Do you believe in God?

@gojo1978,

I certainly accept the theory of physical evolution, as Carl Sagan suggested. In addition to the physical body, why is it so hard to imagine that there is a life-energy that animates the physical form. All physical characteristics of a person/animal are determined by genetics, through evolution, however the 'creative spark' in each body form is the life-energy. Collectively life-energy is the god we keep referring to, individually life-energy is the 'awareness' part of our existence.
The life-energy or soul enters a psychical body to gain experience, to reach a maximum potential. It may do it in one life, or a thousand lives. It is not always on planet Earth, or in human form as we know it.
Fido, you said, "We can change our feelings only by changing our lives..." I agree with you 100%. 'We' - the life-energy - can change our physical lives. With Intent we have the potential to modify our lives to be positive or negative, to be understanding and loving or full of hate and revenge. Our bodies do not control us, we (soul) control our physical body. There is no god, out there, doing any controlling. We are completely responsible for our own existence. We have free-will.
Majic

0 Replies

@gojo1978,

gojo1978;80607 wrote:

We didn't.

Here's what happened.

Absolutely nothing "sudden" about it.

Except, the big bang? =)

But "sudden apareance" also goes for god so we must accept that things suddently aparear, its a fact of life.

1 Reply

@manored,

I don't know, I'm Agnostic.
I don't really think you can prove or disprove God.
I don't believe in the Big Bang either, I think that it's just as illogical as God because both came from nothing. At least that's what I think.

1 Reply

@Leviathen249,

Leviathen249;80788 wrote:

I don't know, I'm Agnostic.
I don't really think you can prove or disprove God.
I don't believe in the Big Bang either, I think that it's just as illogical as God because both came from nothing. At least that's what I think.

Belief does not come into it.The science of cosmology tells us that the BB is the first event without known cause and with no evidence prior to this event.You cant have it both ways either you believe or you understand.

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;80793 wrote:

Belief does not come into it.The science of cosmology tells us that the BB is the first event without known cause and with no evidence prior to this event.You cant have it both ways either you believe or you understand.

I don't really understand what your getting at. I can't have what in both ways?

1 Reply

@Leviathen249,

I think Xris is saying that belief in God and belief in the Big Bang are not analogous: God-belief is essentially a metaphysical assertion, whereas the Big Bang is supported by modern science. Thus, God is all about belief, whereas acceptance of the Big Bang is a choice between rejecting and accepting demonstrable science.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Back when slavery was still legal many doctors measured the size of black peoples cranium and they deemed that it was smaller and therefor inferior to the white man. That was science and we know today that they were wrong.
Can't the same thing be applied now, since humans are fallible and we can get things wrong. Even science.
Now don't get me wrong, I am a firm believer of science but I also believe that humans get things wring sometimes. I just don't know.

1 Reply

@Leviathen249,

Leviathen249;80834 wrote:

Back when slavery was still legal many doctors measured the size of black peoples cranium and they deemed that it was smaller and therefor inferior to the white man. That was science and we know today that they were wrong.

No, that was not science. People believed it was science, but that practice had absolutely no empirical basis, no scientific basis.

Leviathen249;80834 wrote:

Can't the same thing be applied now, since humans are fallible and we can get things wrong. Even science.

Yes, we can be mistaken. However, our falibility does not eliminate the vast difference between rejecting belief in God and rejecting the science of the Big Bang theory.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;80840 wrote:

No, that was not science. People believed it was science, but that practice had absolutely no empirical basis, no scientific basis.

Yes, we can be mistaken. However, our falibility does not eliminate the vast difference between rejecting belief in God and rejecting the science of the Big Bang theory.

Wasn't it on the basis that a smaller cranium meant smaller brain capacity, which is still bad science, but science nonetheless.

Yea I guess, but are you saying there is no middle ground, no place that just isn't sure.

1 Reply

@Leviathen249,

BBC NEWS | Americas | US man 'killed child by praying'

String 'em up. Speed up evolution.

---------- Post added 08-02-2009 at 02:51 AM ----------

The concept of God (not God himself, but the concept of God) was invented by man.

So was the concept of the tooth fairy.

Why is it any more rational to believe in God than the tooth fairy?

1 Reply

@gojo1978,

Leviathen249;80845 wrote:

Wasn't it on the basis that a smaller cranium meant smaller brain capacity, which is still bad science, but science nonetheless.

Just because someone advances a hypothesis does not mean that the hypothesis has any evidence. There was no evidence whatsoever for the premise. Besides, the process of measurement was profoundly corrupt. We are talking about doctors who cared nothing for reality, and cared everything for racist dogma. That's not science.

Leviathen249;80845 wrote:

Yea I guess, but are you saying there is no middle ground, no place that just isn't sure.

Sure, there is middle ground. Especially when the science is primarily speculation and almost pure theorizing. But, in the case of the Big Bang, we are talking about a theory that has immense explanatory value and also profound circumstantial evidence. Hence, immense credibility.

gojo1978;80851 wrote:

The concept of God (not God himself, but the concept of God) was invented by man.

So was the concept of the tooth fairy.

Why is it any more rational to believe in God than the tooth fairy?

The answer to that question rests in the vast differences between the toothfairy concept and the God concept. After all, they are not the same. Were they the same, you might have a point.

The concepts of beauty, justice, hope, love, anger, spite, whim, joy, time, color, ect was invented by man. Why is it any more rational to believe in beauty et al than the toothfairy? But this is easy to answer - and if you can answer this, you can answer your question regarding God and the toothfairy.

0 Replies

@Pythagorean,

I do not believe in god for the reason that whatever you believe only exists to you when you are thinking about it so God could not possibly require a belief. Even if some personal god exists (which I highly doubt and I know that most people here are talking about something impersonal) what are the chances that the delusion in your brain will match what it is? If God exists let whatever it is exist with no labels. When most people talk about god they are either talking about a delusion in their brain or an altered state of consciousness. The altered state which is pure nothingness might be God or of a metaphysical nature or it might just be an altered state of consciousness produced solely by the chemicals in our brain. I have heard people argue that God is nothing and then say but there is something in the nothing. How can there be something in Nothing?

0 Replies

@Pythagorean,

Keeping in mind that the question asks of belief and not existence, I can competently say no. I wish to embrace life to the fullest extent without the concern of the unsurpassed and incomprehension of the unknown. I wish to live among "what is" rather than "what if," even if "what is" is difficult to comprehend. Self-guidance does not display arrogance, it preserves strength. Idolatry and religious subscriptions often results in decadency and "false" hope. The meaning of life should be a question and an answer within itself rather than just a question that awaits no answer.

1 Reply

@Pythagorean,

odd that there are that many theists, I thought mostly atheists would be attracted to philosophy. Well, if you asked how many were Catholic you'd get very few. As you all know, I am a christian, but honestly I'd think there would be less god-believers than that! There are many who believe in god as some vague thing that plays no role in the universe or does very little.

0 Replies

@Serena phil,

Serena;81390 wrote:

Keeping in mind that the question asks of belief and not existence, I can competently say no. I wish to embrace life to the fullest extent without the concern of the unsurpassed and incomprehension of the unknown. I wish to live among "what is" rather than "what if," even if "what is" is difficult to comprehend. Self-guidance does not display arrogance, it preserves strength. Idolatry and religious subscriptions often results in decadency and "false" hope. The meaning of life should be a question and an answer within itself rather than just a question that awaits no answer.

========================================
Serena,

Just a thought about your view.

Life, from the exact millisecond of conception, whatever point that may be defined as individually, instantaneously becomes a walk toward the inevitable demise of the physical as we know it. Step by step, second by second, every single living person is pacing themselves toward death.

That undeniable truth is life! It is the one sure thing of our existence that we can be certain of without argument.

So whether one chooses to live life in ignorance of that fact, or should I say casual avoidance of, is merely a matter of choice as to how one chooses to make that walk to the same destination that everyone else is heading. You can take Broadway to the park and I might take 5th Avenue, but we are still going to end up at the park together at some point,our headstones held high to remind everyone that none of them has any idea where we have gone or what has become of us, only that this was the last they had seen of us.

Some walks are shorter than others. Some a few steps , some no steps at all. Some may take 100 years and more. But the destination is always the same. Life is nothing more than the walk of death. Whether atheist or god fearing, both are are a matter of faith in what one chooses to believe. The atheist can no more prove that god does not exist than the theist can prove that one does.

So picking daisies along the way, or struggling to see what may lie around the corner before you get there, both are merely different paces and paths on the same journey.

To "..live life to its fullest.." as you have said above, is to die and either discover the afterlife or become nonexistent and know no more. That my friend is the fullest extent of life. To reach the end goal. To discover the truth. To either know, or know no more.

0 Replies

@Pythagorean,

I'm agnostic, but I lean a bit more towards atheism. I think it's possible that there are beings that we humans would consider to be gods, in the same sense that a human would appear to be a god from an ant's point of view. However, the gods that humanity has worshiped throughout the ages were more than likely simply the personifications of natural forces and human concepts (such as war, love, art, etc).

Pathfinder, atheism isn't about believing that god(s) don't exist, it simply means that they don't think there's enough proof of god's existance.

2 Replies

@Shadow Dragon,

Shadow Dragon;83161 wrote:

I'm agnostic, but I lean a bit more towards atheism. I think it's possible that there are beings that we humans would consider to be gods, in the same sense that a human would appear to be a god from an ant's point of view. However, the gods that humanity has worshiped throughout the ages were more than likely simply the personifications of natural forces and human concepts (such as war, love, art, etc).

Pathfinder, atheism isn't about believing that god(s) don't exist, it simply means that they don't think there's enough proof of god's existance.

I would say that depends on the degree with which they assume that stance Shadow. I can name many atheists who adamantly claim that there is absolutely no god. They do not suggest that there isn't enough evidence, they unequivocally deny the existence of one. That is as much belief as the faith of many theists. As amamtter of fact you will find many of them right here in this forum if you read through some of these posts.

many atheists believe that there is absolutely no god. Many theists believe the opposite. And many more fall somewhere in between the two.

1 Reply

@Pathfinder,

Why is there only black and white - god or no god? Why can't there logically be a third choice? IMO there is no controlling god, out there, directing life in the universe. What is wrong with a third option? We seem to be more than just physical beings. It seems to me we are LIfe-energy occupying a physical body. Now, collectively this life-energy is the source of all creation. Or in other words, collectively we created the universe, individually we create our own reality. We, collectively, are the god we keep referring to. We are responsible, collectively, for what happens in the world. Individually we are completely responsible for our own choices and existence. We create by Intent.
We need to get beyond the narrow, dogmatic, biblical references of god and see the world for what it is. There is no need for religion, because there is no one to pray to, no one to honor, no one to worship. We need to be objective and accept science for what it is and include life-energy.
Majic

0 Replies

@Shadow Dragon,

Shadow Dragon;83161 wrote:

Pathfinder, atheism isn't about believing that god(s) don't exist, it simply means that they don't think there's enough proof of god's existance.

As far as I know thats more along the lines of agnostic, "atheist" means you dont believe in god, "agnostic" means you cant or do not believe it is possible to decide safely.

Majic;83237 wrote:

Why is there only black and white - god or no god? Why can't there logically be a third choice? IMO there is no controlling god, out there, directing life in the universe. What is wrong with a third option? We seem to be more than just physical beings. It seems to me we are LIfe-energy occupying a physical body. Now, collectively this life-energy is the source of all creation. Or in other words, collectively we created the universe, individually we create our own reality. We, collectively, are the god we keep referring to. We are responsible, collectively, for what happens in the world. Individually we are completely responsible for our own choices and existence. We create by Intent.
We need to get beyond the narrow, dogmatic, biblical references of god and see the world for what it is. There is no need for religion, because there is no one to pray to, no one to honor, no one to worship. We need to be objective and accept science for what it is and include life-energy.
Majic

Differents paths dont negate each other... for example, if there is a controlling god, many other "paths" open regarding how it is exactly. If there is no controlling god, many paths open as well, from "nothing at all" to your "we are all mini-gods".

I think your view is possible and the most likely, but sadly, like all views, it cannot be proven =) and it can be mixed in weird ways, for example, if we are all "mini-gods", that doesnt forbids a "master-god" from existing.

1 Reply

@manored,

well what Majik is talking about is as close to Theosophy as you can get.

It actually falls closely into the dogma that I am developing in my search for understanding and knowledge with regard to religion, but I have to balk at the idea that we are our own gods and creators. Therefore I cannot comply with Theosophy.

I do however believe that there is something more to our spiritual aspects than we are able to even come close to imagining.

I refrain from coming to conclusions about anything that is hypothetical, which is clearly discussed at my website listed below with my signature. But I am very comfortable in an awareness of spirituality existing alongside the physicality.

In life we see that evrything has its opposite, the ying and yang factor. why is it so hard to naturally assume the spiritual is the ying to physicals yang.

0 Replies

Do you believe in God?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know