Do you believe in God?

Post Reply New Topic

I don't accept the fine-tuning argument, as there is no evidence of fine-tuning. Victor Stenger was just one of many physicists who reject the notion for sound reasons. No evidence of God has ever been observed. It is not the default position. So... no need to nullify it. I was accepting your premises for the sake of argument, that's all. I'm responding to Noah, because his ridiculous argument that God exists because - pretty things, is all too common.

Wrong again! The very reason why the multiverse hypothesis emerged was merely to explain the fine tuning of our universe.

Again, Vic Stenger was a particle physicist who never had training in cosmology. I did some cosmological physics, but my area of physics training is concentrated in heat transfer and hydraulics. What part of Stenger's word gives authority to this subject? You are cherry picking publications and reports that attempt to 'disprove' cosmological fine tuning.

Luke Barnes crushes Vic Stenger's claim in: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.4647v2.pdf

Moreover, even if the universe is not fine tuned for life (as it clearly is), you are still left with the problem of first start.

"quote="Deltaville" Moreover, even if the universe is not fine tuned for life (as it clearly is), you are still left with the problem of first start."

I will consider your theory. What is God and how do you propose it created the universe?

One of my favorite scenes from Waking Life:
https://vimeo.com/56075178

If something is everything, then it's nothing, and a meaningless concept.

God is order. Our universe is not a universe of chaos, although entropy would it make it otherwise.

God can breach the laws of physics as he is outside the scope of time, but he has fine tuned them so carbon can be produced and stars can shine with a finely tuned gravitational constant.

As the universe began 13.8 billion years ago, we know he is beyond time and space. Why can there not be a scientific explanation for it? The zero net energy theory doesn't work as it lacks a proper time vector, and einsteinian field equations do not define energy at all in relativity. Even in a quantisized vaccum, how can one jump into classical mechanics when we know that they cannot be reconcilled by Godel's Incompelteness Theorem?

Now the definition of God by these facts alone can be ascertained: He is BEYOND time, BEYOND space, and is yet, despite all of this, able to decree our perfect laws of physics.

Why 13.8 billion years? Why not 13.9 billion years? The facts of the matter describe God perfectly

I definitely don't believe in a "personal god" i.e. one that cares or is "good".

I think the only reason religion is successful is it pulls on peoples emotions, the promise of being reunited with loved ones when you die is a very powerful draw.

I think most likely our reality is some kind of simulation. Perhaps our universe is the excrement of some super powerful live-form that poops universes. That begs the question where that life form came from though.

What bothers me most is: logically, nothing should exist, yet here we are.

Even if our universe is a simulation, there is still the issue of infinite regression.

Yes. It doesn't make sense.

For me, I hope there isn't a god. I find the prospect of some all-powerful being quite terrifying. I also don't want to be forced to worship it in some afterlife either.

I am precisely the opposite of you. I am happy that my death will not be the end, and I will will be reunited with one of my brothers (only one is alive, the other passed away from leukemia), my father and others.

I am happy that our existence has some ultimate purpose.

So there is nothing scientifically verifiable about your proposal?

Is there anything scientifically viable about black holes? They cannot be directly observed, but we know they are there.

What can be directly observed?

Sorry to hear about your brother.

I have a sort of similar situation, one brother still alive, the other dead, but it was due to suicide.

If I do meet a god in the afterlife, I hope I will be given the opportunity to ask it questions. I would like to know what all the suffering is about. Some of it can be passed off as a consequence of giving us free will e.g. murders and such. However, what it can't justify is the pointless suffering such as giving cancer to children. As children are defined as innocent, I don't believe a "good" god could have any justification for letting this happen.

I see some Christian apologists such as Dr William Lane Craig argue that "it's all part of gods plan", he gives us life and has the right to take it away etc. What kind of plan involves giving cancer to children? Maybe it has a good answer, I'll wait and see. I don't hold my breath though. Also if I create an artificial race of sentient lifeforms, I don't think I then have the right to make them suffer, or kill them indiscriminately. That would make me a monster.

Regarding illnesses such as; cancer, mental health etc I think we got to support the scientists with donations (if can afford to) to solve these problems in the one life we know for sure we have.

Also for the record, I wish that if I followed some religious doctrine that I might get to meet my brother again in some kind of afterlife. Problem is: I don't think there's any shred of legitimate evidence to support any of the religions claims. Furthermore, the reasons we can dismiss such religions as Scientology and Mormonism as fake, is because we can trace them back in history easily, especially in the case of Scientology.

If we could send a tv crew back in time to when Jesus and the other supposed prophets lived, I'm sure they could bring back documented proof that it was either al lies or grossly exaggerated. I think Jesus probably did exist, possibly might have been a good person, but after his death I think his disciples exaggerated what he did, so they could give him legendary status. It's what the Greeks did with their heroes and gods, other civilisations have done it throughout human history. Christianity, Islam, Judaism don't have exclusive rights on making stuff up.

I think you got to ask yourself this. Why were all the religious created in the past? It's because they would not be able to get off the ground now, as no religion since the advent of scientific scrutiny has been able to hold up, which is a very good thing imo.

I'm Catholic, but I'm not a conservative by any means. I'm pro-LGBT rights, believe in evolution, believe in global warming, etc. I am pro-life but I am in the sense that I believe it but don't force my beliefs on anyone else (a woman is able to choose what she is able to do).

I find it appalling to see others calling themselves Catholic and having such vitriolic hate for others being born with a different orientation.