Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The Bible is still historical, and the more we learn, the more evidence we have to support it.
Hawkings also believes in God.
Their intellects would be as advanced in the year 3000 as they were when they were alive. Who knows where we'd be if Newton had access to a particle accelerator or Euler had a high speed computer. Keep in mind the potential scale of human understanding. In terms of where we will go, we probably know about 1 percent more now than we did in the 16th Century. Most of the individuals cited in a post above as atheists were in fact agnostics. As I read that material very few expressed an outright disbelief in God. And that is because it is as impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God as it was for Einstein to simultaneously know both the exact position and acceleration of a particle in the theory of Quantum Mechanics. Someone above disparaged an appeal to higher "authority." Yet when confronted with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle even as great an intellect as Einstein appealed to a higher authority. You appeal to the higher authority of science and yet there is zero empirical evidence regarding God or its non-existence one way or another. So what exactly is your belief based on? Faith? That is why you cannot be absolutely certain, even though you claim to be. In the end, one can only appeal to his own sense of the Universe and mine tells me that there is something before, after, and outside of this Universe and you may call it what you will. That's what those people that I referred to did. And they came to the conclusion that there is something more than this Universe and some call it God. Many scientists alive today refer to Isaac Newton as the most brilliant human to ever live. That he jumped further ahead than any person before or since. I think it quite reasonable to reflect on the fact that such a person believed in God.A lot of brilliant humans don't believe in a god. Quite a few of those mentioned by you were alive in times when science was not at the forefront as it is now. It would be interesting to get their POV if they were alive today. And Grump has no uncertainty about there being no god. I am absolutely positive there is no higher being (in the godly sense)..there might be some higher civilisations out there in space, but a god? No..and even if there was some celestial body, it does not necessary mean it would be a god as understood by Christians, Jews, Muslims etc
The Bible is still historical, and the more we learn, the more evidence we have to support it.
Hawkings also believes in God.
TFR: Did you derive your idea of an impersonal god from Buddhism, Vedanta, or some other tradition or have you developed your own religious ideas?
His attendant then told me that I had misunderstood what Dr. Hawking had said at his press conference, which was that he didn't believe in a personal god, not that he believed in an impersonal god.
HAWKING: It is better not to use the word "god" to describe what I believe because most people use the word to mean a being with whom one can have a personal relationship.
TFR: Do you sense a connection between how the universe operates and why it exists?
HAWKING: I don't. If I did, I would have solved the universe.
Their intellects would be as advanced in the year 3000 as they were when they were alive. Who knows where we'd be if Newton had access to a particle accelerator or Euler had a high speed computer. Keep in mind the potential scale of human understanding. In terms of where we will go, we probably know about 1 percent more now than we did in the 16th Century. Most of the individuals cited in a post above as atheists were in fact agnostics. As I read that material very few expressed an outright disbelief in God. And that is because it is as impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God as it was for Einstein to simultaneously know both the exact position and acceleration of a particle in the theory of Quantum Mechanics. Someone above disparaged an appeal to higher "authority." Yet when confronted with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle even as great an intellect as Einstein appealed to a higher authority. You appeal to the higher authority of science and yet there is zero empirical evidence regarding God or its non-existence one way or another. So what exactly is your belief based on? Faith? That is why you cannot be absolutely certain, even though you claim to be. In the end, one can only appeal to his own sense of the Universe and mine tells me that there is something before, after, and outside of this Universe and you may call it what you will. That's what those people that I referred to did. And they came to the conclusion that there is something more than this Universe and some call it God. Many scientists alive today refer to Isaac Newton as the most brilliant human to ever live. That he jumped further ahead than any person before or since. I think it quite reasonable to reflect on the fact that such a person believed in God.
I have no doubt that even the most brilliant of minds cannot explain the unexplainable and put it in the hands of a god. I understand that -seriously. Unfortunately some call us non believers arrogant, and it is not so much arrogance, but more a state of "well, if god does exist, then come forth and explain your position". I have no faith in those that say "god is god and why should he/she explain his/her position". To me, that is a cop out. Why not explain said position? Why make it a mystery? What is the point? Why demand others just "trust me". Again, what is the point? To me it is a cop out because in reality, even the most ardent believer cannot give a reasonable answer, and in lieu of such a reasonable request, and therefore answer, their basic premise is "just believe"...to which I say why? what is the point? the end game?
If God appears before one and all and shows he is and how powerful he is, where exactly does freewill go? Who would need faith?
What time and date did he appear? What did he say? Why did he or she not appear to every single human being at the same time, at the same place? Why dangle the carrot of faith? Why not just appear, do some real wicked shit, and say, "I am God?". Why does he or she need faith? What does it prove?
If God appears before one and all and shows he is and how powerful he is, where exactly does freewill go? Who would need faith?
We were given free will. There is no free will if there is no doubt that God exists. Thus the need for faith.
Contrary to what you may have learned in your government mandated evolution indoctrination classes, most creationists do not dispute the fact that plants and animals evolve. Humans have evolved countless breeds of dogs, cats, horses, cows, vegetables, fruits, etc. No one disputes evolution. What is disputed is the theory of evolution mainly because it includes the idea that life randomly spawned out of a pool of liquid. Today humans are creating simple life forms, proteins, in laboratories. We are creating and evolving life forms. This means it is indisputable that an intelligent creature could design another life form. Just as we breed dogs for different characteristics, an intelligent designer can do the same for the new life form.
Darwin had a good idea for the 19th and 20th centuries. That was when we thought a cell was blob of simple jelly so the idea single celled creatures came oozing out of some slime made a lot of sense. Everyday we find new things about how complex a single cell is, that the idea that it happened randomly becomes more far fetched every day. We are talking about lots of time here, but how often has a random rockslide ended up building a car? Thats the kind of unlikehoods we are looking at.
Where you stand on this issue determines if you believe we are here for a purpose or reason, or whether you think life is just a random thing, and there is no (big picture) purpose behind us being here other then 'survival of the fittest' so you can pass down your genes and continue the evolution of life. For many people, including me, the answer to this question determines our outlook and actions on a daily basis. That is why I think it is so detrimental that the state is forcing one viewpoint on our youth.
How does a proponent of creationism explain the racial diversity of human beings if we all came to being from a sudden creation of one couple (Adam, Eve)? Should we all not be pretty much the same race then? Or, would the creationists at least concede that in 4000 years' time there was some sort of evolution to explain adaptation to different climates (skin color etc..)?
Or how is this explained?
First point: You say that the universe is so big, that something so incredibly improbable that it could be called impossible could happen just by sheer dumb luck. Look under the hood of your car sometime. Explore the undercarriage. Dig around behind your dashboard. Then tell me you really believe something so complex as an automoble could happen from a series of rockslides or any other natural phenomenon. If you can then believe that something so insanely complex as a human being can come from the same processes. That takes more faith to believe than I think any theist has ever had.First point:
There may be 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 to the 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 power planets in the universe out there. We have not run into a celestial brick wall yet. Each of those planets might have experienced millions of rockslides in its history. One of those rockslides might have made a car.
Second point:
There are good atheists and bad atheists. There are good theists and bad theists.
First point: You say that the universe is so big, that something so incredibly improbable that it could be called impossible could happen just by sheer dumb luck. Look under the hood of your car sometime. Explore the undercarriage. Dig around behind your dashboard. Then tell me you really believe something so complex as an automoble could happen from a series of rockslides or any other natural phenomenon. If you can then believe that something so insanely complex as a human being can come from the same processes. That takes more faith to believe than I think any theist has ever had.
Designed things have a designer. Systems have those that set the rules. Programs have programmers. These are readily observable truths. No matter how large the universe is or how much stuff is going on, light still travels at the same rate throughout.
Second point: What do you mean by "good" or "bad"? If there is no God, who sets the rules? What difference does it make? Why even have such concepts?
Who says you need a god to create rules? Humans, generally, are rational and able to tell good from bad/evil. I do not believe in god. Do I have the ability to set rules that are good for society, or due to my lack of belief are you saying I do not?
If the human body is so great, why can't I breathe in space or underwater? How come women have such a hard time giving birth - why don't the little buggers just pop out nice and easy? Why do humans have an internal sewerage system? Why create waste? If the body was so perfect why doesn't it just absord everything it eats? Hell, why even do we need to eat if we are so perfect? Just because you see the human body as complex, it doesn't mean it is. If the Earth were a few thousand kilometres (not 10s of thousands or 100s of thousands but 1000s) closer to the sun, we'd be dead meat.
My favourite question is, if god created the universe, who created god...
I saw a Frontline episode on the Dover High School fight for intelligent design (creationism) vs. evolution and many questions came to me that I would like a creationist to answer ...
How does a proponent of creationism explain the racial diversity of human beings if we all came to being from a sudden creation of one couple (Adam, Eve)? Should we all not be pretty much the same race then? Or, would the creationists at least concede that in 4000 years' time there was some sort of evolution to explain adaptation to different climates (skin color etc..)?
Or how is this explained?
How is it biologically possible for all humans (unrelated to each other) to come about from one couple? Interbreeding between sisters and brothers and close relatives is very detrimental and mostly fatal as has been shown time and again in incest cases today.
and a silly question - Why did/do the artists even today paint Adam and Eve with belly buttons if they were not born the normal way? They should not have belly buttons, right?
These questions are not here to prove or disprove existence of God.
Just simply questions out of curiosity ... how do you consolidate faith and reason and science all at the same time and make sense out of it , too?
Thanks
