• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Since gods do not exist, what do you believe is out there

iguanaman said:
That question while intriguing "the beginning" really has little importance to science since the universe did not exist prior to the Big Bang. It also happened 13 billion years ago. The study of the early universe is much more important and has been made possible by powerful telescopes that enable us to actually see stars and galaxies forming. What scientists don't do is automatically assume a deity must be responsible for everything we don't know. That hypothesis has failed time and time again.
Click to expand...
So you're saying that how the universe actually began has little importance to science? Contributory Causality then (in the temporal sense) is no longer important to scientific research? Hmmm, okay.
I find it interesting that you guys continue to bring up gods and deities when replying to my posts and I've not mentioned it at all in this thread.
 
FluffyNinja said:
I'm simply making observations based on what others have posted. I've made no claims here. I didn't even bring God into the discussion; these are your words. Do I detect an agenda perhaps?
Click to expand...

I did not bring an agenda into the discussion, these are your words, so do I detect an agenda of bringing up agenda's perhaps?

But lets review the previous position:

FluffyNinja said:
Before the invention of the microscope there were no empirical grounds to support the claim that microscopic organisms existed.
Click to expand...

What does the above post has to do with this thread?
 
DDD said:
But lets review the previous position:



What does the above post has to do with this thread?
Click to expand...

I was addressing the statement that any claim not currently supported by empirical evidence should be "reasonably dismissed".
 
DDD said:
I did not bring an agenda into the discussion, these are your words, so do I detect an agenda of bringing up agenda's perhaps?
Click to expand...
And while I really don't want to get into a debate about agendas, I will restate that while I have not mentioned, gods, deities, nor supreme beings as an answer to the OP's question, these are some of the responses which have come from this thread....quoted of course:
and literature written about gods are all fiction.
Click to expand...
We do know though that it wasn't kicked off by some grouchy god who toys with people and hands them tablets and stuff.
Click to expand...
I believe that if we are honest with ourselves, we know that gods do not exist. They are a figment of our imagination.
Click to expand...
And, since it is a work of fiction, we can safely conclude that this "god" does not exist.
Click to expand...
I'd hope that god gave me better information so that I don't look like a fool in 2000 years when someone who has access to the internet can, in five minutes, fact check me and determine that almost everything I wrote is bull****.
Click to expand...
My take on what you wrote--if creating humans is the best this "God" can do, he mustn't be much of a god.
Click to expand...
So, thereby believe in "god?" This unsupported by observational/real/empirical data, that is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, and controls every aspect of our lives, and pay the distributors of lies money?
Click to expand...
Sure there is, it's all in the Bible. Take a gander yourself.
Click to expand...

Readers can take from these replies what they will. :shrug:
 
FluffyNinja said:
So you're saying that how the universe actually began has little importance to science? Contributory Causality then (in the temporal sense) is no longer important to scientific research? Hmmm, okay.
I find it interesting that you guys continue to bring up gods and deities when replying to my posts and I've not mentioned it at all in this thread.
Click to expand...

I'll' let this guy explain it. He does it better. We are metioning God because of your questioning of the lack of a cause for the big bang which is often cited as evidence of God by laymen. It seems logical to them that events must have a cause. Oddly in this case they need not.

Any answer to this problem must begin with a key realization: both time and space are contained within the universe and came into existence only AFTER the Big Bang occurred. The cause of the universe must not include them, they are not available to us. It must come from outside our experience.

In this realm, the solution, whatever it is, will seem very strange to us, and it will almost certainly make no sense to our brains because here, it is possible to have an event with no cause. There is no time, there is no before in which the Big Bang could have occurred, there simply is no cause and effect.

We must somehow come up with a solution that exists outside time and space.

GOD MADE IT HAPPEN

For many "God caused the big bang" is a perfectly reasonable response. This seems to help many cope with the unsatisfying prospect of an event without a cause.

The problem of course is that one is then immediately forced to ask, "From where did the creator come?"
Click to expand...

 DeepAstronomy.com :: What Caused the Big Bang?
 
Last edited:
Some of you guys seem to be getting a bit defensive. But I entered this thread with a real curiosity for what intelligent posters may believe is truly "out there", based on knowledge gained from real empirical research. What I read were repeated attempts to dismiss certain possibilities while offering no real plausible answers. I'm no big fan of faulty science and logical fallacies in meaningful discussion. Just my 2 cents.
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
I'll' let this guy explain it. He does it better. We are metioning God because of your questioning of the lack of a cause for the big bang is evidence of God by laymen. It seems logical to them that events must have a cause. Oddly in this case they need not.


[/B] DeepAstronomy.com :: What Caused the Big Bang?
Click to expand...
In the words of Admiral Ackbar, "Its a trap!" In order for me to answer the question posed by the article you posted, you're asking me to assume quite a bit here. Why do so many scientists consider the proposition of a "Big Bang" occurrence to be a zero sum situation? Either you subscribe to it, or you're labeled a "flat-earther". There are no other possibilities beyond Big Bang or spontaneous generation?? I'm sure you'll dismiss it, but you do realize that there have been several credible and recent discoveries that have knocked some pretty big holes in the Big Bang Theory in general?

Big Bang, Deflated? Universe May Have Had No Beginning


Discovery of Big Bang's Gravitational Waves Goes Bust, Due to Dust
 
Anyway, is been fun guys but I'm turning in. When Einstein's relativity model and quantum mechanics models can actually be worked backwards all the way to a singularity before breaking down (which is required for a Big Bang occurrence to be probable), you guys get back to me and we'll discuss the theory further. Peace. :peace
 
FluffyNinja said:
I disagreed, which I believe I'm entitled to do.
Click to expand...

Right.

So the polar position is that "investing belief based on what empirical evidence" is wrong, a position that you are entitled to hold. If so, are there alternatives to the ontological and epistemological approach used to assert reality proposed on your position? Or is it just refusing without an alternative approach provided?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
If God(s) exist then who/what created him, her or them?
Click to expand...
Since Egyptian pharaoh were gods, and pharaoh came from their mothers, therefore gods came from mothers.

Google "where do babies come from" for more information.
 
calamity said:
Ok, we beat the gods issue to death, and, IMO, the only reasonable conclusion from all that is that there are no gods. Gods are a figment of our imagination. But, that does not explain anything. Many big mysteries remain. Who or what created the universe? Are we alone and on our own in this vast universe? Is there a force we have yet to find? Could there be an energy field that unites us all in some as yet unknown way? Life after death? A bunch of stuff.

Let's hear some ideas, beliefs or just general philosophies about the great unknown.
Click to expand...

stating your opinion as fact again huh?
and you pretty much destroy your argument in the 2nd line.

Who or what created the universe.

if it is Who that would take a being of immense power and knowledge. IE a God.
yet in your first sentence you say they are a figment of your imagination.

you just contradicted yourself.
 
calamity said:
Ok, we beat the gods issue to death, and, IMO, the only reasonable conclusion from all that is that there are no gods. Gods are a figment of our imagination. But, that does not explain anything. Many big mysteries remain. Who or what created the universe? Are we alone and on our own in this vast universe? Is there a force we have yet to find? Could there be an energy field that unites us all in some as yet unknown way? Life after death? A bunch of stuff.

Let's hear some ideas, beliefs or just general philosophies about the great unknown.
Click to expand...

The entire reason I don't accept deities is because there is no evidence for it.

There is also no evidence for any of those things, so... I don't "believe" in any of it, because there is no evidence that helps us know which way we should look. I'm certainly not going to talk about some made-up "energy field." It's like asking "What if unicorns existed?" What's the purpose of that question?

I'd much rather help fund the people who can find out, than sit here and just pull stuff out of my ass that has no legitimate merit behind it.
 
FluffyNinja said:
I'm curious, how does it become "perfectly reasonable" to completely dismiss the possibility of the existence of something which is presently beyond our ability to comprehend empirically? If early scientists, such as Leeuwenhoek for example, had adopted your narrow-minded premise, some of the greatest discoveries in human history may have never occurred. Abiogenesis is considered a "credible" concept and yet it is beyond our ability to recreate even a workable model for it. Why not dismiss it as well? Science has not even come close to creating a living cell, let alone an organism from any combination of inorganic matter and energy. All of the Hadron Colliders in existence have yet to provide a solution to the "spark of life" dilemma.
Click to expand...

They can be discounted because people wrote the books in which this god character appears. Unless you believe god wrote those stories, they have to be seen for what they are--fiction.
 
What's out there?

A vast playground of possibilities. Ours to take and make.
 
Jerry said:
Where is your evidence proving this to be true?
Click to expand...
Which of the 3,000-plus gods man has at one time or currently does worship would you like to see debunked? I can definitely find something to debunk the claims made for each one. Just tell me which one you think still needs debunking.
 
ludin said:
stating your opinion as fact again huh?
and you pretty much destroy your argument in the 2nd line.

Who or what created the universe.

if it is Who that would take a being of immense power and knowledge. IE a God.
yet in your first sentence you say they are a figment of your imagination.

you just contradicted yourself.
Click to expand...

So, in your opinion the creator of the universe is a "god." I disagree. I would call the creator of the universe, if it exists, a higher order being or energy field. It most certainly is not the god written about by men on some scrolls found over 3000 years ago. There are too many errors relating to the creation myth in those scrolls to take their claims serious.
 
calamity said:
So, in your opinion the creator of the universe is a "god." I disagree. I would call the creator of the universe, if it exists, a higher order being or energy field. It most certainly is not the god written about by men on some scrolls found over 3000 years ago. There are too many errors relating to the creation myth in those scrolls to take their claims serious.
Click to expand...

please stop strawmanning and digging yourself into a deeper hole.

YOU said in the 2nd line who or what created the universe?

You said in your first line that God doesn't exist.
so you can't have a WHO created the universe.

If it is a WHO in as you stated then your run into the issue that the WHO is a being of immense power and Knowledge.
IE that would be a God.

you shot your own argument in the foot.
 
ludin said:
please stop strawmanning and digging yourself into a deeper hole.

YOU said in the 2nd line who or what created the universe?

You said in your first line that God doesn't exist.
so you can't have a WHO created the universe.

If it is a WHO in as you stated then your run into the issue that the WHO is a being of immense power and Knowledge.
IE that would be a God.

you shot your own argument in the foot.
Click to expand...

Why cannot the creator of the universe be a who or what that is nothing like that which people so far have described as gods? By the way---tell me how exactly you define a god? The more narrowly you define it, the more likely I am to be able to debunk it within a few minutes. And, if you define it nebulously, I can easily claim that what you describe is not a god.
 
calamity said:
Why cannot the creator of the universe be a who or what that is nothing like that which people so far have described as gods? By the way---tell me how exactly you define a god?
Click to expand...

god is general is defined by a being that has onimpotent power and knowledge.
which would be required to create something like a universe.
 
ludin said:
god is general is defined by a being that has onimpotent power and knowledge.
which would be required to create something like a universe.
Click to expand...

If this god has omnipotent power and knowledge, why then did he make a mistake and need to correct it with a mythical flood?
 
calamity said:
If this god has omnipotent power and knowledge, why then did he make a mistake and need to correct it with a mythical flood?
Click to expand...

this has nothing to do with your original statement and hence is a red herring argument.
why can't you stay on topic is the bigger question.

I simply pointed out that you shot yourself in the foot and you simply can't deal with it.
it also doesn't address the argument that I made so we also have a strawman on top of a red herring.
 
ludin said:
this has nothing to do with your original statement and hence is a red herring argument.
why can't you stay on topic is the bigger question.
Click to expand...
Why can you not understand that a higher power or super-intelligent being does not have to be a god? In fact, I will argue that it is not a god since gods, as we have defined them, do not exist.

I simply pointed out that you shot yourself in the foot and you simply can't deal with it.
it also doesn't address the argument that I made so we also have a strawman on top of a red herring.
Click to expand...

You claimed that the creator of the universe has to be omnipotent and all knowing---I say that is false. A being could easily have created the universe as an experiment or a high energy source simply created it unconsciously. Both are possible without the need for the "omnipotent and all knowing" mumbo jumbo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom