GOD EXISTS

Spacekiwi wrote:Actually, it requires a lot less belief to not believe in god. Occams Razor applies here. we know how the universe started (big bang), we know how iut grew, and how long that took, (inflation over 13 billion years), we have mathmatics that describe our universe, independent of the presence, or absence of any creator. Therefore, it is more likely that there is no creator, absent equal proof that he exists, as this would require an increase in the complexity of the description and observation system. Also, an interesting fact about truth vs belief: belief in it or not, the truth is still the truth.

Indeed so. Yet, more likely is not definitive proof, eh? As I said evidence sufficient to support belief is not the same thing as proof. Both sides have sufficient evidence to support their respective elements of faith. And yes, God does not require your belief to exist.

He was there before the Big Bang, He caused the initial spark to ignite the Big Bang and shaped all that followed. The truth of that is independent of belief.

Perhaps this long rather pointless discussion is a good example of what happens when intelligent individuals get faith and fact mixed up. Just me. Respectfully. HB of CJ (old coot) Agnostic

HB of CJ wrote:Perhaps this long rather pointless discussion is a good example of what happens when intelligent individuals get faith and fact mixed up. Just me. Respectfully. HB of CJ (old coot) Agnostic

You can cast your logical stones in the absolute knowledge that your aim is true because the ground you stand is most firm:-)

Most certainly not. I am more than willing to simply say lots of times that I do not know. Pretty easy. HB

HB of CJ wrote:Perhaps this long rather pointless discussion is a good example of what happens when intelligent individuals get faith and fact mixed up. Just me. Respectfully. HB of CJ (old coot) Agnostic

Faith is fact.

Thank you. You made my point for me. It appears your faith is very important to you and I must respect that ... if it is taken as a matter of faith. Such a view point can not be attacked.

But ... when people state that their faith is a matter of fact, then I wonder lots of things to myself which is just best not stated verbably ... or in a written fashion. HB of CJ (old coot) Jn Ca

I would quibble on the fact of god causing the big bang. that is one possible idea, but cosmologists have several other ideas about the potential cause of it, again without requiring god, although requiring an unholy amount of high level math. Some involve a change of physics as the unverse changed, leaving the big bang as the point where our set of physics and spacetime began, othere have and infinite osacillation of the universe between big bang to big crunch, with a universe inbetween, while there are other theories that the big bang may be what happens in the centre of a black hole where the known physical laws break down, to a break off bubble of a different universe bubble.


as fort both sides having faith: Oxford dictionary on faith:

Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

I do not believe in science, i have proof that it has repeatable, testable theories, which describe how the universe works, and allows me to in some ways form a predictable statistical model of likely future events from current knowledge, and that if these don't work perfectly, given time, the theories will be improved and refined to more accurately reflect the universe. Scientists do not have faith, they have experimental data.

PeterZ wrote:

Spacekiwi wrote:Actually, it requires a lot less belief to not believe in god. Occams Razor applies here. we know how the universe started (big bang), we know how iut grew, and how long that took, (inflation over 13 billion years), we have mathmatics that describe our universe, independent of the presence, or absence of any creator. Therefore, it is more likely that there is no creator, absent equal proof that he exists, as this would require an increase in the complexity of the description and observation system. Also, an interesting fact about truth vs belief: belief in it or not, the truth is still the truth.

Indeed so. Yet, more likely is not definitive proof, eh? As I said evidence sufficient to support belief is not the same thing as proof. Both sides have sufficient evidence to support their respective elements of faith. And yes, God does not require your belief to exist.

He was there before the Big Bang, He caused the initial spark to ignite the Big Bang and shaped all that followed. The truth of that is independent of belief.

Since all that you post prooves that the cause of creation remains a hypothesis perhaps even a theory, the Oxford definition supports my position. That belief absent proof requires faith.

Spacekiwi wrote:I would quibble on the fact of god causing the big bang. that is one possible idea, but cosmologists have several other ideas about the potential cause of it, again without requiring god, although requiring an unholy amount of high level math. Some involve a change of physics as the unverse changed, leaving the big bang as the point where our set of physics and spacetime began, othere have and infinite osacillation of the universe between big bang to big crunch, with a universe inbetween, while there are other theories that the big bang may be what happens in the centre of a black hole where the known physical laws break down, to a break off bubble of a different universe bubble.


as fort both sides having faith: Oxford dictionary on faith:

Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

I do not believe in science, i have proof that it has repeatable, testable theories, which describe how the universe works, and allows me to in some ways form a predictable statistical model of likely future events from current knowledge, and that if these don't work perfectly, given time, the theories will be improved and refined to more accurately reflect the universe. Scientists do not have faith, they have experimental data.

PeterZ wrote:
Indeed so. Yet, more likely is not definitive proof, eh? As I said evidence sufficient to support belief is not the same thing as proof. Both sides have sufficient evidence to support their respective elements of faith. And yes, God does not require your belief to exist.

He was there before the Big Bang, He caused the initial spark to ignite the Big Bang and shaped all that followed. The truth of that is independent of belief.

HB of CJ wrote:Most certainly not. I am more than willing to simply say lots of times that I do not know. Pretty easy. HB

I meant no slight. Honest questions in the absence of knowledge or belief are the logical stones I refer to. These question asked from the perspective of a seeker of knowledge are the most likely to pierce unsupportable beliefs. That is all I meant in my often pedantic manner.

Except we don't believe, we are arguing as to which is most likely to be true, as we aren't sure how the physics changed, so we experiment and theorise. we dont belive, we know the universe exists, so its merely a matter of determining how, of which a supernatural deity ranks rather low on the currently accepted most plausible and defendable theories.

PeterZ wrote:Since all that you post prooves that the cause of creation remains a hypothesis perhaps even a theory, the Oxford definition supports my position. That belief absent proof requires faith.