Do You Believe In God, Why? Don't You Believe In God, Why?

[rational experiences]

My brother's human and scientists preached God the entity by science O was God. Stone. St one. One. O one body.

I was not born quoting God themes.

I was indoctrinated.

You are just human. So am I.

Today you want God. A meaning expressed in science to own relative purpose for machines.

Basic fact.

God O our planet is reactive.

Your machine. Your own idol sits designed idle. Not any God.

Another fact.

What is a human meant to believe when science origin. Purpose first is a human as their thoughts... idolizing.

You want the power God. Simple fact.

Stone is holding the power.

You then quote mother of God held form.

The form God which you abstract from as science. A choice.

Stone. Not space.

Today possessed by your thoughts arguing science terms is the life you chose to live. As a scientist human.

 

[PruePhillip]

We have a very well tested theory, called general relativity, that describes it as part of the space-time manifold. If we take it seriously, we can regard the universe as a four-dimensional object that can't have started or be subject to time because time is internal to it. The manifold just is.
Still doesn't make sense.
How do you know?
It's an entirely open question. There are multiple hypotheses that would have no start to time.

So the universe WAS infinite, but THIS TIME IT WON'T BE BECAUSE IT WILL TEAR ITSELF APART
AS IT EXPANDS..
???????

We have no idea what time is. Invoking it in equations is fine and necessary. Doesn't mean you know
what it is. For instance, is there time travel? Can't tell, don't know what time is to begin with.

 

[blü 2]

The bottom line is that there CAN be 'truths' no matter what the post modernist
says. The same goes for religion IMO.

That depends on how you define "truth". I may have mentioned that I use the correspondence definition, truth is a quality of statements and a statement is true to the extent that it corresponds with / accurately reflects objective reality. That gives an objective test for 'truth'. It also means no statement about the supernatural can be true.
Thus "The gospel of Luke says that Jesus is literally the son of the Jewish God" is true, but "Jesus is literally the son of the Jewish God" is not true.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Should be simple.
Westerners say that the universe formed by the process of physical laws.
Some postmodernists say that isn't a truth but a belief - there are no truths.
Furthermore the aboriginal Rainbow Serpent creator is a truth also.
I hold that is bollocks. If the West is seduced by such notions then we lose
our science (in Australia some school kids learn 'aboriginal science')

Well, I am a Westerner and I don't believe in that kind of science. So you are in effect a cultural authoritarian. You speak for somebody you can't speak for.
Now I as a postmodernist don't believe in truth . They are different cultural narratives or foundational myths. I don't have to believe in naturalism to use science. I use science for how it works in practice in the everyday world.

Here is some science and naturalism for you:
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia
In effect naturalism is a belief system and I don't believe in all of the beliefs making up naturalism.
I only share the first one: that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers.

 

[PruePhillip]

That depends on how you define "truth". I may have mentioned that I use the correspondence definition, truth is a quality of statements and a statement is true to the extent that it corresponds with / accurately reflects objective reality. That gives an objective test for 'truth'. It also means no statement about the supernatural can be true.
Thus "The gospel of Luke says that Jesus is literally the son of the Jewish God" is true, but "Jesus is literally the son of the Jewish God" is not true.

Certainly. Religion operates in a different realm to science.
Who said this, the "non overlapping magisteriums" ? Gould?

 

[Heyo]

According to me, the power who created everything in the universe.

That excludes a whole lot of entities called "god" by other people, all the Pagan and Hindu gods, the Abrahamic gods, the Shinto kami etc. You're getting much flak from believers I presume?

 

[Heyo]

Right. These are measured forces, not the power of God.

Wait. Didn't you just say god is a power? (Do You Believe In God, Why? Don't You Believe In God, Why?)
Now god has power?
Can you please make up your mind?

 

[Revoltingest]

But as I said, the existence of God can’t be proved.

There isn't even an inkling that gods are likely.
So I've no good reason to believe in any of the
myriad of religions knocking at my door with
their colorful pamphlets.

 

[ratiocinator]

So the universe WAS infinite, but THIS TIME IT WON'T BE BECAUSE IT WILL TEAR ITSELF APART
AS IT EXPANDS..
???????

Maybe, maybe not. What is it about an open question that you're having difficulty understanding? There are multiple hypotheses, including, for example, one that maps the distant future of the expansion to a new big bang (Conformal cyclic cosmology - Wikipedia)

We have no idea what time is. Invoking it in equations is fine and necessary. Doesn't mean you know
what it is.

Equations are generally the best we can do in understanding things that are fundamental. The GR model of space-time works very well, so there's good reason to take it seriously.

For instance, is there time travel?

It's not ruled out in principle but most of the scenarios are rather unrealistic.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We have a very well tested theory, called general relativity, that describes it as part of the space-time manifold. If we take it seriously, we can regard the universe as a four-dimensional object that can't have started or be subject to time because time is internal to it. The manifold just is.
...

Here is the problem:
Based on observation for this universe, you make a cognitive assessment in your brain, that there is nothing outside the universe. You can only know íf you check through observation. You haven't. You in effect are thinking that it makes sense, that there is nothing outside the universe. But that is not science. For it to be not just theoretical physics, but actual science it requires an observation. There is none, so your claim doesn't meet the standard of science. It is philosophy/religion and not science.

 

[Polymath257]

We mention from God, not a fabricating legendal idol! (Unicorn, Thor and little green men...)

I see Gods as fabricated legendary idols.

 

[Polymath257]

According to me, the power who created everything in the universe.

I don't believe there was such a thing.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
It's an entirely open question. There are multiple hypotheses that would have no start to time.

Correct, it is thoughts in the minds of some humans.

 

[ratiocinator]

Here is the problem:
Based on observation for this universe, you make a cognitive assessment in your brain, that there is nothing outside the universe. You can only know íf you check through observation. You haven't. You in effect are thinking that it makes sense, that there is nothing outside the universe. But that is not science. For it to be not just theoretical physics, but actual science it requires an observation. There is none, so your claim doesn't meet the standard of science. It is philosophy/religion and not science.

Sorry, where do you think I claimed that there was nothing "outside the universe"? You'd also need to define universe in order for the claim to even make sense....

 

[Polymath257]

We can’t prove God to you, but according to you, this universe has been created by matter?

I don't believe the universe was created. Nor do I believe it was caused. Causes happen *inside* of the universe.

 

[Polymath257]

But as I said, the existence of God can’t be proved.

Why should anyone think it then?

 

[Polymath257]

Right. These are measured forces, not the power of God.

Which is why I believe in them, but not in any deity.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sorry, where do you think I claimed that there was nothing "outside the universe"? You'd also need to define universe in order for the claim to even make sense....

You claim to know

We have a very well tested theory, called general relativity, that describes it as part of the space-time manifold. If we take it seriously, we can regard the universe as a four-dimensional object that can't have started or be subject to time because time is internal to it. The manifold just is.
...

So you know based on observation that the universe hasn't started?

 

[Polymath257]

Nice dodge.
The universe had a 'beginning' when space, energy and physical laws
came into being. Prior to this there was no space, energy or physical
laws.

Why do you think they 'came into being'?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Why should anyone think it then?

Because it is useful. That is your standard, when pressed about your beliefs.

That standard you use is that it is useful to you to believe as you do. It is useful for me to believe differently than you.

You don't control humanity and what is useful for other humans, so don't you dare use another standard than your own; i.e. what is useful to you. Or you are incoherent and apply a double standard.