically they have, and still do (see: string theory vs. other models of the now, static universe vs. big bang of the 60s or so, frazier vs. muhammad ali of the 70s, quantum physics vs. classical/relativistic junk of the 20s and 30s etc. etc.)

in conclusion, say hi to mr. strawman oh what's that you two have already met 

[Socks]

uh doesn't the story go that he noticed that the sails and whatnot of large ships appeared to be lower as they sailed further off into the horizon which implied the said curvature sounds kind of like observation to me

Gotta love observation, Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the earth simply with the sheer power of intellect.

[Daddy]

Spontaneous creation?  Can you rationalize for me where the material for the big bang came from?

Where did God come from?
And as for the "material": there was none. The big bang was pure energy and as dictated by the theory* of relativity(E=MC²) energy and mass are the same and they are transmutable: energy can become mass. Mass can become energy(observed with anti-matter/matter collisions)
Mass is what makes matter. The massive amount of energy alone is what provided the material.

*Before someone goes ROFL THEORY MEANS NOT TRUE NO FACTS. Theory in a scientific context != theory in the context of "conspiracy theory".

Oh boy...  Think about what you said. By insinuating this is a pointless discussion, you're bashing the very heart of human curiosity and creativity. 

He said it wasn't relevant, not something we shouldn't research.

If the human race followed your line of thought

We'd have more religion. "Where do people come from?"
"God made us"
"I don't think that is a good idea"
"Blasphemer! Die"

our culture wouldn't have progressed passed 700 BCE in technology or science.  Remember, the applied sciences stem from philosophy which is interested in pondering about the universe....  So this type of pondering can lead to advances for mankind.

That type of pondering is a sin.

You, my friend, are trusting blindly in the sciences just as the religious are trusting blindly in their faith.

It's not blindly trusting if there is evidence to back it up. The Bible's only "proof" is itself saying it's true. You can't write a scientific paper and only cite the paper itself. Why should the Bible or any other religious text be any different?

If you think science is truth, you are not using your reason.

As opposed to believing fairy tales are true?

Even scientists are suppose to question the theories that arise in their field.  There are constant contradictions floating around the scientific community, just like there are contradictions in faith.

Scientific theories can easily be adapted to support new evidence. You can't suddenly "adapt" the Bible to support new facts otherwise you're defeating the point of it being the word of a perfect God.
Either the Bible is infallible and has to be taken as fact. Or it's just a book of silly stories(even if you believe in a God) and should not be taken as fact.

Don't believe me?  The world was once believed to be flat...

okay guff already covered this.

So don't discredit human rationality so quickly.  The scientific explanations of the universe right now can be (and probably are) just as wrong as "myth."  Don't say "with certainty" that they are more accurate.

I am certain that the Big Bang theory is much more accurate than any creation myth. Why?
Abrahamic Myth: People have been around for less than 10,000 years.
Scientific fact: people have been around significantly longer than that. The last ice age ended before that.  The Americas were populated during the last ice age.

Greco-Roman myth: do I even have to explain this? We already know their silly gods aren't real.
Scientific fact: We know why there are seasons now and it's not related to a pomegranate. There are no Gods on Olympus.

Hindu Myth: There was nothing but at the same time there was an ocean. wut
Scientific Fact: oh you're right we can't prove that everything didn't come out of a lotus exept for that plants and animals existed before the lotus evolved.

[ncba93ivyase]

Greco-Roman myth: do I even have to explain this? We already know their silly gods aren't real.
Scientific fact: We know why there are seasons now and it's not related to a pomegranate. There are no Gods on Olympus.

or maybe the gods got tired of people exploring mount olympus and moved their secret lair to deep underneath it

or maybe the greeks meant the gods live somewhere in or around or on olympus mons, which is the highest known mountain in the solar system and is on mars

WHICH WOULD THUS SUPPORT THE THEORY THAT WE WERE PUT HERE BY MARTIANS

[Daddy]

or maybe the gods got tired of people exploring mount olympus and moved their secret lair to deep underneath it

or maybe the greeks meant the gods live somewhere in or around or on olympus mons, which is the highest known mountain in the solar system and is on mars

WHICH WOULD THUS SUPPORT THE THEORY THAT WE WERE PUT HERE BY MARTIANS

where do martians come from

[ncba93ivyase]

where do martians come from

the gods on olympus

[Lance Corporal Atlas]

Really?  ...  REALLY?!  HAHA!

You, my friend, are trusting blindly in the sciences just as the religious are trusting blindly in their faith.  If you think science is truth, you are not using your reason.  Even scientists are suppose to question the theories that arise in their field.  There are constant contradictions floating around the scientific community, just like there are contradictions in faith.

Don't believe me?  The world was once believed to be flat because people trusted what they observed.  You couldn't see past a certain point in the horizon, so it must be the end of the world!

Hmm...

But wait..  In around 300 BCE, Aristotle wrote down the world was round!  ROUND!  This was years before it was "scientifically proven."  How did he make this conclusion?  He trusted his reason more than his observations.  It turned out to be more accurate than what science was saying.

So don't discredit human rationality so quickly.  The scientific explanations of the universe right now can be (and probably are) just as wrong as "myth."  Don't say "with certainty" that they are more accurate.

What you fail to realize is that supposed science in early years of civilization was largely based on religion and random guessing. Slim said modern day science, not science in general. Also, he isn't trusting blindly in it when they have given evidence to back up their claims. When "god did is" is used to explain a lot of things as opposed to "well this works because it follows the law of blah blah blah", I'd say that the rational that uses other things to back itself up would in fact be more accurate.

Also, you seem to want science to prove how it's proving that it's proving that it's proving how it is in fact correct. By that logic, nothing is certain. Which is dumb, by the way.

[Socks]

God is my favorite fictional character. 

[Nyerp]

God is my favorite fictional character. 

you're so edgy and original