Non-Religious Take on God

[dman_dustin]

Okay here's my problem. Look I have my problems with religion, and I believe in God but not Religion, but here's my problem with people who think Science is everything.

In order to believe there is no God, YOU are forced to believe that the Universe was created "magically" in that if it makes any sense to you, particles came into existence into the void of nothingness, without any scientific explanation because YOU have to accept that as the ONLY possible explanation, because no matter how you think about it. The absolute beginning had to have come into existence without any explanation. Because there can never be any rational scientific explanation for things just coming into existence, without any sort of catalyst of any kind.

Fine, you have to believe that, but what pisses me off, is the narrow minded logic. Particles, atoms and everything else can just "come" into existence, but at the same time, God could not, God could not possibly exist. If that isn't a huge logical fallacy then I don't know what it is.

Let's even go further, you believe it wasn't God that just "came" into existence in the absolute beginning of everything, it was just atoms, particles, and whatever else.

Now don't see therein lies a problem. I could believe that there could be particles/atoms/molecules or whatever just coming into existence, but they would have no rules/laws, they wouldn't have limitations as we perceive our universe today.

But think about this: This Universe we live in is limited, it has rules, and laws, would a non sentient/intelligent particles/atoms that are beyond rules and laws be able to create rules and laws without any sort of explanation? Such as black holes operate they do, just because it just happened.

OR does it make more sense that thing that just came into existence was an intelligent/sentient being capable of thinking, capable of creating a universe, being able to define what a black hole is and does, what atoms/particles/molecules/etc do because they were defined as that BY something capable of thought..

Sentient/Intelligent being creating laws/universes/limitations/rules or laws/universes/limitation/rules existing just because it is what is without any sort of explanation.

Or think think of it this way. Video games, and computer programs just don't get created just because the "parts" are there. Only an intelligent being can put those "parts" together to create that video game or computer program. When you look at it from that kind of perspective, Life really can't be any different than a video game/ computer program. Except Life is just biological and real.

 

[Lyrebird]

Just a little heads up or so an in-thread warning that any mocking of someone's beliefs and logic will result in consequences, it will not be tolerated at all. Remember to respect each other opinions, act civil and do not attack each other.

 

[Karpi]

In my opinion (which contradicts yours, in a hopefully non-threatening way), our universe has a certain set of physical laws because it would have destroyed itself otherwise. Isn't it possible that there are many "universes", and that each has random properties, most of which cause the universe to self-destruct? It's kind of like natural selection. Even ours isn't perfect, since it appears it will end in the Big Rip (or something).

I don't know. Intelligent design and multiverse hypothesis are equally unprovable to us at this point in time. So I'm choosing to go with the one that lends itself better to science fiction stories!

 

[dman_dustin]

ur universe has a certain set of physical laws because it would have destroyed itself otherwise.

But why? I mean sure I'd agree that a universe would be completely chaotic had there not been any rules or laws to govern itself, but destroying itself? Being able to self destruct is a force of law. Something can't die if there are no rules or laws making it that the case.

Death is a rule/law that exists in this universe. However it makes equal sense that there could be a universe where death doesn't occur. See right now if I understand death/decay as scientists have explained why things decay and die, all it is, is basically a law/rule, which we humans can't really control, death and decay exists because it was necessary in the way of checks and balances of the universe. Something that just could not come into existence (these laws/rules/limitations) without an entity capable of thought.

Isn't it possible that there are many "universes", and that each has random properties, most of which cause the universe to self-destruct? It's kind of like natural selection. Even ours isn't perfect, since it appears it will end in the Big Rip (or something).

Except my theory wasn't self contained in only a single universe.

By absolute beginning I mean the absolute beginning that ever occurred, it would be hard to believe that instantaneously at the exact same time multitude of universes came into existence without any sort of explanation. I mean the multiple universe theory makes sense in how future universes are created. When one universe comes to its natural end, where nothing can exist any more, it gives off some sort of "unknowable energies" that could result in the big bang resulting in the NEXT universe.

But if our universe exists as a result of the previous one coming to an end, what gave birth to that Universe, so on and so on until you have to inevitably come to the conclusion, that as it stands, an absolute beginning could ever make any sort of semblance of sense is if there was a void of nothingness and something "came" into existence without any explanation. Because in the void of nothingness, there are no rules, laws, limitations and so therefore nothing PREVENTED something coming into an existence.

And quite frankly a sentient being, that is very self aware, capable of thought/thinking, that can manipulate and create things into this void of nothingness, creating laws. rules, limitations could be the only sensible conclusion. I mean sure particles/atoms/molecules or however else you want to define those CERTAIN elements that could create universes they could have came into an existence from the void of nothingness, but how could they ever create universes with rules/laws/limitations.

If the particles came together resulting a massive explosion resulting in the birth of the universe, how could a universe be pre-programmed with rules/laws/limitations. It wouldn't make any sense, because while I'm sure things could exist that exist outside of all possible science, I'm not sure rules/laws/limitations would exist without intelligent design. I mean especially this universe, I mean if you really think about it, this universe is beyond crippling in terms of how limited it is. As far as we know, as science has explained, nothing can go faster than the speed of light. And if somehow you travel FASTER than the speed of light you travel back into the past, and if you travel close to the speed of light, you will propelled into the future, I mean with perspective to this universe those things make sense, when you consider light the equivalent of time. When you travel faster than the speed of light you travel into the past because you reach a time where light hasn't reached its destination yet (present-time). When you travel as fast as light, it's the equivalent of going to the real present time, so therefore it is the future, because in reality, our present, isn't the present time. It's only our perception of the present. So that makes sense to me, when I look at it like that.

But why does it make sense? I mean why is that rules and laws are fixed that way? Why couldn't light travel a billion miles a second, or why doesn't light travel only 100 miles a second. Why is it that speed and time are fixed in regards to light? That when you go faster than light, you travel back in time, or why when you close to the speed of light, you travel to the future?

See that's why rules/laws/limitation could've only come from an intelligent being that DEFINED the universe. How can a universe define itself if it's the equivalent of a rock or a brick, incapable of thought, incapable of being self aware. Just existing, as it is.

Rules/laws/limitations sure they bind the Universe together and give it balance and they give it what it is, but how could it just come together randomly without any thought process involved.

I mean just think about it for a moment: Our universe forces us to stay SPECIFICALLY on this planet because there is nothing humans can create that could allow us to travel to other planets even if "scientifically" is possible. Because what are the odds we can create that machine that require an immense amount of energy and power that could possible allow us to travel to other planets. Our best chance of space exploration given the very crippling limitations of this universe, is a solar powered space ship, that's probably as big as planet, that just travels through space, being powered by stars like our sun, and it'll be like millions of years before any "human" at this point reaches any other habitable planet.

It seems more likely (in my perspective) that an entity marooned "us" (well more like "Earth Creatures") to this planet just for the hell of it, than the universe just existing, making it nearly impossible for travel between the universe from one habitable planet to the next habitable planet or even one galaxy to the next. I mean even if we would know HOW to travel the universe, I'm pretty sure Earth lacks the proper resources to CREATE the ability to travel through the universe.
========

But you are right, we won't be able to prove anything, really. And I think that was my major issue. Scientists dismiss the concept of God, either because they have serious problems with religion, and because they think they know everything (arrogance).

The issue I'm primarily bringing up, is science can't prove or disprove "God" because God would be beyond our perception, beyond our comprehension, beyond this universe's science. And if problems with religion is the only reason why scientists would dismiss God, well that's why I brought up this point. God could easily exist, in almost as easily as God couldn't exist.

But I will guarantee this, if there is a God, I guarantee you that God is nothing compared to how God is depicting in religion. So basically I believe in a logical/science God. A powerful entity coming into a void of nothingness, capable of creating universes with their own set rules/laws/limitation. And who knows what other set-ups God could've created.

But a religious God, that one doesn't make sense (in my perspective) at all, and I think scientists dismiss the concept of God way too easily because they are only thinking of a religious version of God, rather than a God that makes sense.

My main point is: It is incorrect to ever say "There is no God" or "Science Disproves the Concept of God" all anyone will ever have is a belief. People "believe" there is a God, or people "believe" there is no God. There is no absolutes when it comes to something beyond human comprehension, beyond human perception, and beyond "science." Which is how I feel about the afterlife. Science can't disprove the afterlife because the afterlife is beyond our comprehension beyond our perception.

For all we know this universe is an entanglement of many different branches of science. I mean after all the science we know today, that we understand is solely due to the perception of visual observation. Everything humans invented, was the result of sight. Even what we understand about sounds came from sight, otherwise our perception of sounds could be different. If something is beyond our visual perspective, we have no chance to comprehend or understand it. So we can't say the science we do "understand/perceive" explains everything. Maybe a different branch of science would allow us to travel throughout the universe?

 

[lovandra]

I don't see scientists as doubtfull people. From my point of view, Science create their own concept of God and label them on different names. They the one actually who prove that all universe usually run on some rules, namely Gravity, Energy, Relativity, Proton, Atom, etc.

Also about religion's God. Religion is fraction of human culture, they are expresion/symbol/art of human interpretation to God. After science are well known, proven, and shaken some believe, 'the expresion', 'symbol', 'art' are 'no longer' God. This is maybe kinda true though. But that doesn't mean everything that written on Holly Books are non sense. The expression just need to be read and interpreted on the right way for me, and everything actually completing each other.

 

[Phoenicks]

It was said somewhere something like:

"The benefit of a belief in God is that it explains the world without a plurality of universes.

The benefit of a belief in a plurality of universes is that it explains the world without God."

 

[Lysson]

Well other people do have different opinions. You have said that you think it's impossible for particles to just exist and not have a creator, well some people find it a hard time believing there is a intelligent being that just exist. The argument for both is the same.

With the big bang people believe it created time, or time is just something humans made up. To us everything must have a creator, but what if it just doesn't? Of course I can't prove that because I can't prove things that are out of our league.

I honestly don't get pissed off at people's beliefs even if they're the exact opposite of my own. As long as they have morals and ethics in their beliefs I'll leave them alone.

People's opinions and beliefs can also be heavily effected by their upbringing, life experiences and the way their brain works. I don't expect someone to have the same beliefs as me because they're an entirely different person.

 

[Solayoh]

Well other people do have different opinions. You have said that you think it's impossible for particles to just exist and not have a creator, well some people find it a hard time believing there is a intelligent being that just exist. The argument for both is the same.

I think that is what the OP is trying to say. People can sometimes mock religion, and say things like "Sky Magician" "Imaginary friend" mocking those who believe that God existed and created everything. What the OP is trying to say is even the science theory relies on the logic of something (in fact lots of things) just forcing themselves into existence.

 

[Lysson]

Well other people do have different opinions. You have said that you think it's impossible for particles to just exist and not have a creator, well some people find it a hard time believing there is a intelligent being that just exist. The argument for both is the same.

I think that is what the OP is trying to say. People can sometimes mock religion, and say things like "Sky Magician" "Imaginary friend" mocking those who believe that God existed and created everything. What the OP is trying to say is even the science theory relies on the logic of something (in fact lots of things) just forcing themselves into existence.

Oh I see, the OP just seemed a tad aggressive that I more so saw the aggression then the point. My bad. Now you've pointed it out I can understand it xD

 

[Krash]

Everybody believes in something. Like it or not, it's true. If you hold on to an ideal strong enough to fight for it, arguably for or against, it is a "belief". A vast number of scientists believe in God, and likewise a lot of people with absolutely no knowledge of science don't. The dichotomy seems to only really exist for those in the in-between.

I think, honestly, that everything had to come into existence somehow. Where some scientists explore the universe to find out exactly WHAT it was, it seems that others have given up the search, and happily stuck a label (god) onto it. I suppose appending a name and image to an UNKNOWN makes it easier for them to understand. It also allows them to live happily knowing that something caused matter to come into existence, without the need to delve further into the notion of what, exactly, that thing was.

I'm not a religious person by any means. But I don't dismiss either theory. I believe exactly as I said above: That something did indeed happen, and that a percentage of people have decided to label it, stick a beard on it, and contently live out their lives, whereas the other half simply aren't content, and wish to delve further in the matter.

 

[Almonds]

There are scientists who have religions. There are scientists who believe in God. I've seen people who support the evolution theory yet also believe there's God. It's just a matter of what you believe or not. I don't have a religion, but I believe there is God. There has to be a start somewhere, and there's gotta be something that initiated the start of everything.

 

[Shadowgui]

You are right that both arguments are the same, but there is a fundamental difference between the two positions though. The statement "God exists" implies a drastic modification in the status quo of our reality, and the burden of proof lies in the one making the claim. Now I know you can say that I'm making a claim myself by saying "God doesn't exist", but it's not quite that simple. The status quo right now is that there is no apparent evidence of the existence of God, so trying to make us disprove its existence is intellectually dishonest because there is no way we can do that. When the believers (in a non-religious way) find solid evidence that God exists, if it ever happens, people like me will just accept it and move on. At the moment though, considering the lack of evidence, it's safer for us to assume God doesn't exist, but also not dismissing the possibility that it could.

 

[DoctorWhy]

There are scientists who have religions. There are scientists who believe in God. I've seen people who support the evolution theory yet also believe there's God. It's just a matter of what you believe or not. I don't have a religion, but I believe there is God. There has to be a start somewhere, and there's gotta be something that initiated the start of everything.

Quite true. I mean, I'm not sure if I can really count as a serious scientist (Only a student right now haha), but I personally believe in both God and science. I understand and respect the views of people who are solely religious or solely scientific, however I have never had any personal issues with believing in both. I simply believe that God created science. As for contradictions between science and the Bible, I believe that those are simply due to human error. Even though they may have been given God's guidance in writing the Bible, humans still wrote it, therefore it is most certainly fallible. And back thousands of years ago, things like the big bang or evolution would have been incomprehensible to them. I have never understood fully how science can disprove God (I don't think science can prove or disprove God actually) nor how God should contradict science. I feel that sometimes people make God too small, in that they think that the things in the Bible are the extent of his existence and power or those who try to put science out of God's reach. God could have used the science of the universe. Just because the Bible doesn't say it doesn't mean anything at all, especially given that it was technically written by humans; shallow minded, uneducated, very young in the world, very fallible and often biased.

TLDR: I believe in both God and science and I'm totes cool with that bro. Don't judge.

 

[CrystaI]

I'm personally the believer of Agnosticism. Note that agnosticism is not religion, but the name of a philosophy theory which stating existences of any non-material objects (God, gods, deities, hell/heaven, even soul and/or ghost of humankind) cannot be prove, hence existence of non-material objects cannot be deny nor approve.

IMO, the agnosticism is rather the most "scientific" approach towards all sorts of religious takes, as it is based on the current academic scientific reasoning techniques of assume a hypothesis -> find evidences to prove the hypothesis -> true theory.

As we are living in a material world, the science we learn in schools and university are all based on material evidence. But the religions and "Gods" are all non-material things. We cannot detect their existence using any sort of electronic detection devices because it is not anything compose by physical material. Yet that doesn't mean we are proving their non-existence, because on the opposite there is also no evidence to disprove the existence of such non-material beings. Hence the existence of God/gods/deities are only on the level of hypothesis yet to be proven, it is not a proven theory nor a disproved false assumption.

As being an agnosticist, I don't believe the existence of any religious gods/deities in any of the religions, because there is no solid proof to prove their physical existences. But yet, I don't deny the hypothesis of there may exist a superior being that provides the "unseeable laws" to this material world. But personally, I don't label such superior being as "God", because IMO it is not the perfect name to call it.