GOD: How much do you believe in him?

[piersa]

Wouldn't an educated person use capital letters?

only if it was an english exam or lesson. As it is, this thread is about generous people like me trying to educate idiots like you. Sadly you have demonstrated your insistance to remain a fool in you whispy cloud fairy, carrot brained existance.

 

[DTES]

OK hands up everyone who believes 'this' all began with a 'big bang'!! And if so what was it, that caused this supposed bang.?

The Ultimate Creator of Everything. The True Source.

Well that's your opinion - based on what (other than received opinion from others) I have no idea. But it is just your belief with no evidence to support it.

I do believe it all began with a 'big bang' - because that is what the observable evidence as we have it suggests.

There are many theories as to what "caused" the big bang - many scientific theories consistent with the evidence we can observe. I see no reason to ignore these and assume it "must" be a divine creator, but if you decide you want to choose to believe that, then even if I don't understand why, that is of course your choice.

Our brains are very limited and anyone trying to use one to understand that which is divine (ie God) has zero chance of success.

Our brains are very limited in comparison to the universe, but we've done a bloody good job of explaining what's out there when we actually get off our arses and use them. There are questions - massive questions - but they aren't going to get answered by sitting around saying "isn't life mysterious".

And your point is fundamentally flawed anyway - trying to understand a god is an odd point when we don't even know if one exists.

The trouble is Richard(as well all do) lives on a tiny speck of dust that exists within the enormity of what is the cosmos.

He can only speak for what exists on planet earth, not what exists outside of it.

Richard acknowledges quite happily that he lives on a tiny speck of dust. But you are wrong that he can only speak of what exists on planet Earth. We know so much about the Universe that you could learn too if you wanted to. We can look at stars millions of light years away and tell exactly what they are made of, and what planets orbit them. We can tell exactly what shape distant galaxies are. We can tell the laws of physics by which the universe works on both unimaginably large and unimaginably small scales - not just here but across the cosmos. We can know how the shape of the universe is dependent upon the bodies within it, according to relativity (a knowledge without which, by the way, your sat nav wouldn't work).

People who say we can't speak beyond the tiny boundaries of planet Earth are restrained only by their own refusal to open their eyes/ears and learn - instead choosing to believe only one book written long ago before we even started the last two thousand years of science.

 

[One Love]

What am I doing?

Back to football.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

Well that's your opinion - based on what (other than received opinion from others) I have no idea. But it is just your belief with no evidence to support it.

I do believe it all began with a 'big bang' - because that is what the observable evidence as we have it suggests.

There are many theories as to what "caused" the big bang - many scientific theories consistent with the evidence we can observe. I see no reason to ignore these and assume it "must" be a divine creator, but if you decide you want to choose to believe that, then even if I don't understand why, that is of course your choice.



Our brains are very limited in comparison to the universe, but we've done a bloody good job of explaining what's out there when we actually get off our arses and use them. There are questions - massive questions - but they aren't going to get answered by sitting around saying "isn't life mysterious".

And your point is fundamentally flawed anyway - trying to understand a god is an odd point when we don't even know if one exists.



Richard acknowledges quite happily that he lives on a tiny speck of dust. But you are wrong that he can only speak of what exists on planet Earth. We know so much about the Universe that you could learn too if you wanted to. We can look at stars millions of light years away and tell exactly what they are made of, and what planets orbit them. We can tell exactly what shape distant galaxies are. We can tell the laws of physics by which the universe works on both unimaginably large and unimaginably small scales - not just here but across the cosmos. We can know how the shape of the universe is dependent upon the bodies within it, according to relativity (a knowledge without which, by the way, your sat nav wouldn't work).

People who say we can't speak beyond the tiny boundaries of planet Earth are restrained only by their own refusal to open their eyes/ears and learn - instead choosing to believe only one book written long ago before we even started the last two thousand years of science.

I like what Dara O'Briain says, to paraphrase ....

"Science doesn't know everything .... science knows it doesn't know everything otherwise it would stop. Just because science doesn't know everything doesn't mean you can fill in the gaps with whatever rubbish you choose to."

 

[Bold Seagull]

That's a rather insular view that there are no revelations to be found within a faith is it not?

Many a non believer has had some kind of epiphony which has lead to an interest in spirituality and faith based religions. Just as the opposite has also occured for those who share the opposite view.

It was an intentionally loaded use of the word. I was referring to an empirical based revelation based on actual observation, experiment, data and conjecture. You don't need to have faith in that case.

By having faith in something that can never be observed or recorded, is by definition a constant revelation / epiphany. Whenever someone prays for example, the revelation is that they are talking to someone/thing that they can only have complete faith that they are being heard.

 

[NMH]

OK hands up everyone who believes 'this' all began with a 'big bang'!! And if so what was it, that caused this supposed bang.?

That's been a theory that man came up with. Man.
Man doesn't fuckin' know! He makes shit up!!

Oh yeah, Man might have a good old complex link of brain cells that structure these theories and say they are based on the expanding/receding universe of mobile matter and build atomic colliders to expound their latest realizations, and spend billions and amazing efforts on poking out into our immediate solar environment - but in 'the great scheme of things' Man knows shit about anything.

And considering the above, it's obviously not above Man to make up religions..... or go off on tangents based on a supposed 'spirituality' which Man claims exclusively is ours and not any other creature's.

Whether you believe in a religion or not, you have to realize your conjectures aren't worth a hill of beans.
You might do well not to take them with you into your death and insist that they are the correct facts.

Jesus said that you will not know, and that innocent children have a better claim to 'heaven' - or however you want to that blissful, ecstatic state we could all hope to be immersed in when we transcend the bounds of time. I suspect he has a point there.
His addressing on the human spirit in life or death are certainly worth reading in my opinion. As are other religions' doctrines.
Why not take what you feel is the best from a variety of religious beliefs? Very often they are saying the same thing, actually.
'Just that you remain open-minded enough to ignore when they say that their doctrine is the ONLY one that will get you into the better places in this life or the afterlife.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître does.

That's the easy part though. Produce a theory which doesn't explain what happens before the theory, and the 'unknown' is put down to some kind of deity. Lemaitre's theories were sound, even to Einstein, but to them square them with a creator was at odds with everything that led Lemaitre to get to his theory in the first place.

We should revel in what we don't know, it should be the goal of humanity to uncover these secrets, not simply bury our heads in the sand and suggest all we don't know is down to a divine creator.

 

[NMH]

...oh and don't listen to Glenn Hoddle when he says the disabled were bad people in a previous life.
He may have been a quality England manager, but actually doesn't know either

 

[Triggaaar]

Our brains are very limited and anyone trying to use one to understand that which is divine (ie God) has zero chance of success.

You're kidding right? You're saying that if we want to understand God, it's imperative that we don't use our brain (the only thing we have for thinking), so instead we just listen to what we're told. Next you'll be telling us that we'll have a group of virgins if we blow ourselves and a load of infidels up.

 

[Bold Seagull]

That's been a theory that man came up with. Man.

Has anyone ever claimed that a scientific theory is anything but a theory by man? That's why there are no factual claims in science, each theory is put out there ready to be challenged. Challenge a religious doctrine and you end up with a war.

 

[Triggaaar]

...oh and don't listen to Glenn Hoddle when he says the disabled were bad people in a previous life.
He may have been a quality England manager, but actually doesn't know either

Unfortunately he's not too bright.

 

[NMH]

That's the easy part though. Produce a theory which doesn't explain what happens before the theory, and the 'unknown' is put down to some kind of deity. Lemaitre's theories were sound, even to Einstein, but to them square them with a creator was at odds with everything that led Lemaitre to get to his theory in the first place.

We should revel in what we don't know, it should be the goal of humanity to uncover these secrets, not simply bury our heads in the sand and suggest all we don't know is down to a divine creator.

That last bit worries me.
We can revel in what we don't know alright, but as to whether it should be our goal to uncover secrets we cannot hope to fully realize - hmm, not really.
A sand-buried person who can shrug it all off as down to the divine creator will be infinitely better off having accepted that they can never know the 'secrets'.

I would suggest time spent learning wisdom of the ages, from learned scribes and teachers, is a worthy pursuit!
If trying to get atoms to reveal how time began, can uncover great technology that can make our lives better, then okay, great.

 

[NMH]

Has anyone ever claimed that a scientific theory is anything but a theory by man? That's why there are no factual claims in science, each theory is put out there ready to be challenged. Challenge a religious doctrine and you end up with a war.

No, not necessarily. Wars can be about one deciding theirs is more right and everyone else should follow their one.
Why worry so much about what the other guy wants to believe, unless he's forcing it on you?
No-one can be forced to believe in a religion anyway let's face that. No amount of cajoling or threatening is going to make anyone believe!

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

only if it was an english exam or lesson. As it is, this thread is about generous people like me trying to educate idiots like you. Sadly you have demonstrated your insistance to remain a fool in you whispy cloud fairy, carrot brained existance.

This thread is about people having a discusion about an interesting subject.

If you want to carry on like an arrogant childish prat go for it.

 

[Triggaaar]

Has anyone ever claimed that a scientific theory is anything but a theory by man? That's why there are no factual claims in science

Scientists come up with hypotheses and theories, and these are put to the test, and when proved can become theorems or laws, are these not claimed to be facts?

 

[Bold Seagull]

That last bit worries me.
We can revel in what we don't know alright, but as to whether it should be our goal to uncover secrets we cannot hope to fully realize - hmm, not really.
A sand-buried person who can shrug it all off as down to the divine creator will be infinitely better off having accepted that they can never know the 'secrets'

What you've described is ignorance? Many human beings strive to climb the highest mountains, dive the deepest oceans, look to the far reaches of the universe, because they are driven, curious and intelligent. Whether something can be known or achieved is irrelevant, the search for knowledge is what has defined humanity, and what religion in many ways has sought to hinder.

 

[Triggaaar]

We can revel in what we don't know alright, but as to whether it should be our goal to uncover secrets we cannot hope to fully realize - hmm, not really.
A sand-buried person who can shrug it all off as down to the divine creator will be infinitely better off having accepted that they can never know the 'secrets'

Says who? If everyone felt that way we'd still be in the dark ages. We don't know which secrets we'll be able to uncover and which we won't, and the human spirit is to keep searching and find out what we can.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Scientists come up with hypotheses and theories, and these are put to the test, and when proved can become theorems or laws, are these not claimed to be facts?

No. You may find the use of a term 'scientific fact' in that a law has been tested to the point it is generally accepted. However, it is never truly a fact. For 200 years Newton's Laws were held as scientific facts, until Einstein came along.

 

[NMH]

Unfortunately he's not too bright.

He was great at long diagonal passes with a football boot, and we never saw England play better football than under his management.
Surely then, he must know about our previous lives? I mean he knows a famous spoon bender, and Tony flippin' Robbins!

 

[piersa]

This thread is about people having a discusion about an interesting subject.

If you want to carry on like an arrogant childish prat go for it.

you are as hypocritical as your beliefs