Do you believe in God and why

[Thunglom]

10 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Nope, skepticism, as opposed to blind faith, is a pillar of true science. 

So, now, while intelligent design seems to be unproven thus non existent, i think it's fair to be skeptical about that.

that's an oxymoron.

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, Thunglom said:

that's an oxymoron.

No, it's not.

Either you think there's an intelligent design in the universe, or otherwise,  you think it happened " by chance".

Imho, this dilemma is worth investigating. 

[Thunglom]

1 hour ago, mauGR1 said:

No, it's not.

Either you think there's an intelligent design in the universe, or otherwise,  you think it happened " by chance".

Imho, this dilemma is worth investigating. 

It's not a dilemma - and you are now making a false dichotomy

[mauGR1]

10 minutes ago, Thunglom said:

It's not a dilemma - and you are now making a false dichotomy

Oh, really?

So, if you can explain, I'd like to know why it's false, i am all ears.

PS I'm not interested in watching videos, but I'm interested in hearing people's opinions.  

[VincentRJ]

5 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

It's clear you have a good knowledge of these issues but I just don't concur with your conclusions. For example ,the concerns of scientists are by far based on actual warming, rather than this or that event.

I'll just address one of your points for now, to keep it brief. ????

 

The average warming of the entire globe during the past 150 years or more is estimated to be around 1 degree C . I was raised near the city of Manchester in the UK where average temperatures, which include both day and night, and winter and summer, are a miserable 9.4 degree C.
I now live in Brisbane, Australia, where the average, yearly temperature is 20 degrees C, which is 10.6 degrees warmer than Manchester, and I much prefer that higher temperature. Why should people be concerned with a temperature rise of a small fraction of a degree per decade, which they wouldn't even notice if that temperature rise occurred in their house within the course of a day or even an hour?

 

Surely the concern must be the projected increase in extreme weather events due to a change in climate resulting from that small rise in average global temperatures, which is claimed to be caused by our CO2 emissions.

 

The last major drought we had in Australia, known as the Millennium Drought, ended in 2010-11. I personally experienced the extreme flooding that took place, which was later discovered to be mainly due to mismanagement resulting from inaccurate advice from so-called 'climate scientists'. 

 

During the drought there were a number of proposals to build new dams to reduce the looming water shortage. It does rain occasionally during long drought periods, but below average. However, the advice from the climate experts was that we should get used to the drought conditions because this would become the norm due to global warming, and that there would be little point in building new dams, and that desalination plants would be a better option.

 

So that's what the Queensland government did. They spent money on desalination plants which were used for just a short time before the massive flooding arrived. If the dams had been built, the flooding could have been avoided, and billions of dollars in property and infrastructure damage could have been saved, as well as the 33 lives lost.

 

According to BOM records, the 2010-11 floods in the Brisbane area was the 6th worst on record, in terms of flood height, although the graph seems to show it was the 7th worst.

 

http://www.bom.gov.au/qld/flood/fld_history/brisbane_history.shtml

Can you understand my skepticism about 'climate change alarmism'? When we have a drought in SE Australia, the ice is affected in parts of the Antarctic. Analyses of ice cores from an area called Law Dome have revealed that during the past 1,000 years, SE Australia has had 8 megadroughts (droughts which are longer than 5 years). 6 of those droughts occurred before European settlement in Australia, and the worst occurred in the 12th century AD and was 39 years long.

 

If we have another 39 year drought in Australia, I bet the climate scientists (or more correctly, climate science activists) will claim that the drought is undeniable evidence of CAGW, and will ignore the existing proxy evidence that a similar event occurred long before we began burning fossil fuels.

[Thunglom]

4 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Oh, really?

So, if you can explain, I'd like to know why it's false, i am all ears.

PS I'm not interested in watching videos, but I'm interested in hearing people's opinions.  

Unfortunately that's all you get - I don't get involved with arguments about God - I'm not twelve - but if you'd like to learn a bit about critical thinking please try again later when you have.

 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

9 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

I'll just address one of your points for now, to keep it brief. ????

 

The average warming of the entire globe during the past 150 years or more is estimated to be around 1 degree C . I was raised near the city of Manchester in the UK where average temperatures, which include both day and night, and winter and summer, are a miserable 9.4 degree C.
I now live in Brisbane, Australia, where the average, yearly temperature is 20 degrees C, which is 10.6 degrees warmer than Manchester, and I much prefer that higher temperature. Why should people be concerned with a temperature rise of a small fraction of a degree per decade, which they wouldn't even notice if that temperature rise occurred in their house within the course of a day or even an hour?

 

Surely the concern must be the projected increase in extreme weather events due to a change in climate resulting from that small rise in average global temperatures, which is claimed to be caused by our CO2 emissions.

 

The last major drought we had in Australia, known as the Millennium Drought, ended in 2010-11. I personally experienced the extreme flooding that took place, which was later discovered to be mainly due to mismanagement resulting from inaccurate advice from so-called 'climate scientists'. 

 

During the drought there were a number of proposals to build new dams to reduce the looming water shortage. It does rain occasionally during long drought periods, but below average. However, the advice from the climate experts was that we should get used to the drought conditions because this would become the norm due to global warming, and that there would be little point in building new dams, and that desalination plants would be a better option.

 

So that's what the Queensland government did. They spent money on desalination plants which were used for just a short time before the massive flooding arrived. If the dams had been built, the flooding could have been avoided, and billions of dollars in property and infrastructure damage could have been saved, as well as the 33 lives lost.

 

According to BOM records, the 2010-11 floods in the Brisbane area was the 6th worst on record, in terms of flood height, although the graph seems to show it was the 7th worst.

 

http://www.bom.gov.au/qld/flood/fld_history/brisbane_history.shtml

Can you understand my skepticism about 'climate change alarmism'? When we have a drought in SE Australia, the ice is affected in parts of the Antarctic. Analyses of ice cores from an area called Law Dome have revealed that during the past 1,000 years, SE Australia has had 8 megadroughts (droughts which are longer than 5 years). 6 of those droughts occurred before European settlement in Australia, and the worst occurred in the 12th century AD and was 39 years long.

 

If we have another 39 year drought in Australia, I bet the climate scientists (or more correctly, climate science activists) will claim that the drought is undeniable evidence of CAGW, and will ignore the existing proxy evidence that a similar event occurred long before we began burning fossil fuels.

Melbourne spent ridiculous amounts on a desalination plant too - not needed so far and sitting idle. I am sure the people of Manchester would love an extra degree but maybe not as much if it resulted in differences in flora and fauna and bee patterns and affected local farming or higher sea levels and more floods for their friends in Liverpool. Might be easy for manchurians to adapt but not for other places that have climates that are somewhat arid or prone to floods etc. You are recognising the human frailty in extrapolating what the effect of increased temperatures will be but less accepting of the notion that increased temperatures can, based on the consensus of scientific studies , lead to bad outcomes. I get insurance because something unlikely might happen and I increase it if that likelihood statistically increases. I think it is not unreasonable, based on current science, for world leaders to take the same approach without having knee jerk reactions or just playing to wealthy or political interests.  

 

The god believers will feel some succor in knowing heaven awaits.  Faith is a strong concept that I think affects the religious and non-religious and can make it difficult to work out the best approach. Faith in god and faith in our personal knowledge and judgement. 

I don't feel a heaven is likely so I want the best and brightest to take out an insurance policy and take action in case bad things happen. 

[VincentRJ]

3 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

You are recognising the human frailty in extrapolating what the effect of increased temperatures will be but less accepting of the notion that increased temperatures can, based on the consensus of scientific studies , lead to bad outcomes.

That's true. I'm less accepting of the notion that increased temperatures can, based on the consensus of scientific studies, lead to bad outcomes. One of the reason why I'm less accepting is because my own enquiries have revealed that the claimed high degree of consensus, such as 97%, appears to be fraudulent, from a true scientific perspective.

 

Another reason why I'm less accepting of the alarmist claims of bad outcomes is that the claimed driver of such warming, our CO2 emissions, has undeniable beneficial effects. CO2 is a clear and odorless gas which is essential for all life. It's not a pollutant. This fact is far more certain than any computer projections of the dire consequences of rising CO2 levels.

 

There are numerous studies which show that most plants, which are of the C3 type, will increase their growth by around 35% with a doubling of CO2 levels from, for example, 200 ppm to 400 ppm, or from 400 ppm to 800 ppm. After about 1300 ppm the benefits begin to wane.

 

In dry and arid regions, the increased plant growth is even greater for a doubling of CO2. It produces around a 65% increase in plant growth. This is particularly good for Australia where we have large areas which are arid.

 

The following article addresses the use of CO2 in greenhouses.
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm

 

"The benefits of carbon dioxide supplementation on plant growth and production within the greenhouse environment have been well understood for many years.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an essential component of photosynthesis (also called carbon assimilation)."

 

This next article provides convincing evidence that our planet is becoming greener, as a result of rising CO2 levels
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-greenerfor-now/

 

"An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States."

[thaibeachlovers]

On 11/5/2021 at 7:34 PM, VincentRJ said:

I think you've been reading too much bad news. 

Far as I can see there is only bad news. I don't watch local tv news at all ( too many ads ), and Al Jazira rarely, but have gone off A J as it's gone woke in the past couple years. However, if one disregards the news items and docos about climate change it remains IMO the best tv international news channel available.

 

I generally don't take much notice of news anyway. I have no idea why I should be concerned that 99 people died in a petrol tanker explosion somewhere, when most of the real news goes unreported.

 

However, to get back to the OP, there was a lovely thunder storm yesterday- nature ( Gaia/ God ) at her best.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

5 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

You are recognising the human frailty in extrapolating what the effect of increased temperatures will be but less accepting of the notion that increased temperatures can, based on the consensus of scientific studies , lead to bad outcomes.

I have no problem accepting that bad outcomes FOR HUMANS can happen from almost any weather event, but seems to me that most of the destruction is man made by deforestation and illegal mining etc.

I absolutely ignore any claim that the oceans are rising at a rate that will be evident in the forseeable future, though I do believe that such as excessive ground water pumping can result in problems as in Bkk.

IMO most of the activism is political, and based on populist agendas. Ask any of the schoolchildren demonstrating to explain the theory, and I doubt most could do more than parrot the talking points given to them. Ask them for real solutions and I doubt they know any, other than "we must do something".

 

Anyway, back to the OP, there are some wonderful cloud formations to be seen- thank you Gaia.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

17 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

However, to get back to the OP, there was a lovely thunder storm yesterday- nature ( Gaia/ God ) at her best.

 

Anyway, back to the OP, there are some wonderful cloud formations to be seen- thank you Gaia.

Gaia needs your help. Gaia, which I had to look up as being Greek goddess of earth, doesn't need your thanks or fatalism. Everything is connected. If you believe you are Gaia's child stand up for Mother Earth.  

[ivor bigun]

I am sorry to but in ,as i do now and again ,but in todays world God cannot be referred to as male or female ,he could be as the new Marks and Spencers badges  say

he/him/his or she /her /hers or they/them /theirs.

anyway carry on ,and please lets become more modern when we talk about God ,in fact he could even be non binery and change from day to day.

[mauGR1]

23 minutes ago, ivor bigun said:

anyway carry on ,and please lets become more modern when we talk about God

I thought that "intelligent design " was quite modern, and covering lots of definitions ????

[Elad]

On 11/6/2021 at 4:50 AM, VincentRJ said:

The laws of physics, geometry, maths, etc, are all creations of mankind that have slowly evolved since the beginning of civilization, and continue to evolve because science is never 'completely' settled.

The way we interpret the laws of physics by using language, numbers, symbols etc.. are created by humans, but the laws themselves are not. For example:

Gravity is attractive and NOT repulsive

Particles with the same charge repel 

Particles with opposite charges attract

Moving charges create magnetic fields

Do you think that these fundamental laws were created by humans?   

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, Elad said:

The way we interpret the laws of physics by using language, numbers, symbols etc.. are created by humans, but the laws themselves are not. For example:

Gravity is attractive and NOT repulsive

Particles with the same charge repel 

Particles with opposite charges attract

Moving charges create magnetic fields

Do you think that these fundamental laws were created by humans?   

Imho, numbers and math too, the man has just " discovered " those, more or less in the same way Columbus discovered America, but America was already there, and would have existed with or without Columbus ????

[Skeptic7]

1 hour ago, ivor bigun said:

God cannot be referred to as male or female

Perhaps "shim" or "she-male" or Ladyboy! works for ya! 555

 

I have always referred to any god concept as an IT or a Thing. Since they are unknown, unproven, unlikely, unrealistic and unsubstantiated. 

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

1 hour ago, ivor bigun said:

God cannot be referred to as male or female

Perhaps "shim" or "she-male" or Ladyboy! works for ya! 555

The plot thickens ????

[zzaa09]

Your GODS are political by their very nature. 

Why is this?

[VincentRJ]

3 hours ago, Elad said:

The way we interpret the laws of physics by using language, numbers, symbols etc.. are created by humans, but the laws themselves are not. For example:

Gravity is attractive and NOT repulsive

Do you think that these fundamental laws were created by humans?   

Definitely. We've just recently discovered the possibility that gravity can be repulsive. It's called Dark Matter, which is a hypothetical explanation for the observed accelerating expansion of the universe.

 

We used to think that the expansion was slowing down due to gravity, but recent observations, resulting from improvements to the Hubble telescope, show the expansion is accelerating. The current explanation is an invisible and undetectable gravitational, repulsive force.

[Elad]

5 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Definitely. We've just recently discovered the possibility that gravity can be repulsive. It's called Dark Matter, which is a hypothetical explanation for the observed accelerating expansion of the universe.

 

We used to think that the expansion was slowing down due to gravity, but recent observations, resulting from improvements to the Hubble telescope, show the expansion is accelerating. The current explanation is an invisible and undetectable gravitational, repulsive force.

According to scientists Dark Matter is actually contributing to the attractive force of gravity, and is holding the galaxies together. Without the Dark matter galaxies would break apart because there's not enough normal matter to account for the observed rotation curve.

You are probably referring to Dark Energy which, apparently, is responsible for the accelerated expansion of the universe. However, the expansion only works on very large scales like the huge voids between super clusters of galaxies. On smaller scales such as solar systems, galaxies and even local clusters of galaxies, the gravitational attraction from normal matter dominates.

I think science is pretty much settled that locally, bodies of normal matter give rise to an attractive force.  

[thaibeachlovers]

15 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Gaia needs your help. Gaia, which I had to look up as being Greek goddess of earth, doesn't need your thanks or fatalism. Everything is connected. If you believe you are Gaia's child stand up for Mother Earth.  

I don't believe I'm Gaia's child. I am a product of the creator, which includes Gaia, as everything comes from the creator.

[thaibeachlovers]

7 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Definitely. We've just recently discovered the possibility that gravity can be repulsive. It's called Dark Matter, which is a hypothetical explanation for the observed accelerating expansion of the universe.

 

We used to think that the expansion was slowing down due to gravity, but recent observations, resulting from improvements to the Hubble telescope, show the expansion is accelerating. The current explanation is an invisible and undetectable gravitational, repulsive force.

IMO it's time to accept that we don't know much about the universe, and may never do so. In the same way as an earthworm "knows" about the dirt that surrounds it, we "know" about what we can see or detect with instruments about our environment, but IMO there is much we will never be able to detect or even understand.

However, many people make a good living guessing about it.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 11/6/2021 at 7:21 PM, transam said:

I wonder why, if there is a God, a creator, why his planet Earth is filled with creatures that were created to kill and eat each other.

 

Doesn't sound a very nice place for Galaxy holiday folk to come and visit...????

I fail to understand why so many posters insist on making the creator of the universe ( you know, that thing involving uncountable trillions of stars and planets ) some sort of human like being with the same emotions as humans.

Not only creatures killing and eating each other, but black holes that consume entire planets and stars.

 

I'm also puzzled as how a biological entity like the planet could evolve creatures that didn't kill and eat each other, unless only plants existed ( not forgetting that plants also compete against and kill other plants ).

Perhaps one might be happier with some sort of ethereal being that used sunlight to function, like a floating cloud of gas that had intelligence. For all we know, there may be millions of planets with life forms like that.

Edited November 7, 2021 by thaibeachlovers

[thaibeachlovers]

On 11/6/2021 at 9:31 PM, Fat is a type of crazy said:

The religious have a fall back position believing someone is looking out for them if they are good, that there's this other place free of warming and other earthly failings that they will go when they die, that they see some bigger picture that we can't see. So they can look at things like climate change with derision but believe in things like intelligent design. 

While I've never noticed any "derision" from the religious about climate change, their attitude may be more a case of accepting that God's plan includes climate change, whatever mere humans do, and many religious folk understand that God is mysterious and does not need to explain everything to us, any more than needing to explain it to frogs or red ants.

IMO mankind shows its arrogance by considering us to be more "special" than other species, despite us being dependent on organisms like bacteria to survive. Without the bee to pollinate crops, we'd probably all starve, so we important humans need a bee to live, LOL.

[seedy]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I fail to understand why so many posters insist on making the creator of the universe ( you know, that thing involving uncountable trillions of stars and planets ) some sort of human like being with the same emotions as humans.

Not only creatures killing and eating each other, but black holes that consume entire planets and stars.

 

I'm also puzzled as how a biological entity like the planet could evolve creatures that didn't kill and eat each other, unless only plants existed ( not forgetting that plants also compete against and kill other plants ).

Perhaps one might be happier with some sort of ethereal being that used sunlight to function, like a floating cloud of gas that had intelligence. For all we know, there may be millions of planets with life forms like that.

I think people get caught up somehow in this "I need to Know" nonsense.

Incapable of just accepting things as they are, they need to know how it all came to be, and where it is all going.

Hence the need for a starting point, which they call God. And an end point, which they call Heaven or Hell, depending.

Insecurity at its finest.

 

[mauGR1]

7 minutes ago, seedy said:

Incapable of just accepting things as they are, they need to know how it all came to be, and where it is all going.

I think this is normal for everyone, in various degrees, and accepting things as they are is normal too, in various degrees. 

So, what exactly are you complaining about ?

[VincentRJ]

4 hours ago, Elad said:

You are probably referring to Dark Energy which, apparently, is responsible for the accelerated expansion of the universe. However, the expansion only works on very large scales like the huge voids between super clusters of galaxies. On smaller scales such as solar systems, galaxies and even local clusters of galaxies, the gravitational attraction from normal matter dominates.

I think science is pretty much settled that locally, bodies of normal matter give rise to an attractive force.  

Thanks for the correction. However, the point I'm making is that all our scientific theories have been 'created' through our enhanced capacity for symbolic and abstract thought. Ancient peoples were thinking about the issue of gravity long before Isaac Newton clarified the situation using advanced mathematics.

 

Everything in science that we think is settled is only settled until it becomes unsettled, and the history of science reveals that frequently, theories which were presumed to be settled, are later either amended or abandoned as new evidence becomes available.

 

The 'Methodology of Science' requires repeated experimentation which produces consistent results, before a high degree of certainty can be achieved. But that experimentation depends upon things and effects that we can observe or detect.

 

The idea, or hypothesis, that more than 95% of all the matter and energy in the universe is currently undetectable by any means currently at our disposal, provides a hint of how little we really know. ????

 

 

[transam]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I fail to understand why so many posters insist on making the creator of the universe ( you know, that thing involving uncountable trillions of stars and planets ) some sort of human like being with the same emotions as humans.

Not only creatures killing and eating each other, but black holes that consume entire planets and stars.

 

I'm also puzzled as how a biological entity like the planet could evolve creatures that didn't kill and eat each other, unless only plants existed ( not forgetting that plants also compete against and kill other plants ).

Perhaps one might be happier with some sort of ethereal being that used sunlight to function, like a floating cloud of gas that had intelligence. For all we know, there may be millions of planets with life forms like that.

Indeed, a planet doing what it wants to do via its formation, structure, and other planet positions, after all, if the sun were not there, nor would Earths living creatures, if it were to explode, then us pretty weak humans would be gone too.

So no, I do not believe in "a" God, but there are mysteries regarding the Universe as us humans know it...

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, transam said:

Indeed, a planet doing what it wants to do via its formation, structure, and other planet positions, after all, if the sun were not there, nor would Earths living creatures, if it were to explode, then us pretty weak humans would be gone too.

So no, I do not believe in "a" God, but there are mysteries regarding the Universe as us humans know it...

 

 

If you were able to time travel to the end of the sun's fuel, you'd see the sun expand and consume all the planets before dying. Perhaps not an explosion, but the end for whatever species happen to be living on the planets at the time.

That's assuming a black hole doesn't swallow the solar system first.

 

The question is pretty simple really, either the universe came from nothing all by itself, or a creator made it.

If one believes that it just happened out of nothing, does that mean one believes in "magic".

Edited November 8, 2021 by thaibeachlovers

[transam]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If you were able to time travel to the end of the sun's fuel, you'd see the sun expand and consume all the planets before dying. Perhaps not an explosion, but the end for whatever species happen to be living on the planets at the time.

That's assuming a black hole doesn't swallow the solar system first.

 

The question is pretty simple really, either the universe came from nothing all by itself, or a creator made it.

If one believes that it just happened out of nothing, does that mean one believes in "magic".

I find electricity to be magic, I have never seen it, you only see it when it is doing something, though I have felt it on a couple of occasions..????

 

But, the thread is about do you believe in God, no I don't, plus I do not believe in going to a place and kneeling down worshipping a perceived person/thing, or the stories that are written in books about God sending his son down to sort stuff out, it was God who created man with whom they had the problem with.

 

One day, waaaaay in the future perhaps man, if it is not extinct, will find out how it all started, after all, even in these early stages of man, we now know when and how long the dinosaurs of different types roamed Earth, and when and how man appeared on Earth, which was nothing to do with Adam and Eve....????