I believe in some gods, but i no longer believe in "do you believe in god" threads. Mods, close/merge this thread.
Wouldn't that make them Zogians? Or did the Martians perfect interstellar travel and planetary terraforming before their home planet became a lifeless rock?
Not sure. Use your intergalactic cell phone to call them. They'll be able to give you a better answer than me. KP
Yes.. when you look at how the universe is put together, it's almost impossible to believe there isn't a real creator behind it. I do have a lot of unanswered questions but believing makes me a better person.
Interesting...I look at the scientific data collected and come to the opposite conclusion - that there is no creator. To each his (um, or her) own I guess. I truly hope your belief does make you a better person. I wish it worked out that way for more people, but in this too, I often find the opposite is true.
yup, I do. Let alone universe, if we only consider and study the working of our body in real and deep details .. its hard like hell to believe it came into creation on its own. Its so god damn complex and well put together.
Just out of curiousity, how do you come to that conclusion? I personally think that science disproving creation is a myth. For example, one of the most popular theories is the big bang theory. The theory deals with atoms colliding and all of a sudden sparking life. We also understand that science holds firm onto its theory of cause and effect. So every effect has to have a cause... this poses some questions about the big bang theory. What caused the atoms to move? Why did they collide at that point in time but never before? What was before the atom? Even some of sciences most popular theories about where we came from still point to a creator, or at minimum, other questions.
First of all, your post shows a gross misunderstanding of the big bang theory. The big bang theory does not "deal with atoms colliding and all of a sudden sparking life." What the big bang theory essentially is, is an explanation for the apparent current expansion of the universe. It does not, in any way, address the creation of "life" in any context. Second, you correctly point out that the big bang theory is one of the more popular theories in astrophysics. Just because it is popular doesn't make it true - this holds true for science just as much as it does for religion. I personally feel the big bang theory is one of the weaker generally accepted scientific theories we have today. It is only generally accepted, and there are several other theories in existence that deal with the beginning of the universe. The big bang theory is just the best explanation we have *at this time* of some observable astronomical phenomena. Third, your conclusion that some of science's most popular theories point to a creator is untrue; but the assertion that it at least leads to more questions is the most intelligent thing I've seen you post. It most certainly leads to more questions, which is kinda what science is all about. Science is continually asking new questions, even while searching for better explanations of questions already "answered". Scientific theories are under constant revision, as scientists seek those better explanations. In this way, science tends to be a self-correcting discipline. Are new and contradictory scientific theories met with opposition from the scientific community? Absolutely. But if the data backs up the theory, it is usually accepted. This is why theories like Einstein's theory of relativity and evolution are so widely accepted in the scientific community - everything we have conceived to test these theories supports them. Ultimately though, your argument for a creator seems to be, "Science doesn't have an answer for this, so it must be god." To me, lack of a scientific answer *now* does not equate to proof or even supporting evidence for a creator. With a remarkably good track record, I am confident science will eventually find the answers for most of the unanswered questions we have now. Hopefully humanity doesn't destroy itself before that happens.
Damien, Religious people rely on gross misunderstandings. They couldn;t possibly refute science without grossly misunderstanding it, Creating a facile straw-man argument and then proclaiming "how can something come from nothing!" as if the big bang theory suggests such a thing, Or in PHPGators case, not understanding in the slightest what the big bang theory is and what it claims. Another flaw in their reasoning is when they point out that every effect needs a cause, Then cite god as the cause of the universe, while at the same time claiming god doesn't need a cause. So the very agent that they invoke to solve the problem is in violation of the very law that required him. Believing in a god of gaps is a very risky thing to do. because as science progresses the religious are going to find themselves with fewer and fewer gaps to cram their god into and will find themselves ultimately with two option. The first option would be to abandon their faith after all their reasons for having it have been found to have natural explanations. Secondly they could chose, Like most are doing now, To put their fingers in their ears, See science as the enemy and be willfully ignorant, Misrepresent what science claims and lie to the most vulnerable and trusting people on the planet, Children.
logically its impossible in my opinion for their not to be a God, billions and trillions of years back at some point there had to be a point of creation, of everything, something we cannot minutely fathom the sublime complexities of it all.