Topic: PROVING GOD WITHOUT THE BIBLE

[bumblebee]

We can prove that the creator exists by the very existences or evidence of his creation.

In the same manner we can prove that somebody built or created say, a car, a watch, a house, an amplifier. All of which are by the way a lot more simpler than creating life, man, earth or the universe. All these most certainly can't  create themselves or exist by chance. It takes a lot more faith to believe in chance than to believe in the existence of God.

Again, that's not proof. It's just something you believe in, which is fine.

Curious, you said creator. Can it not be creators? Who created the creator?

[vonTrappRap]

Strange thread.

There's no way to prove god. Either you believe there is a god because of personal reasons (i.e. - faith), or you don't. But proof is out of the question. What it all comes down to, really, is that admitting that you don't know the answer to a question is better than trying to attribute it to supernatural means.

Saying that everything around us is creation is inaccurate, because that reasoning starts with the assumption that there is a creator, thus labelling things all around us the creator's creation. So with that line of thinking, one already starts at the point that they are supposed to prove rather than arriving at it. Furthermore, I don't believe in a creator because using the term "creator" implies intent and I don't have any reason to think that there was any intent in how the universe started and how it evolved.

The big bang is a "singularity". Meaning it's physically impossible to understand what state anything was in before it occurred. There are some educated guesses, but they're completely unproveable, and always will be.

[Nelson de Leon]

Strange thread.

There's no way to prove god. Either you believe there is a god because of personal reasons (i.e. - faith), or you don't. But proof is out of the question. What it all comes down to, really, is that admitting that you don't know the answer to a question is better than trying to attribute it to supernatural means.

Saying that everything around us is creation is inaccurate, because that reasoning starts with the assumption that there is a creator, thus labelling things all around us the creator's creation. So with that line of thinking, one already starts at the point that they are supposed to prove rather than arriving at it. Furthermore, I don't believe in a creator because using the term "creator" implies intent and I don't have any reason to think that there was any intent in how the universe started and how it evolved.

The big bang is a "singularity". Meaning it's physically impossible to understand what state anything was in before it occurred. There are some educated guesses, but they're completely unproveable, and always will be.

I see nothing wrong with the assumption of creation - creator relationship. Unless you believe that there is no creator?

So does it mean that you believe that the Big Bang appeared out of nothing?

[docelmo]

Let's simplify it..
say I have a red car in my driveway. Now explain to me how this came in into existence? Did it's engine, gears and parts create itself? By Chance? Or by it's creator?

Now, let's take the universe as whole. The universe is govern by laws and fundamental constants that if you change just one factor then the universe would not exist at all. Did all these factors just came in existence by chance?

Everything around us started to exist in the distant past, thus it implies that everything "all matter" was caused to exist by something other than itself. If you don't like to call that "creation" that's fine.

Lastly, it is not by faith or belief that I know  both sir bumblebee or Sir Fontaine exists. The proof of their existence are the presence of their comments in this forum. They created coherent sentences that can be understood. Isn't it  a good enough Proof of existence? Now, compare that to the author of the laws of nature and DNA....still not proof of His existence? What kind of proof are you looking for anyway?

Saying that it is only by belief in the existence of God or Creator is inaccurate. The laws of nature and the universe are facts and not a product of belief. The presence of information in the DNA is is based on fact and not belief...these facts in nature can only come from a powerful intelligent mind beyond space and time.

We may not know the entire reason or intent, but allow me just once to bring in the Bible and see what He has to say about it:
Romans 1:20
 "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."
I think that's very clear....

There is only one Creator and by definition is not created.

[docelmo]

I see nothing wrong with the assumption of creation - creator relationship. Unless you believe that there is no creator?

So does it mean that you believe that the Big Bang appeared out of nothing?

….and may I say compared to the Mind of the Creator.....We and I mean Everyone are all Retards!

[vonTrappRap]

I see nothing wrong with the assumption of creation - creator relationship. Unless you believe that there is no creator?

What proof (or at least theories rooted in sound logic) do we have that such a relationship exists? After all, this thread revolves around the discussion of proof and proving things. All we have is... this - everything that we can observe. It's just there. There's is nothing inherent in its mere existence that shows the presence of a creator which created it.

I don't believe in a creator, because like I said, the term "creator" implies intent. I don't believe in things coming to be because of a creator that had the intention of creating it. I believe that things just happened. At a certain point, for reasons beyond our comprehension, the universe developed into this hot, dense state and then the big bang happened.

So does it mean that you believe that the Big Bang appeared out of nothing?

I don't believe in anything with regards to what happened before the big bang. What I believe is that whatever it was, it's beyond the realm of current human comprehension. We are too restricted with certain concepts: That everything has a beginning and everything has an end... That time flows in a straight line... That something cannot come from absolute nothingness... And it's difficult for the vast majority of us to think beyond that. I believe that the answer lies in thinking beyond that. But for now, we don't know. No one knows. And like I previously mentioned, admitting that is better than trying to attribute it to supernatural being.

[vonTrappRap]

Now, let's take the universe as whole. The universe is govern by laws and fundamental constants that if you change just one factor then the universe would not exist at all. Did all these factors just came in existence by chance?

We don't know.

Everything around us started to exist in the distant past, thus it implies that everything "all matter" was caused to exist by something other than itself. If you don't like to call that "creation" that's fine.

There were probably a sequence of events that led up to the big bang, and the current conception of the big bang model assumes the pre-existence of energy, time, and space. But even the Big Bang model does not comment about their origin or the cause of the dense and high temperature initial state of the universe because there is no current logic that will sufficiently support it.

However, to transfer the entire academic discourse - the philosophical, scientific, and metaphysical inquiry - regarding the origins of the universe to the existence of a supernatural creator with the intent to create is pure folly if without the backing of some semblance of reason. If our argument is that there must have been a creator because we are surrounded by creation that originated from a time before the big bang... then that is simply faith... that is not proof.

We know how trees grow. We know how living things reproduce. We know the cycle of the seasons. We know so many things about the world and the universe grounded on hard science and irrefutable data. And in all of these scientific discoveries, there is no proof of a god or supernatural creator. But just because we have not yet uncovered the ultimate origin of the universe, do we have a license to claim that as proof of a god? No, I think not.

Lastly, it is not by faith or belief that I know  both sir bumblebee or Sir Fontaine exists. The proof of their existence are the presence of their comments in this forum. They created coherent sentences that can be understood. Isn't it  a good enough Proof of existence? Now, compare that to the author of the laws of nature and DNA....still not proof of His existence? What kind of proof are you looking for anyway?

You are making the logical assumption that we exist as creators of these comments because of the rules that you yourself know to be true due to first-hand observable, repeatable experience: You know that you exist. You know that you are typing words on a device and transmitting them with the intent to communicate over the internet under a certain alias. Thus, when you see other aliases posting other comments, you are making the logical assumption that similar beings exist who are creating these messages.

However, that's not proof. Closer to actual proof would be if you were right here where I am, seeing me type this message, and clicking "Post" while logged in under the alias "fontaine" - that is a much better argument for proof. Because otherwise, do you really know that I exist despite your very logical, reasonable assumption? Do you think I am a person? How do you know that I am not a piece of software or bot? What if bumblebee and fontaine are in fact the same piece of artificial intelligence posting as difference aliases and not separate, distinct, living, breathing persons? Even if you say that I still "exist" in that case, is it still the same state of existence that you initially thought to be? If such a state of existence is already so tenuous for such a basic example as people posting on an internet forum, then how much more tenuous could the existence of a supernatural creator for the origin of the universe be?

Ultimately, my point is that you do not know for certain the entire extent of the laws of the universe to make a similar logical assumption about its origins and attribute it to a god/creator, and it's most certainly not proof.

Saying that it is only by belief in the existence of God or Creator is inaccurate. The laws of nature and the universe are facts and not a product of belief. The presence of information in the DNA is is based on fact and not belief...these facts in nature can only come from a powerful intelligent mind beyond space and time.

The laws of nature and the universe are facts - yes.

The presence of information in DNA exists - yes.

These facts in nature can only come from a powerful intelligent mind beyond space and time - no.

The first two have proof to back them up. That last part is belief/faith. That last part tries to answer the question: How is it that the laws of nature and the universe behave according to principles that can be described by logical formulas? It is only because we have no answers for it in solid, experimental/observation-based science that people tend to default to faith-based answers, but those faith-based answers do not have proof to back them up.

[Nelson de Leon]

1. What proof (or at least theories rooted in sound logic) do we have that such a relationship exists? After all, this thread revolves around the discussion of proof and proving things. All we have is... this - everything that we can observe. It's just there. There's is nothing inherent in its mere existence that shows the presence of a creator which created it.

I don't believe in a creator, because like I said, the term "creator" implies intent. I don't believe in things coming to be because of a creator that had the intention of creating it. I believe that things just happened. At a certain point, for reasons beyond our comprehension, the universe developed into this hot, dense state and then the big bang happened.

I don't believe in anything with regards to what happened before the big bang. What I believe is that whatever it was, it's beyond the realm of current human comprehension. We are too restricted with certain concepts: That everything has a beginning and everything has an end... That time flows in a straight line... That something cannot come from absolute nothingness... And it's difficult for the vast majority of us to think beyond that. I believe that the answer lies in thinking beyond that. But for now, we don't know. No one knows. And like I previously mentioned, 3. admitting that is better than trying to attribute it to supernatural being.

1. Could you cite an example of a thing that, as you said is not made without intent? That everything is just happening? As an example, you don't have an intent of posting in this topic but it just happened without your knowledge?

2. Isn't it true that something cannot come out of nothingness?

3. How can admitting that you do not know better than trying to attribute it to a supernatural being? Hypothetically if I'm wrong and you're right, the belief in a supernatural being (God) what is there to loose? However if I am right and you are wrong, the consequences would be devastating in the end.

[nerveblocker]

Man's finite mind cannot fully explain the infinite existence of God.  If man cannot fully comprehend God, faith comes in. It is just a personal choice if one should believe or not.

[bumblebee]

Put it this way. Try opening a bank account for god. See what happens. You think it's silly? Well, because it is.

Also, why the need to prove our beliefs? May duda ba tayo?

[vonTrappRap]

1. Could you cite an example of a thing that, as you said is not made without intent? That everything is just happening? As an example, you don't have an intent of posting in this topic but it just happened without your knowledge?

When a boulder rolls down the side of a hill during an earthquake and leaves an indentation in the soil before it crashes into the plains below, then it rains and a puddle forms in the indentation left by boulder... who "created" that puddle? Whose intention was it for that puddle to form?

2. Isn't it true that something cannot come out of nothingness?

We don't know that, because we don't know what absolute nothingness is. It's just a concept and not something that anyone has ever observed or experienced. We know that something can come from something because we experience it every day. The concept of "something" is observable and we make educated predictions based on their properties every day. But the concept of "nothing" - the absence of all space, time, matter - is something that we don't know anything about, so no one can factually say or prove that something can or cannot come out of nothingness.

3. How can admitting that you do not know better than trying to attribute it to a supernatural being?

Because attributing something we do not understand to the supernatural is not grounded in the pursuit of truth. There is nothing factual about it. Admitting that we do not know opens up avenues for the search for truth and knowledge, but attributing what we don't know to the existence of a supernatural being only gives people a license to attribute everything not understandable in a similar manner and lets them live their lives based on a set of values not rooted in anything true or observable.

Hypothetically if I'm wrong and you're right, the belief in a supernatural being (God) what is there to loose? However if I am right and you are wrong, the consequences would be devastating in the end.

The consequences of people believing in a one true god through the ages have already been devastating: The crusades, terrorism, religious wars, discrimination, etc. So much hate has already been spread in the world because of the belief in a god. Parents mutilate their children's bodies without consent (i.e. - circumcision) in the name of religious tradition. Families have falling outs because of religious disputes. So there is a lot of real consequences rooted in the belief of a god.

[dpogs]

When a boulder rolls down the side of a hill during an earthquake and leaves an indentation in the soil before it crashes into the plains below, then it rains and a puddle forms in the indentation left by boulder... who "created" that puddle? Whose intention was it for that puddle to form?

Maybe the gravity or other force or combination of boulder rain and graivty.... Who knows... Parang kotse sino ba gumawa ng kotse ang designer ang production crew o ang robor...What we only knows is that something or someone created that puddle or that car. The puddle/car didnt just pop out from nothing.

[bumblebee]

^He was illustrating the random nature of events.

[Nelson de Leon]

1. When a boulder rolls down the side of a hill during an earthquake and leaves an indentation in the soil before it crashes into the plains below, then it rains and a puddle forms in the indentation left by boulder... who "created" that puddle? Whose intention was it for that puddle to form?

2. We don't know that, because we don't know what absolute nothingness is. It's just a concept and not something that anyone has ever observed or experienced. We know that something can come from something because we experience it every day. The concept of "something" is observable and we make educated predictions based on their properties every day. But the concept of "nothing" - the absence of all space, time, matter - is something that we don't know anything about, so no one can factually say or prove that something can or cannot come out of nothingness.

3. Because attributing something we do not understand to the supernatural is not grounded in the pursuit of truth. There is nothing factual about it. Admitting that we do not know opens up avenues for the search for truth and knowledge, but attributing what we don't know to the existence of a supernatural being only gives people a license to attribute everything not understandable in a similar manner and lets them live their lives based on a set of values not rooted in anything true or observable.

4. The consequences of people believing in a one true god through the ages have already been devastating: The crusades, terrorism, religious wars, discrimination, etc. So much hate has already been spread in the world because of the belief in a god. Parents mutilate their children's bodies without consent (i.e. - circumcision) in the name of religious tradition. Families have falling outs because of religious disputes. So there is a lot of real consequences rooted in the belief of a god.

1. Your example is not "made without intent" but an event.

2. Yes it's not something or someone has experienced, hence as you said educated predictions. However by saying that something came out of nothing is also an educated prediction.

3. Attributing something to a supernatural is also a pursuit of truth because there is an objective. Truth is not bound by material things. Non visible things are also bounded by truth. It doesn't stop people from searching avenues of knowledge.

4. Even in the non-belief of one true God can also devastating. Said events like family disputes, hatred and discrimination is also present with or without belief. Not having a belief doesn't make us perfect also and neither does belief. Yes there are definitely wars caused by religion. However only 6.98% of wars are attributed to religion. Majority of which is non religion based on the encyclopedia of Wars. Circumcision? It has been proven to be medically beneficial to children because it lessens the risk of urinary track infection. Just because it's a religious tradition doesn't make it wrong. Personal question sir, you may choose not to answer it. Are you circumcised? If yes, did you regret being circumcised? The consequences you cited are not rooted to the belief in one God.

[tigkal]

Man's finite mind cannot fully explain the infinite existence of God.  If man cannot fully comprehend God, faith comes in. It is just a personal choice if one should believe or not.

This is similar to those Tards, whether yellow or duts, It is a belief, and sometimes no amount of proof or information is enough to sway their faith. When you deal with faith, no reason is needed. It is either you believe or believe more.

When it comes to religion, faith is okay, but when it comes to politics, faith in a leader is not okay according to the other side and the feeling is mutual.

I have read that for those with faith, even with data and information, they will never change their faith. I tried a question for believers a scenario, that some aliens would appear and perform all miracles mentioned in the bible, including creation of man, and would they still believe in God as before? Answers vary from it will never happen and still stand with their beliefs. That is faith.

[vonTrappRap]

1. Your example is not "made without intent" but an event.

My original statement was that there is nothing inherent in the existence of things that proves the presence of a "creator." You made me cite an example of something that was brought into existence without intent and I gave you one. If you want to call its coming into existence "an event" that's fine, but it doesn't change the fact that puddles exist and there are many other things that exist due to the randomness of the universe, beyond any intention of anything or anyone to create.

Everything we can observe is brought into existence in one way or another. Some because they were made and some because they just happened.

2. Yes it's not something or someone has experienced, hence as you said educated predictions. However by saying that something came out of nothing is also an educated prediction.

You can call it a reasonable guess - sure. We can debate how educated the guess is and go around metaphysical ideas surrounding what exactly absolute nothingness is. But ultimately, the point is that saying "something cannot come out of nothing" is not a truth, and our inability to grasp the concept of "the absence of all space, time, and matter" just goes back to what I originally asserted that we are too restricted by certain concepts to fully grasp what could have preceded the big bang.

3. Attributing something to a supernatural is also a pursuit of truth because there is an objective. Truth is not bound by material things. Non visible things are also bounded by truth. It doesn't stop people from searching avenues of knowledge.

Truth, knowledge, facts - these require observable proof. There is nothing that you can observe that offers scientific proof in the existence of a god, therefore attributing what we cannot understand to the existence of a god is not grounded in the truth. It is grounded in faith. What is grounded in truth is stating that we all simply do not know what preceded the creation of the universe.

4. Even in the non-belief of one true God can also devastating. Said events like family disputes, hatred and discrimination is also present with or without belief. Not having a belief doesn't make us perfect also and neither does belief.

I have no interest in the non-belief of one true god either. Besides, your statement was what was there to lose in the belief of a god - and I gave you examples of many things that humanity has already lost in people's belief of a god. Anyone is free to believe what they want to believe. I would rather that they didn't affect other people with their beliefs, but they are free to have whatever faith or belief they choose, regardless. Parlaying this discussion into a discourse about faith-based belief instead of provable science is beside the point, imo.

Yes there are definitely wars caused by religion. However only 6.98% of wars are attributed to religion.

Which still renders the answer to the question "What is there to lose?" as "A lot."

Circumcision? It has been proven to be medically beneficial to children because it lessens the risk of urinary track infection. Just because it's a religious tradition doesn't make it wrong.

It's not wrong because it is religious tradition. There are a lot of religious traditions that are not wrong. But It's wrong nontheless because no one should force you to mutilate your own body in such a radical, irreparable manner without your consent or any significant medical need.

Here is a more eloquently written, heavily referenced, and detailed rebuttal of the UTI claim than I could provide on my own.

To sum up:

- There are methodological issues with the studies done by Wiswell, including potential for selection bias and improper tratment of intact infants. Retrospective chart reviews are problematic because circumcision is not always recorded, and so some of the UTIs could have come from boys who were circucmised but not recorded as such. Further, breastfeeding may be a confounder.

- It is possible that the surgical antiseptic used during the circumcision is responsible for the observed difference.

- Girls have higher rates of UTI than intact boys, yet are afforded no special concern.

- You'd need to circumcise about fifty infants to prevent one UTI, which can usually be cleared by antibiotics.

So if people want to have their children permanently mutilated because it can provide a small chance of preventing an infection that can often be cleared up by antibiotics, there is legally nothing stopping them from doing so. But there are ethical and sexual reasons why men should keep their foreskin unless they make an informed decision to do otherwise as an adult.

Personal question sir, you may choose not to answer it. Are you circumcised? If yes, did you regret being circumcised? The consequences you cited are not rooted to the belief in one God.

While I'm circumcised and have a properly functioning penis/reproductive system, I'm strongly anti-circumcision primarily for the ethical reasons stated above. I am circumcised purely because of social convention and no other reason. I don't regret being circumcised, but I would have wished to have made the decision myself at the appropriate age because it is my body.

The consequences you cited are not rooted to the belief in one God.

Circumcision is primarily a religious practice.

[Nelson de Leon]

My original statement was that there is nothing inherent in the existence of things that proves the presence of a "creator." You made me cite an example of something that was brought into existence without intent and I gave you one. If you want to call its coming into existence "an event" that's fine, but it doesn't change the fact that puddles exist and 1. there are many other things that exist due to the randomness of the universe, beyond any intention of anything or anyone to create.

Everything we can observe is brought into existence in one way or another. Some because they were made and some because they just happened.
 
You can call it a reasonable guess - sure. We can debate how educated the guess is and go around metaphysical ideas surrounding what exactly absolute nothingness is. But ultimately, the point is that saying 2. "something cannot come out of nothing" is not a truth, and our inability to grasp the concept of "the absence of all space, time, and matter" just goes back to what 3. I originally asserted that we are too restricted by certain concepts to fully grasp what could have preceded the big bang.
 
4. Truth, knowledge, facts - these require observable proof. There is nothing that you can observe that offers scientific proof in the existence of a god, therefore attributing what we cannot understand to the existence of a god is not grounded in the truth. It is grounded in faith. What is grounded in truth is stating that we all simply do not know what preceded the creation of the universe.

I have no interest in the non-belief of one true god either. Besides, your statement was what was there to lose in the belief of a god - and I gave you examples of many things that humanity has already lost in people's belief of a god. Anyone is free to believe what they want to believe. I would rather that they didn't affect other people with their beliefs, but they are free to have whatever faith or belief they choose, regardless. 5. Parlaying this discussion into a discourse about faith-based belief instead of provable science is beside the point, imo.

6. Which still renders the answer to the question "What is there to lose?" as "A lot."

It's not wrong because it is religious tradition. There are a lot of religious traditions that are not wrong. But It's wrong nontheless because 7. no one should force you to mutilate your own body in such a radical, irreparable manner without your consent or any significant medical need.

8. Here is a more eloquently written, heavily referenced, and detailed rebuttal of the UTI claim than I could provide on my own.

To sum up:

- There are methodological issues with the studies done by Wiswell, including potential for selection bias and improper tratment of intact infants. Retrospective chart reviews are problematic because circumcision is not always recorded, and so some of the UTIs could have come from boys who were circucmised but not recorded as such. Further, breastfeeding may be a confounder.

- It is possible that the surgical antiseptic used during the circumcision is responsible for the observed difference.

- Girls have higher rates of UTI than intact boys, yet are afforded no special concern.

- You'd need to circumcise about fifty infants to prevent one UTI, which can usually be cleared by antibiotics.

8. So if people want to have their children permanently mutilated because it can provide a small chance of preventing an infection that can often be cleared up by antibiotics, there is legally nothing stopping them from doing so. But there are ethical and sexual reasons why men should keep their foreskin unless they make an informed decision to do otherwise as an adult.

While I'm circumcised and have a properly functioning penis/reproductive system, I'm strongly anti-circumcision primarily for the ethical reasons stated above. I am circumcised purely because of social convention and no other reason. I don't regret being circumcised, but I would have wished to have made the decision myself at the appropriate age because it is my body.

Circumcision is primarily a religious practice.

1. With regards to randomness, are you aware of the millions of possibilities that in order for the "randomness" of the existence of the universe to occur just to put everything into existence?

2. Medjo nalito ako dito. Correct me here. If "something cannot come out of nothing" is not a truth, then "something can come out of nothing" is the truth?

3. I do not see any restrictions by certain concepts that would prevent us from studying the big bang, that is, if the big bang is truth. What are those concepts?

4. There are so many things in life that are not observable but are definite truths. Love, hatred, sin, morality, intentions to name a few.

5. Did you know that not believing in a God who created everything takes a tremendous faith? Faith is not limited to a belief in a God. Faith also applies to non-belief in a God.

6. Bringing up an example that you gave specifically wars, by mathematics, deducting 6.98% of wars caused by religion in general, leaves us with 93.02% wars that is not caused by religion. Isn't that a lot more?

7. By consent you felt you were robbed by your parents of the required consent despite their love for you, knowing that it would be good for you? Is it because there is no trust involved (which again, is not observable but a truth)? If ever they would ask you that time, do you think you are capable of answering back? And would you also want your parents to ask you if they could provide food and nutrients for you to keep you alive? No pun intended sir. Just to site an analogy. With love also comes responsibility for life. I would interpret it as parents trying their very best to provide for the needs of their child because of love. I on the other hand was circumcised during my grade school days. And sir, during the "healing" time, I envy your case because you got circumcised during birth. This doesn't mean I should blame them or for not having me circumcised at birth or perhaps tell them that they did not fulfill their responsibility to me.

8. As they say, an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure. Hehe! Anti-biotics are not really good for our bodies. That article was a 1999 reading. Here is a 2012 article:

Benefits of infant circumcision outweighs the risk.

"Scientific research shows clearer health benefits to the procedure than had previously been demonstrated. According to a systematic and critical review of the scientific literature, the health benefits of circumcision include lower risks of acquiring HIV, genital herpes, human papilloma virus and syphilis. Circumcision also lowers the risk of penile cancer over a lifetime; reduces the risk of cervical cancer in sexual partners, and lowers the risk of urinary tract infections in the first year of life," the group said.

[vonTrappRap]

1. With regards to randomness, are you aware of the millions of possibilities that in order for the "randomness" of the existence of the universe to occur just to put everything into existence?

Sure. Millions - probably even billions (maybe even many factors greater than that) - of possibilities... yes. And in the billions of years that the universe has existed, in all of its trillions of planetary systems across the vast immeasurable expanse of space, this randomness that exists in the universe may have very well contributed to creating this place in this time where we humans exist and live in the way that we do in our infinitesimally small corner of the universe as we do now.

2. Medjo nalito ako dito. Correct me here. If "something cannot come out of nothing" is not a truth, then "something can come out of nothing" is the truth?

No, that's not truth either because like I said, no one can grasp the concept of absolute nothing. That's why, like what I've been saying all along: We don't know.

We don't know if something can come out of nothing. We also don't know if something cannot come out of nothing. They're not mutually exclusive. In fact, they are very closely paired because if you don't know one due to your inability to grasp the concept of "nothing," then you cannot also know the other.

3. I do not see any restrictions by certain concepts that would prevent us from studying the big bang, that is, if the big bang is truth. What are those concepts?

The brightest minds that study quantum mechanics and theoretical physics cannot even wrap their heads around what preceded the big bang. The model we have for our universe - from the big bang to now - are full of theories built on extrapolation and educated guesses based on the laws that we have observed in the known universe... and none of these laws can account for what preceded the big bang. We have theories based on science, but we have no proof.

Our minds are conditioned to think that everything has a beginning and everything has an end... That time flows chronologically forwards... That something cannot come from absolute nothingness... And it's difficult for the vast majority of us to think beyond that. I think that the answer to what came before the big bang lies in thinking beyond that.

Like in the theory of "the big bounce," physicists have considered the possibility that our universe may have been the result of a previous universe - governed by possibly different physical laws (i.e. maybe in that universe time moved backwards for example) - that contracted until it reached a point of extreme heat and density that it exploded (or "bounced") back into the ever-expanding universe that we know now.

4. There are so many things in life that are not observable but are definite truths. Love, hatred, sin, morality, intentions to name a few.

Those aren't definite truths. The problem is that those are not "things." They are concepts not contained within the realm of hard science, but rather in cultural science. Their manifestation is observable through broad societal patterns, but they cannot be contained within formulas and cannot be measured. Some claim that they can be measured by chemical compounds (i.e. - dopamine, serotonin, oxytocin, endorphins, etc), but the argument for this is tenuous at best.

But still we believe that love exists since we can observe the manifestation of the societal concept of "love" in our family and friends.

The existence of a god creator on the other hand does not have any observational basis that it can be based on.

5. Did you know that not believing in a God who created everything takes a tremendous faith? Faith is not limited to a belief in a God. Faith also applies to non-belief in a God.

Definitely. That's why atheists cannot prove the non-existence of a god and theists cannot prove the existence of a god. This is why that discussion is contained purely within the realm of faith and it's personally not a discussion I'm interested in.

6. Bringing up an example that you gave specifically wars, by mathematics, deducting 6.98% of wars caused by religion in general, leaves us with 93.02% wars that is not caused by religion. Isn't that a lot more?

Yes, but the 93.02% of wars not caused by religion has no relevance to your question of "What is there to lose (in believing in a god)?" precisely by the definition that they are not caused by religion. It's neither a pro nor a con for religion, so it's irrelevant. Which still leaves us with 6.98% of wars... which still translates to millions - maybe even billions - of lives lost since people were able to wage war on each other... which seems like a pretty big loss brought about by the belief of something supernatural, unprovable, and unobservable.

7. By consent you felt you were robbed by your parents of the required consent despite their love for you, knowing that it would be good for you? Is it because there is no trust involved (which again, is not observable but a truth)? If ever they would ask you that time, do you think you are capable of answering back? And would you also want your parents to ask you if they could provide food and nutrients for you to keep you alive?

8. As they say, an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure. Hehe! Anti-biotics are not really good for our bodies. That article was a 1999 reading. Here is a 2012 article:

I have no problems with having being circumcised at a young age. I don't feel violated or robbed of anything. But that doesn't mean others feel the same way. And I still feel that society should move towards making circumcision a choice that a person should make himself when he comes of age since its his body on the line and the medical merits vs the risks of circumcision are largely debatable and inconclusive.

Though to be perfectly honest, we can largely forgo the topic of circumcision as "something to lose" with regards to belief in the existence of a god since arguments for it on either side can can go on for ages yet the issue is very nitpicky in the greater scheme of things.

Larger atrocities brought about by the belief in the existence of a god are other things I mentioned such as the crusades, jihads, terrorism, religious wars, and discrimination. Those are much bigger and broader issues that singling out the issue about circumcision seems like such a minor quibble.

So I maintain that there is definitely a lot to lose with the continuing belief of people that there is a god as evidenced by those atrocities.

[Nelson de Leon]

Sure. Millions - probably even billions (maybe even many factors greater than that) - of possibilities... yes. And in the billions of years that the universe has existed, in all of its trillions of planetary systems across the vast immeasurable expanse of space, this randomness that exists in the universe may have very well contributed to creating this place in this time where we humans exist and live in the way that we do in our infinitesimally small corner of the universe as we do now.
No, that's not truth either because like I said, no one can grasp the concept of absolute nothing. That's why, like what I've been saying all along: We don't know.

We don't know if something can come out of nothing. We also don't know if something cannot come out of nothing. They're not mutually exclusive. In fact, they are very closely paired because if you don't know one due to your inability to grasp the concept of "nothing," then you cannot also know the other.
The brightest minds that study quantum mechanics and theoretical physics cannot even wrap their heads around what preceded the big bang. The model we have for our universe - from the big bang to now - are full of theories built on extrapolation and educated guesses based on the laws that we have observed in the known universe... and none of these laws can account for what preceded the big bang. We have theories based on science, but we have no proof.

Our minds are conditioned to think that everything has a beginning and everything has an end... That time flows chronologically forwards... That something cannot come from absolute nothingness... And it's difficult for the vast majority of us to think beyond that. I think that the answer to what came before the big bang lies in thinking beyond that.

Like in the theory of "the big bounce," physicists have considered the possibility that our universe may have been the result of a previous universe - governed by possibly different physical laws (i.e. maybe in that universe time moved backwards for example) - that contracted until it reached a point of extreme heat and density that it exploded (or "bounced") back into the ever-expanding universe that we know now.

1. Those aren't definite truths. The problem is that those are not "things." They are concepts not contained within the realm of hard science, but rather in cultural science. Their manifestation is observable through broad societal patterns, but they cannot be contained within formulas and cannot be measured. Some claim that they can be measured by chemical compounds (i.e. - dopamine, serotonin, oxytocin, endorphins, etc), but the argument for this is tenuous at best.

But still we believe that love exists since we can observe the manifestation of the societal concept of "love" in our family and friends.

The existence of a god creator on the other hand does not have any observational basis that it can be based on.

2. Definitely. That's why atheists cannot prove the non-existence of a god and theists cannot prove the existence of a god. This is why that discussion is contained purely within the realm of faith and it's personally not a discussion I'm interested in.

3. Yes, but the 93.02% of wars not caused by religion has no relevance to your question of "What is there to lose (in believing in a god)?" precisely by the definition that they are not caused by religion.

It's neither a pro nor a con for religion, so it's irrelevant. Which still leaves us with 6.98% of wars... 4. which still translates to millions - maybe even billions - of lives lost since people were able to wage war on each other... which seems like a pretty big loss brought about by the belief of something supernatural, unprovable, and unobservable.

I have no problems with having being circumcised at a young age. I don't feel violated or robbed of anything. But that doesn't mean others feel the same way.

5. And I still feel that society should move towards making circumcision a choice that a person should make himself when he comes of age since its his body on the line and the medical merits vs the risks of circumcision are largely debatable and inconclusive.

6. Though to be perfectly honest, we can largely forgo the topic of circumcision as "something to lose" with regards to belief in the existence of a god since arguments for it on either side can can go on for ages yet the issue is very nitpicky in the greater scheme of things.

7. Larger atrocities brought about by the belief in the existence of a god are other things I mentioned such as the crusades, jihads, terrorism, religious wars, and discrimination. Those are much bigger and broader issues that singling out the issue about circumcision seems like such a minor quibble.

So I maintain that there is definitely a lot to lose with the continuing belief of people that there is a god as evidenced by those atrocities.

If you "do not know" idea means you do not have the knowledge of how things existed, then how can you "know" that God did not create everything? "Do not know" means no knowledge of said topic. Then you say "I know God did not create everything". Again contradicting statements.

"I do not know where everything started to exist" = No knowledge of topic.

"I know God did not create everything" = Knowledge about the topic.

Then it should be "I do not know if God created everything".

You cannot claim to have no knowledge and also provide a definite claim that you have knowledge that God did not create everything.

1. By claiming that it is not a definite truth, love etc, that would mean it is not a truth. I know for sure that it is true because it is universal. However you also stated that it exists. How can you argue that love exists but claim that it is not a truth. Again, conflicting ideas.

2. That would be a subjective point of view. You claim that it is by faith that God exist and does not exist. My claim is that it is by logical truth. I am not dwelling on faith as proof.

3. There is a connection sir. You blame religion as a cause of war. I proved to you that religion is not the cause of majority of war hence my claim that there is a lot to lose without religion, or belief in God, which consist of that 92%.

4. This is discrimination sir. You blame religion as a cause of war. Yes millions or billions of lives have been lost. However with religion as a cause of war, millions still perish. Our past wars was perhaps inevitable and there will be collateral damage. But the fact that war is inevitable, with only a small factor from religion is a significant number. You aims your sights on a "pretty big loss" in the war caused by religion but it seems the war not caused by religion is pretty okay with you because it is not caused by religion. There lies the problem of discrimination.

Now maybe to end this topic of war as your example, my stand is that war is caused by the imperfection of man to resolve certain problems.

5. I can agree with you on that. But in my case, I wanted to be circumcised at birth but wasn't given the chance to tell my parents during my baby days. Hehe! However yeah. If it would be a law then I guess it's fine with me.

6. Yes sir. I agree with you. As of now, it will still be up to our parents to decide for us.

7. Again, you singled out religion as a cause of that small percentage of war. The larger atrocity is that war cause by no belief. I cannot dispute with you when you say that there is a lot to lose because that would be your subjective point of view. Numbers prove otherwise.

Parang ganito yan:

Wars caused by religion = 7%

Wars caused by greed = 93%

You should be focusing your attention on the 93%. But by choosing to focus your attention on the 7%, that's illogical and have definitely showed the discrimination against people who believe that there is a God.

You do not believe in a God however you show discrimination to those who believe in a God. If I may state my opinion, there will still be discrimination with or without God. And so the same goes with wars.

[bumblebee]

Can we cite wars that weren't caused or have nothing to do with religion?

[Nelson de Leon]

Can we cite wars that weren't caused or have nothing to do with religion?

Korean & Vietnam war with US?

[vonTrappRap]

If you "do not know" idea means you do not have the knowledge of how things existed, then how can you "know" that God did not create everything? "Do not know" means no knowledge of said topic. Then you say "I know God did not create everything". Again contradicting statements.

"I do not know where everything started to exist" = No knowledge of topic.

"I know God did not create everything" = Knowledge about the topic.

Then it should be "I do not know if God created everything".

You cannot claim to have no knowledge and also provide a definite claim that you have knowledge that God did not create everything.

I never said that I know that the universe was not created by a god. These were my statements regarding that:

• There's no way to prove god.
• I don't believe in a creator.
• There's is nothing inherent in the mere existence of the universe that shows the presence of a creator which created it.
• If our argument is that there must have been a creator because we are surrounded by creation that originated from a time before the big bang... then that is simply faith... that is not proof.
• in all of these scientific discoveries, there is no proof of a god or supernatural creator. But just because we have not yet uncovered the ultimate origin of the universe, do we have a license to claim that as proof of a god? No, I think not.
• Ultimately, my point is that you do not know for certain the entire extent of the laws of the universe to make a similar logical assumption about its origins and attribute it to a god/creator, and it's most certainly not proof.
• attributing something we do not understand to the supernatural is not grounded in the pursuit of truth. There is nothing factual about it.

I repeat the same idea several more times, but my point is this: "There is no proof that there is a god that created everything." That is very different from saying "There is definite knowledge that there is no god that created everything." I have not claimed that knowledge in any of my statements. The lack of proof that there is a god does not prove the opposite. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I'm not saying that a god doesn't exist. I'm saying that there is no proof that a god exists. Those are two very different things.

1. By claiming that it is not a definite truth, love etc, that would mean it is not a truth. I know for sure that it is true because it is universal. However you also stated that it exists. How can you argue that love exists but claim that it is not a truth. Again, conflicting ideas.

I am not arguing that love exists. My statement was that we believe that love exists. And we believe that love exists due to the combination of a cultural concept of "love" that has been passed on for generations + our own personal experiences that validates that concept. So on a personal level, we can validate the claim that love exists. But it is not a universal truth. You cannot project this truth on to the rest of the billions of people around the planet because you have no knowledge of all of their cultural and personal experiences. If someone else says that they don't believe love exists, then that's okay. I can't argue to them that love exists because I have no scientific proof that love exists.

2. That would be a subjective point of view. You claim that it is by faith that God exist and does not exist. My claim is that it is by logical truth. I am not dwelling on faith as proof.

Just like love, there is no scientific logic that can prove that god exists either. And you have not presented me any scientific logic that god exists also. The only argument that anyone has presented was that "there is creation, therefore there is a creator" - but again, there is nothing grounded in science that can support this claim, especially considering that there are observable instances of the randomness that exists in the universe that causes things to exist. So there is simply no proof that a god exists. Nothing can prove that it is true.

You can claim to believe it as a personal truth though. In which case it would be faith.

3. There is a connection sir. You blame religion as a cause of war. I proved to you that religion is not the cause of majority of war hence my claim that there is a lot to lose without religion, or belief in God, which consist of that 92%.

7. Again, you singled out religion as a cause of that small percentage of war. The larger atrocity is that war cause by no belief. I cannot dispute with you when you say that there is a lot to lose because that would be your subjective point of view. Numbers prove otherwise.

Parang ganito yan:

Wars caused by religion = 7%

Wars caused by greed = 93%

You should be focusing your attention on the 93%. But by choosing to focus your attention on the 7%, that's illogical and have definitely showed the discrimination against people who believe that there is a God.

You do not believe in a God however you show discrimination to those who believe in a God. If I may state my opinion, there will still be discrimination with or without God. And so the same goes with wars.

4. This is discrimination sir. You blame religion as a cause of war. Yes millions or billions of lives have been lost. However with religion as a cause of war, millions still perish. Our past wars was perhaps inevitable and there will be collateral damage. But the fact that war is inevitable, with only a small factor from religion is a significant number. You aims your sights on a "pretty big loss" in the war caused by religion but it seems the war not caused by religion is pretty okay with you because it is not caused by religion. There lies the problem of discrimination.

The underlying logic here is flawed. This is what you are saying:

"The belief in a god is the cause for 7% of wars, therefore the non-belief in god is the cause for 93% of wars."

That is like saying:

"Smoking causes a small percentage of infertility, therefore not smoking causes the larger incidences of infertility."

And of course we know that is a logical fallacy because the presence or absence of smoking is not the sole factor in the incidences of infertility. There are also other factors that cause infertility that are unrelated to smoking. In the same way, the presence or absence of religion is not the sole factor in the incidences of war. 7% of wars are caused by religion while the other 93% are caused by other factors and not by the absence of religion.

Ultimately, war is never okay. Whether it is caused by religion or not, war is never okay. But making a positive case for religion because "it only accounts for 6.98% of wars" is also not okay precisely because war is never okay. Even if religion only accounted for 1% of wars, then that is still a negative argument for religion just like the remaining 99% of causes are a negative for their respective reasons. The entire 100% of reasons for war are a negative for their respective causes. I am not focusing only on religious wars because I am discriminating against religion but because that is the focus of our discussion. We are talking about the belief in a god (your original question was "What is there to lose in believing in a god?"), so only the percentage of wars caused by religion has relevance in our discussion.

[vonTrappRap]

Just to be clear: I have nothing against faith and religion. I am not an atheist. I accept that there is a possibility that a god exists and there is also a possibility that a god doesn't exist.

But the existence or non-existence of a god is in the realm of faith, not science. So in that respect, there is no way to prove that a god exists. There is no logical argument based on facts and observable data that will suffice for anyone to reasonably arrive at the conclusion that a god exists.

If you believe in a god because your faith dictates it, that's fine. If you believe in the opposite, that's fine as well. If you choose not to believe in either because it is not scientifically provable, that's fine as well.

[ninjababez®]

Korean & Vietnam war with US?

Can we cite wars that weren't caused or have nothing to do with religion?

madami naman din kasi ginagawang excuse ang religion
counted parin ba yun?   O_o

[docelmo]

Just to be clear: I have nothing against faith and religion. I am not an atheist. I accept that there is a possibility that a god exists and there is also a possibility that a god doesn't exist.

But the existence or non-existence of a god is in the realm of faith, not science. So in that respect, there is no way to prove that a god exists. There is no logical argument based on facts and observable data that will suffice for anyone to reasonably arrive at the conclusion that a god exists.

If you believe in a god because your faith dictates it, that's fine. If you believe in the opposite, that's fine as well. If you choose not to believe in either because it is not scientifically provable, that's fine as well.

Science has 3 main branches: Natural, Social and Formal. Logic and philosophy are part of formal sciences. Fields like metaphysics, ontology and epistemology area included in Philosophy of Science. What we are trying prove or disprove in not physical, not an object or phenomenon. Therefore, a combination of evidences found in all fields are needed to have a complete picture. Natural Science describes nature, while the formal sciences gives its implications and meaning.

Thus the evidence we could find in all these areas will point to the probability of God's existence or everything a product of chance or something else. So believing that "something else" exist and it caused the universe to exist is not just faith but a reasonable conclusion based on all the facts gathered in all fields of study.

And on our common sense undestanding of "existence".

If you see a house in middle of a field, what do you think is the most possible conclusion on how this house came to exist? Did the house built itself? did it happen by chance? Of did something else caused the house to exist. This "Something Else" rather than nothing made the floor plans, got the materials and built the house. The same holds true for the universe. Our existence are governed by laws, rules, order, systems, matter, space and time. Where there is rules. information or instruction....there is the Mind that caused it.

[bumblebee]

Korean & Vietnam war with US?

Thank you. Any more? Because 93% is really a big number.

[RU9]

http://davidmschell.com/religious-wars-only-123-of-1763/

Fact Check: Religious Wars: Only 123 of 1763?

[docelmo]

We don't know.

What is known now with regards to these "fine-tuning" factors:

Excerpts from a WSJ article by Eric Metaxas:

"The fine-tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet is nothing compared with the fine-tuning required for the universe to exist at all. For example, astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forces—gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the “strong” and “weak” nuclear forces—were determined less than one millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one value and the universe could not exist. For instance, if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction—by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000—then no stars could have ever formed at all. Feel free to gulp.
Multiply that single parameter by all the other necessary conditions, and the odds against the universe existing are so heart-stoppingly astronomical that the notion that it all “just happened” defies common sense. It would be like tossing a coin and having it come up heads 10 quintillion times in a row. Really?
Fred Hoyle, the astronomer who coined the term “big bang,” said that his atheism was “greatly shaken” at these developments. He later wrote that “a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology . . . . The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

Theoretical physicist Paul Davies has said that “the appearance of design is overwhelming” and Oxford professor Dr. John Lennox has said “the more we get to know about our universe, the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator . . . gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here.”
 

[bumblebee]

http://davidmschell.com/religious-wars-only-123-of-1763/

Fact Check: Religious Wars: Only 123 of 1763?

Hardly factual. Maganda sana kung nay actual list.

[Nelson de Leon]

Hardly factual. Maganda sana kung nay actual list.

War in Iraq 2
War in Afghanistan
African wars in the Congo (DRC)
Genocide in Rwanda
War in Iraq 1
Iraq/Iran war
All those civil wars in Latin America in the 70s and 80s
Civil war / genocide in Cambodia
China-Vietnam war
USA/France-Vietnam war
Korean war
Chinese civil war(s)
World War 2
Japanese invasion of China
Russian revolution (and related wars)
World War 1
Scramble for Africa
Franco-Prussian war
Crimean war
Taiping rebellion (Chinese civil war — although the main protagonist had crazy religious visions)
US Civil War
War of 1812 (and all the US wars of that time)
Opium wars
Napoleonic wars
Wars of the French revolution
Prussia’s wars of expansion (Silesia, etc. — Friedrich the Great)
Ottomans’ wars of expansion
Aztecs’ wars of expansion
Wars of the Roses
Ghenghis Khan’s invasions (and those of his descendants)
100-year war
Viking ‘raids’
An Lushan ‘Rebellion’
Nomadic tribes’ wars against Rome, China, Central Asia