Do you believe in God and why

[teatime101]

1 hour ago, fredwiggy said:

those who believe in a "Big Bang", how impossible that is, believe that it was an explosion, with absolutely no proof.

Why is a Big Bang impossible, when you believe in a Creator, a far less comprehensible concept? Neither can be 'proven', but at least the Big Bang theory is built on evidence. 'God' is simply a construct of the human imagination to tidy away difficult questions with simplistic answers.

 

 

1 hour ago, fredwiggy said:

Matter cannot come from nothing. No one has ever proven otherwise. A scientists guess isn't proof.

 

Matter and antimatter pairs appear and disappear all the time. It may defy logic, but that's the reality.

 

Nobody's guess is proof of anything, scientist or otherwise.

[teatime101]

44 minutes ago, Retarded said:

I will update them not to have sex more than once in three years. 

That'll go down well. 

[teatime101]

1 hour ago, mauGR1 said:

The fact that Gautama Buddha omitted God from his speeches, is NOT a reasonable evidence that he didn't believe in a supreme being, imho.

With this distinctive view of cause and effect, Buddhism accepts the pan-Indian presupposition of samsara, in which living beings are trapped in a continual cycle of birth-and-death, with the momentum to rebirth provided by one's previous physical and mental actions (see karma ). The release from this cycle of rebirth and suffering is the total transcendence called nirvana.

 

https://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/religion/eastern/buddhism/buddhism/basic-beliefs-and-practices

 

Buddhism is a religion which does not include the belief in a creator deity, or any eternal divine personal being.^[1][2][3] It teaches that there are divine beings or gods (see devas and Buddhist deities), heavens and rebirths in its doctrine of saṃsāra (cyclical rebirth), but it considers none of these gods as a creator or as being eternal (they just have very long lives).^[4] In Buddhism, the devas are also trapped in the cycle of rebirth and are not necessarily virtuous. Thus while Buddhism includes multiple gods, its main focus is not on them. Peter Harvey calls this "trans-polytheistic".^[5]

 

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_in_Buddhism}

 

Plenty of quotes there from early Buddhist scholars strongly against the idea of a creator god.

 

And note that Thai Buddhism sees Buddha as the supreme being, if not 'the creator'.

[Logosone]

43 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

“The Buddha believed implicitly in the existence of the Gods since they were a part of his cultural baggage, but he didn’t believe them to be much use to mankind. They too were caught up in the world of pain and flux…they were involved in the cycle of rebirth like all other beings and eventually, they would disappear”.................. Gods exist but aren't necessary to achieve enlightenment. Not being necessary tells others exactly that, although you can still be a Buddhist and believe in God. Personal choice, but leaving God out to me tells others to put themselves first...................https://buddhaweekly.com/what-does-buddhism-say-about-the-idea-of-god-best-answer-its-complicated-are-buddhists-theists-atheists-or-non-theists-does-it-even-matter/

Even though for some reason this article quotes heavily Karen Armstrong, whose knowledge of Buddhism is perhaps fairly limited, it is still a good article. It seems correct in substance.

 

To me Buddhism as a religion has always appealed more than Christianity, Judaism or Islam, due to its sophisticated coolness. Even when it comes to a supreme being Buddha kept his cool and stayed rational.

 

How much more appealing than the obvious fantasies one sees in Christianity, Judaism or Islam?

 

Of course one can also adduce all the later additions into Buddhism, with all the levels of hell, devas and the like, but early Buddhism seems to be devoid of the fantastic, bar a few exceptions, when compared to other religions. And above all: It actually makes sense.

 

How much sense does 'the world was created in 7 days' make?

 

 

 

 

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, teatime101 said:

Why leave out the concept of a creator, if there is one? Careless?

I answered already that question a few times the best i could, but i'll try again.

As neither you or me can go back in time and meet Buddha in person, we'll probably never have a clear answer from him, so it's rather pointless to insist, imho.

It's like if we go for a day of walking in the mountains, we don't need to talk about the government, but that doesn't mean that the government doesn't exist.

[fredwiggy]

4 minutes ago, teatime101 said:

Why is a Big Bang impossible, when you believe in a Creator, a far less comprehensible concept? Neither can be 'proven', but at least the Big Bang theory is built on evidence. 'God' is simply a construct of the human imagination to tidy away difficult questions with simplistic an

Matter and antimatter pairs appear and disappear all the time. It may defy logic, but that's the reality.

 

Nobody's guess is proof of anything, scientist or otherwise.

How is a creator a far less comprehensible concept? We as humans already believe in a beginning and an end, that we see things created from what is already there, in lieu of something that is created by an explosion of nothing. There is no evidence of a big bang. Scientists guesses so they can get funding,using words that many can't understand, has been a ploy for a long time. God is not a construct of the imagination. The Bible was written by those that heard from God. (another no evidence concept to you) You believe what some have written with no evidence at all. I see evidence of his creation everyday.

[Logosone]

47 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

I didn't say that, i am simply acknowledging the fact that God is omitted from his speeches, as far as we know.

From what i gathered, and it's just my theory, he was fed up with the degeneration of Hinduism into sects, superstitions and barbarism, and especially the abuse of animal sacrifices for rites purpose, and similarly to Jesus, gave us a way of self-realisation, to reach higher levels of consciousness without the need of priests as intermediaries.

Indeed God, Brahman, does not play a central role in those sutras which supposedly reflect Buddha's actual sayings. On the contrary, many of Buddha's teachings modify and contradict traditional Hindu beliefs about Brahman.

 

In the historical context of course the Buddha, who wanted disciples, would not have been outspoken about denouncing God and various deities, as it could easily have gotten him killed. Belief in Gods, in his time, was the norm of course. And it may well be that Buddha himself was still imbued with some of the Hindu notions of God.

 

But his teaching, clearly does not require a God. And that is why it has been so successful in the West now, atheists prefer Buddhism if they had to pick a religion. It makes sense. And no God required.

[mauGR1]

7 minutes ago, Logosone said:

How much sense does 'the world was created in 7 days' make?

 

According to some Hindu ancient book, a day of Brahma (the architect of physical reality) is 432.000 years.

Oh, wait, you don't believe in God or Brahma.

[fredwiggy]

Just now, Logosone said:

Indeed God, Brahman, does not play a central role in those sutras which supposedly reflect Buddha's actual sayings. On the contrary, many of Buddha's teachings modify and contradict traditional Hindu beliefs about Brahman.

 

In the historical context of course the Buddha, who wanted disciples, would not have been outspoken about denouncing God and various deities, as it could easily have gotten him killed. Belief in Gods, in his time, was the norm of course. And it may well be that Buddha himself was still imbued with some of the Hindu notions of God.

 

But his teaching, clearly does not require a God. And that is why it has been so successful in the West now, atheists prefer Buddhism if they had to pick a religion. It makes sense. And no God required.

Buddhas teachings make sense, especially those towards peace. No God required again shows that he isn't necessary. This life is short, and when you die, you go to one of two places, Heaven or Hell. You don't just become part of the universe. Forever means just that. Leaving out the one that created you doesn't sit well with him. He is the reason everything is here and he has the final say where you end up. Again, my belief.

[saakura]

3 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

Buddhas teachings make sense, especially those towards peace. No God required again shows that he isn't necessary. This life is short, and when you die, you go to one of two places, Heaven or Hell. You don't just become part of the universe. Forever means just that. Leaving out the one that created you doesn't sit well with him. He is the reason everything is here and he has the final say where you end up. Again, my belief.

Are you sure you are referring to Buddha?

[Logosone]

1 hour ago, fredwiggy said:

No one has proven anything God's done to be false. Why would the Bible mention dinosaurs? Was it relevant then? This, like I and others have said, is Do you believe in God and why? I believe from faith, and from things I've learned that have convinced me. The universe didn't just happen. Anyone who believes that is a fool. It had to have a creator. Those who believe in God think it was God. There have been miracles that scientists have tried to explain. People have come back from no brain activity and death. Some may have said they saw a light, while others have said they saw heaven. Made up? Perhaps, but all of them? A small child dies and sees ,in heaven, a sister no one told him about, that was stillborn. He also saw his grandfather and described him to his father. A grandfather he never knew. Made up by the preacher father? Perhaps. I look at things every day that show me the diversity of this world, of all the species of animals and plants, that everything needs oxygen, water and food to live. The sun exactly where it should be in relation to the earth. The moon to create the tides. All coincidences? We all evolved from what exactly? Primordial ooze? I myself have got on God's case a lot of times because things in this world are supremely screwed up and he does nothing. Or has he done nothing? He let people do what they want, instead of being sheep following blindly. He wants us to choose between him ,Satan or nothing. That's free will. I choose him. I know there's another place to go after death and I don't need proof. Besides that, I would never gamble with my soul and eternity because I've heard about hell.

Well, the creation of the world in 7 days has definitely been proven false. There is really no question about that.

 

You have articulated well your reason for a belief in God. You can not explain certain natural phenomena without a belief in God. And indeed that is undoubtedly the origin of religion. People were confronted with natural phenomena they did not understand and thus they explained it by reference to an invention of their own mind. Thus the wind, the sun, all these things at one time became Gods or divine manifestations.

 

So in other words, we believe where we do not know. If you know, there is no need to believe.

 

You do not of course "know" there is an afterlife, you can't possibly know if there is one, you just believe in it.

 

The thing is as science has advanced and the authority of the bible has been progressively eroded, due the fact that science contradicts it heavily, we have seen the numbers of believers decline steadily. The more we know, the less we believe.

 

Yes, of course unexplainable exist, have always existed and continue to exist. But to explain all that with "God" seems a very simplistic solution to the problem. It's too easy.

 

 

[mauGR1]

4 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Indeed God, Brahman, does not play a central role in those sutras which supposedly reflect Buddha's actual sayings. On the contrary, many of Buddha's teachings modify and contradict traditional Hindu beliefs about Brahman.

 

i think this is slightly inaccurate, as "Brahman" or the absolute principle, similarly to monotheistic religions, cannot be understood by our limited intelligence, thus i don't think there are lots of beliefs or speeches about the "Brahman"

 

7 minutes ago, Logosone said:

In the historical context of course the Buddha, who wanted disciples, would not have been outspoken about denouncing God and various deities, as it could easily have gotten him killed. Belief in Gods, in his time, was the norm of course. And it may well be that Buddha himself was still imbued with some of the Hindu notions of God.

 

This is quite reasonable, although i am not sure that the Buddha "wanted" disciples, and to say that an enlightened man could have been "imbued with notions" is frankly not realistic at all.

 

10 minutes ago, Logosone said:

But his teaching, clearly does not require a God. And that is why it has been so successful in the West now, atheists prefer Buddhism if they had to pick a religion. It makes sense. And no God required.

The world changes, and keeps of changing, i believe that Buddha's and Jesus' teachings, of course without the superstitions and bigotries which are unfortunately real for some people, are what we need in these confusing times to get some clarity of mind.

[fredwiggy]

Just now, Logosone said:

Well, the creation of the world in 7 days has definitely been proven false. There is really no question about that.

 

You have articulated well your reason for a believe in God. You can not explain certain natural phenomena without a belief in God. And indeed that is undoubtedly the origin of religion. People were confronted with natural phenomena they did not understand and thus they explained it by reference to an invention of their own mind. Thus the wind, the sun, all these things at one time became Gods or divine manifestations.

 

So in other words, we believe where we do not know. If you know, there is no need to believe.

 

You do not of course "know" there is an afterlife, you can't possibly know if there is one, you just believe in it.

 

The thing is as science has advanced and the authority of the bible has been progressively eroded, due the fact that science contradicts it heavily, we have seen the numbers of believers decline steadily. The more we know, the less we believe.

 

Yes, of course unexplainable exist, have always existed and continue to exist. But to explain all that with "God" seems a very simplistic solution to the problem. It's too easy.

 

 

How has the world created in 7 days been disproved? Yes, it is simple that God as a creator is the explanation for everything. Why is too easy not possible? With that much power, everything is explained. Any other explanation of course hasn't been proven either. Again, about faith.

[Logosone]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

God surely exists for those that believe.

Believe or not, it's your choice.

We believe where we do not know.

 

Where we know we do not believe.

 

We don't say I believe I have two hands. We know.

 

So yes, you could choose to believe in a God, you could choose to believe in a spaceship that comes on 24 December and takes you to Judgement Day in heaven, or you can choose to believe that a double headed serpent presides over an afterlife.

 

And no doubt, for one who believes in these mental creations, they could seem to be true. Indeed, black magic in Africa has been shown to work on believers, but not on non-believers

 

But that does not mean those things exist actually, objectively, in reality. It's a bit like if a mentally ill person believes he is being followed by seven secret agents. Yes, to him, that could be real. But it isn't. It's a creation of his mind.

[Logosone]

5 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

How has the world created in 7 days been disproved? Yes, it is simple that God as a creator is the explanation for everything. Why is too easy not possible? With that much power, everything is explained. Any other explanation of course hasn't been proven either. Again, about faith.

I hope you're joking.

 

Because geology for a start would dispatch that 7 day theory in a matter of minutes.

 

Indeed, recourse to a God is too simple an explanation for the complicated phenomena we see around us.

 

Yes, of course Big Bang is not proven, and indeed has been proven false as well, many now say there were several big bangs for example, and to an extent yes, science is also a belief. In that symbols represent reality, that is a belief, it is not reality itself.

 

However, it took us centuries to accumulate the knowledge about geology, paleontology, cosmology, physics and many other things. Did God create the Internet? I don't think so. Sometimes more sophisticated explanations than God are required. 

 

To explain it all by say "God did it", in the absence of evidence, is a bit too simple.

[fredwiggy]

I just wonder what non believers will say after they die and come before their creator and have to explain themselves. Well, a scientist proved the world could not have been made in 7 days, so   , and I saw no "evidence" of your creation so, and the guy down the street told me matter can come from nothing God, so what else could I think? I was told by my mama that you made me, but she was my mom, and I believed her until I went out into the world and others made me think otherwise. I'm sorry God, even that fredwiggy guy said it's all about faith, but I lost mine when I saw a 3 year old die from cancer. I didn't think that maybe ,like Jesus said, he was immediately brought to heaven and given a perfect body that would never have pain again. Or when Covid came, I said to myself, why would a loving God do this, along with mosquitoes, gnats and terrorists? I didn't think that we are all weak, that maybe our parents were wrong in some way, even if they were there in the first place. I'm sorry God!  God.......My words were there for you in the Bible, and you had enough time to think about me and why you were created. By the way, fredwiggy was right. He's over there, playing the guitar with Jimi, Janis and Mr. Lennon

[fredwiggy]

8 minutes ago, Logosone said:

I hope you're joking.

 

Because geology for a start would dispatch that 7 day theory in a matter of minutes.

 

Indeed, recourse to a God is too simple an explanation for the complicated phenomena we see around us.

 

Yes, of course Big Bang is not proven, and indeed has been proven false as well, many now say there were several big bangs for example, and to an extent yes, science is also a belief. In that symbols represent reality, that is a belief, it is not reality itself.

 

However, it took us centuries to accumulate the knowledge about geology, paleontology, cosmology, physics and many other things. Did God create the Internet? I don't think so. Sometimes more sophisticated explanations than God are required. 

 

To explain it all by say "God did it", in the absence of evidence, is a bit too simple.

Maybe God's days aren't the same as ours, as has been suggested.

[Logosone]

14 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

i think this is slightly inaccurate, as "Brahman" or the absolute principle, similarly to monotheistic religions, cannot be understood by our limited intelligence, thus i don't think there are lots of beliefs or speeches about the "Brahman"

Well Fred helpfully linked to the Brahmajala Sutra.

 

"Earlier in the sutta, the Buddha clarifies that the views of some Brahmins and ascetics who hold views that the self is ‘partly eternalists, partly not-eternalists’ which as we know is contradicted by the Buddhist doctrine of Anatta. He was condemning this idea as wrong."

 

And of course Buddha's whole teaching is a denial of the 'absolute' and rather a teaching of causation, conditioned existence, processes, a very rational and human teaching. 

 

One Buddhist has made the case that Buddhism is not compatible with absolutist ideas, again from Fred's link:

 

“A fundamental Buddhist belief is that all phenomena without exemption (including all animate beings) have three essential characteristics. These are dukkha (explained above), anicca (impermanence), and anatta (insubstantiality, “no-soul”). The attributes of God are not consistent with these universal marks of existence. Thus God must be free from dukkha; he must be eternal (and hence not subject to anicca); finally, he must have a distinct, unchanging identity (and therefore lack the characteristic of anatta)."

 

Since men came up with Brahman, and the absolute, I think we are perfectly well equipped to understand its implications.

[teatime101]

47 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

Scientists guesses so they can get funding,using words that many can't understand, has been a ploy for a long time.

What waste of time. I'll leave you to your fantasies.

[fredwiggy]

 A number of recent books and articles would have you believe that—somehow—science has now disproved the existence of God. We know so much about how the universe works, their authors claim, that God is simply unnecessary: we can explain all the workings of the universe without the need for a Creator.

And indeed, science has brought us an immense amount of understanding. The sum total of human knowledge doubles roughly every couple of years or less. In physics and cosmology, we can now claim to know what happened to our universe as early as a tiny fraction of a second after the Big Bang, something that may seem astounding. In chemistry, we understand the most complicated reactions among atoms and molecules, and in biology we know how the living cell works and have mapped out our entire genome. But does this vast knowledge base disprove the existence of some kind of pre-existent outside force that may have launched our universe on its way?

Science won major victories against entrenched religious dogma throughout the 19th century. In the 1800s, discoveries of Neanderthal remains in Belgium, Gibraltar and Germany showed that humans were not the only hominids to occupy earth, and fossils and remains of now extinct animals and plants further demonstrated that flora and fauna evolve, live for millennia and then sometimes die off, ceding their place on the planet to better-adapted species. These discoveries lent strong support to the then emerging theory of evolution, published by Charles Darwin in 1859. And in 1851, Leon Foucault, a self-trained French physicist, proved definitively that earth rotates—rather than staying in place as the sun revolved around it—using a special pendulum whose circular motion revealed the planet’s rotation. Geological discoveries made over the same century devastated the “young earth” hypothesis. We now know that earth is billions, not thousands, of years old, as some theologians had calculated based on counting generations back to the biblical Adam. All of these discoveries defeated literal interpretations of Scripture.

But has modern science, from the beginning of the 20th century, proved that there is no God, as some commentators now claim? Science is an amazing, wonderful undertaking: it teaches us about life, the world and the universe. But it has not revealed to us why the universe came into existence nor what preceded its birth in the Big Bang. Biological evolution has not brought us the slightest understanding of how the first living organisms emerged from inanimate matter on this planet and how the advanced eukaryotic cells—the highly structured building blocks of advanced life forms—ever emerged from simpler organisms. Neither does it explain one of the greatest mysteries of science: how did consciousness arise in living things? Where do symbolic thinking and self-awareness come from? What is it that allows humans to understand the mysteries of biology, physics, mathematics, engineering and medicine? And what enables us to create great works of art, music, architecture and literature? Science is nowhere near to explaining these deep mysteries.

Related Stories

'There Is Not Some Separation Between Jesus and Justice.' How Rev. William J. Barber II Uses His Faith to Fight for the Poor

 

A Muslim Woman Went Viral for Confronting Anti-Semitism on the London Underground. Her Actions Hold a Lesson for Us All

 

But much more important than these conundrums is the persistent question of the fine-tuning of the parameters of the universe: Why is our universe so precisely tailor-made for the emergence of life? This question has never been answered satisfactorily, and I believe that it will never find a scientific solution. For the deeper we delve into the mysteries of physics and cosmology, the more the universe appears to be intricate and incredibly complex. To explain the quantum-mechanical behavior of even one tiny particle requires pages and pages of extremely advanced mathematics. Why are even the tiniest particles of matter so unbelievably complicated? It appears that there is a vast, hidden “wisdom,” or structure, or knotty blueprint for even the most simple-looking element of nature. And the situation becomes much more daunting as we expand our view to the entire cosmos.

We know that 13.7 billion years ago, a gargantuan burst of energy, whose nature and source are completely unknown to us and not in the least understood by science, initiated the creation of our universe. Then suddenly, as if by magic, the “God particle”—the Higgs boson discovered two years ago inside CERN’s powerful particle accelerator, the Large Hadron Collider—came into being and miraculously gave the universe its mass. Why did this happen? The mass constituted elementary particles—the quarks and the electron—whose weights and electrical charges had to fall within immeasurably tight bounds for what would happen next. For from within the primeval soup of elementary particles that constituted the young universe, again as if by a magic hand, all the quarks suddenly bunched in threes to form protons and neutrons, their electrical charges set precisely to the exact level needed to attract and capture the electrons, which then began to circle nuclei made of the protons and neutrons. All of the masses, charges and forces of interaction in the universe had to be in just the precisely needed amounts so that early light atoms could form. Larger ones would then be cooked in nuclear fires inside stars, giving us carbon, iron, nitrogen, oxygen and all the other elements that are so essential for life to emerge. And eventually, the highly complicated double-helix molecule, the life-propagating DNA, would be formed.

Why did everything we need in order to exist come into being? How was all of this possible without some latent outside power to orchestrate the precise dance of elementary particles required for the creation of all the essentials of life? The great British mathematician Roger Penrose has calculated—based on only one of the hundreds of parameters of the physical universe—that the probability of the emergence of a life-giving cosmos was 1 divided by 10, raised to the power 10, and again raised to the power of 123. This is a number as close to zero as anyone has ever imagined. (The probability is much, much smaller than that of winning the Mega Millions jackpot for more days than the universe has been in existence.)

The scientific atheists have scrambled to explain this troubling mystery by suggesting the existence of a multiverse—an infinite set of universes, each with its own parameters. In some universes, the conditions are wrong for life; however, by the sheer size of this putative multiverse, there must be a universe where everything is right. But if it takes an immense power of nature to create one universe, then how much more powerful would that force have to be in order to create infinitely many universes? So the purely hypothetical multiverse does not solve the problem of God. The incredible fine-tuning of the universe presents the most powerful argument for the existence of an immanent creative entity we may well call God. Lacking convincing scientific evidence to the contrary, such a power may be necessary to force all the parameters we need for our existence—cosmological, physical, chemical, biological and cognitive—to be what they are.

Science and religion are two sides of the same deep human impulse to understand the world, to know our place in it, and to marvel at the wonder of life and the infinite cosmos we are surrounded by. Let’s keep them that way, and not let one attempt to usurp the role of the other....................................https://time.com/77676/why-science-does-not-disprove-god/

[mauGR1]

5 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Thus God must be free from dukkha; he must be eternal (and hence not subject to anicca); finally, he must have a distinct, unchanging identity (and therefore lack the characteristic of anatta)."

 

Thanks for your efforts, but honestly, as i decided 3 years ago to follow Christian esoteric teachings by R. Steiner, i'm not going to confuse myself with theories rightly, or wrongly attributed to Buddha.

Yet, i have to point out, again, that our intelligence is not supposed to be able to understand God, Brahman, or the Absolute or whatever name you want to call it.

Thus, saying that God "must" be something or "lack" something, is completely wrong.

If it can help you more, i'll give you an example, just imagine being a little mosquito trying to understand human knowledge, feelings and intents. No way !!!

[teatime101]

2 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

just imagine being a little mosquito trying to understand human knowledge, feelings and intents.

That's an argument for agnosticism, not theism.

 

Lacking knowledge, you can't simply replace your ignorance with belief. Once you give belief or faith dominance, the position of knowledge is forever compromised. "I believe" becomes the mantra - and that's very dangerous, when we consider all the baggage it entails.

[fredwiggy]

Just now, teatime101 said:

That's an argument for agnosticism, not theism.

 

Lacking knowledge, you can't simply replace your ignorance with belief. Once you give belief or faith dominance, the position of knowledge is forever compromised. "I believe" becomes the mantra - and that's very dangerous, when we consider all the baggage it entails.

Besides the "sheep" who follow blindly the cult leaders like Jim Jones, what danger is having belief over knowledge? Will knowledge get you into heaven or will belief, or some of both? I don't know about you, but I'd rather be a fool in heaven than a genius in hell.

[mauGR1]

5 minutes ago, teatime101 said:

That's an argument for agnosticism, not theism.

 

Lacking knowledge, you can't simply replace your ignorance with belief. Once you give belief or faith dominance, the position of knowledge is forever compromised. "I believe" becomes the mantra - and that's very dangerous, when we consider all the baggage it entails.

Well, that's just my argument, but feel free to label it as you like.

I agree that belief is not a substitute for knowledge, and i never said the opposite.

"i believe" is not my mantra, perhaps "i search" describes my priorities better.

Everyone needs a sort of centre, but thanks God it's still an individual choice.

 

I'm trying my best to "keep it simple", to avoid time-wasting misunderstandings, so i beg you, as kindly as i can, to put more attention in reading my posts.

[Logosone]

33 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

 A number of recent books and articles would have you believe that—somehow—science has now disproved the existence of God. We know so much about how the universe works, their authors claim, that God is simply unnecessary: we can explain all the workings of the universe without the need for a Creator. But does this vast knowledge base disprove the existence of some kind of pre-existent outside force that may have launched our universe on its way?

 

That's a bit of a facaetious argument.

 

Yes, you can not disprove a God. Just like you can not disprove a three legged Spaghetti monster.

 

But the knowledge we have gained has clearly shown that vast portions of the bible are wrong. 

 

We know that rather than a God-like instant creation rather there was a slow and long process that owed nothing to supernatural forces, but much to long-term biological, chemical and adaptive processes, that often owed more to human ingenuity than divine intervention.

 

The God hypothesis has become unconvincing, in short.

[fredwiggy]

3 minutes ago, Logosone said:

That's a bit of a facaetious argument.

 

Yes, you can not disprove a God. Just like you can not disprove a three legged Spaghetti monster.

 

But the knowledge we have gained has clearly shown that vast portions of the bible are wrong. 

 

We know that rather than a God-like instant creation rather there was a slow and long process that owed nothing to supernatural forces, but much to long-term biological, chemical and adaptive processes, that often owed more to human ingenuity than divine intervention.

 

The God hypothesis has become unconvincing, in short.

What in the Bible is wrong? Yes, it's supposed to be God's words, but put there by people, so some things may have been distorted over time. Some of genesis doesn't match, but these are minor, as are a few others, and may be the fault of man's interpretations.Who knows? No one KNOWS that creation wasn't God created, and it didn't come from nothing. Yes, it took time, but again, 7 of God's "days" aren't the same as ours.

[giddyup]

3 hours ago, fredwiggy said:

Believers explain why they believe. Those who believe in a "Big Bang", how impossible that is, believe that it was an explosion, with absolutely no proof. Again, everything is matter, Matter cannot come from nothing. No one has ever proven otherwise. A scientists guess isn't proof.

No proof of god either, but if there is a god what created him/her/it?

[Logosone]

9 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

What in the Bible is wrong? 

Whichever translation of the Bible you look at it is not hard to find errors. The texts are full of internal contradictions as well as historical and scientific inaccuracies.

 

There are so many examples it is hard to know where to start. Take its cosmology: according to the Bible, the earth is flat and immovable, the moon emits its own light, the sky is solid and the stars can be shaken from the sky by earthquakes.

 

Its mathematics is also poor. How many sons do you count: “The sons of Shemaiah: Huttush, Igal, Bariah, Neriah, and Shaphat, six” (I Chronicles 3:22). Such errors are common. The value of pi is given as 3, even though many other cultures had already worked it out with greater precision.

Its biology is no better. The Bible claims that rabbits chew the cud, that the pattern of goats’ coats can be changed by what their parents look at while copulating, that only dead seeds can germinate and that ostriches are careless parents.

So how reliable is the Bible chapter that relates to evolution? Let’s leave aside the long-standing evidence that Earth is older than 6000 years and that there was no world-wide flood, and look at what else Genesis says.

 

Genesis 1 gives the order of creation as plants, animals, man and woman. Genesis 2 gives it as man, plants, animals and woman. Genesis 1:3-5 says light was created on the first day, Genesis 1:14-19 says the sun was created on the fourth. Genesis 7:2 says Noah took seven pairs of each beast, Genesis 7:8-15 says one pair.

 

The list goes on. The fruit of the tree of knowledge is said to kill within a day of being eaten, yet Adam and Eve don’t die after eating it. Genesis says there were giants (Nephilim) before the flood and that the flood annihilated all creatures other than those on the ark, but Numbers says there were giants after the flood.

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13695-evolution-myths-the-theory-is-wrong-because-the-bible-is-inerrant/

 

[fredwiggy]

Just now, giddyup said:

No proof of god either, but if there is a god what created him/her/it?

Beyond our thinking of everything has a beginning and an end, he was always there. Don't ask me to understand that either.

[fredwiggy]

15 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Whichever translation of the Bible you look at it is not hard to find errors. The texts are full of internal contradictions as well as historical and scientific inaccuracies.

 

There are so many examples it is hard to know where to start. Take its cosmology: according to the Bible, the earth is flat and immovable, the moon emits its own light, the sky is solid and the stars can be shaken from the sky by earthquakes.

 

Its mathematics is also poor. How many sons do you count: “The sons of Shemaiah: Huttush, Igal, Bariah, Neriah, and Shaphat, six” (I Chronicles 3:22). Such errors are common. The value of pi is given as 3, even though many other cultures had already worked it out with greater precision.

Its biology is no better. The Bible claims that rabbits chew the cud, that the pattern of goats’ coats can be changed by what their parents look at while copulating, that only dead seeds can germinate and that ostriches are careless parents.

So how reliable is the Bible chapter that relates to evolution? Let’s leave aside the long-standing evidence that Earth is older than 6000 years and that there was no world-wide flood, and look at what else Genesis says.

 

Genesis 1 gives the order of creation as plants, animals, man and woman. Genesis 2 gives it as man, plants, animals and woman. Genesis 1:3-5 says light was created on the first day, Genesis 1:14-19 says the sun was created on the fourth. Genesis 7:2 says Noah took seven pairs of each beast, Genesis 7:8-15 says one pair.

 

The list goes on. The fruit of the tree of knowledge is said to kill within a day of being eaten, yet Adam and Eve don’t die after eating it. Genesis says there were giants (Nephilim) before the flood and that the flood annihilated all creatures other than those on the ark, but Numbers says there were giants after the flood.

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13695-evolution-myths-the-theory-is-wrong-because-the-bible-is-inerrant/

 

Humanists have picked apart the Bible for years, trying to show there isn't a God. The Bible was written over many centuries, and a lot of the things have been distorted like I've said. One person says one thing, another interprets it differently. So yes, there are things that don't add up but the main ideas ring true. Noah's ark has things that don't add up, but if God wanted things done, and if he made everything, I'm sure he can do what was needed at that time. Did the world flood or just the areas where man lived? Was Adam and Eve's punishment like dying, being cast out of paradise? We all want these answers and more, but if God came here now, would all people believe or still call it magic? Maybe God let these errors happen, so our faith would have to be  be stronger. Again, faith is the key word.