Isn't god an unnessary baseless assumption?

[wendylove]

The point is god is irrelevant now. Since, science and espically theortical physics is about to explain everything, i.e. The theory of everything. See, we used to have god because we don't know. When we look at lighting we would think it is god, or when someone is insane then it is the devil. Now, we know that lighting is caused by subatomic particles, and insanity by chemical imbalances. We don't need the assumption of god to explain it. Even, worse god is used either fallacy i.e. if not god then what(argument of ignorance) or tautology i.e. for something to exist it needs to be created, theirfore their must be a creator(or the popular this universe is not created by random chance, which atheist don't claim). See, saying god created the world is descriptive. It does not explain how, so basically your saying nothing. Not only that, you can't make prediction, you can't disprove it and finally you need faith to except it. The concept of god is the most useless thing ever, it just a comfort blanket. It hasen't revealed much, all the bible is a morality lesson. The idear of creation has been shown to be incorrect(which alot of people don't except because of various reason). So when science has told us that we have evolved, that their was a big bang, their are infinte amount of primes. What has religion done. Yeah, there were religious people who worked as scientist for example Newton. But, if you look at the bible it is a big failure. It could atleast of had evolution or the big bang in it. Saying that it took long, but now science is on top and if you're an atheist you won't get killed. P.S. We will soon have the theory of everything. I wonder what it reveals, I hope it is something stranger than quantum mechanics.

[Serkat]

OK, I agree with most of what you said but I don't think there's much to debate here, unfortunately. It's like, I read the text, I think "yes" and I really don't know what to say to that except "yes".

[Mes Tarrant]

Been discussed.

[Dreamworld]

The point is god is irrelevant now. Since, science and espically theortical physics is about to explain everything, i.e. The theory of everything. See, we used to have god because we don't know. When we look at lighting we would think it is god, or when someone is insane then it is the devil. Now, we know that lighting is caused by subatomic particles, and insanity by chemical imbalances. We don't need the assumption of god to explain it. Even, worse god is used either fallacy i.e. if not god then what(argument of ignorance) or tautology i.e. for something to exist it needs to be created, theirfore their must be a creator(or the popular this universe is not created by random chance, which atheist don't claim). See, saying god created the world is descriptive. It does not explain how, so basically your saying nothing. Not only that, you can't make prediction, you can't disprove it and finally you need faith to except it. The concept of god is the most useless thing ever, it just a comfort blanket. It hasen't revealed much, all the bible is a morality lesson. The idear of creation has been shown to be incorrect(which alot of people don't except because of various reason). So when science has told us that we have evolved, that their was a big bang, their are infinte amount of primes. What has religion done. Yeah, there were religious people who worked as scientist for example Newton. But, if you look at the bible it is a big failure. It could atleast of had evolution or the big bang in it. Saying that it took long, but now science is on top and if you're an atheist you won't get killed. P.S. We will soon have the theory of everything. I wonder what it reveals, I hope it is something stranger than quantum mechanics. Are you kidding me? We are nowhere near the "theory of everything". There will always be more to know, that is if you believe the universe is infinite, so is knowledge. Please take a theology class, because you seem to completly over generalize what people think God is. all the bible is a morality lesson. That is correct.

[Sornaensis]

Dreamworld it is pretty plain to see that the average fool sees god as "that magic dude in the sky". I mean I could do a poll for you if you wanted.

[Dreamworld]

Dreamworld it is pretty plain to see that the average fool sees god as "that magic dude in the sky". I mean I could do a poll for you if you wanted. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=43957 62% do. While there are still 43%. The numbers have been going down drastically over the years. Reasoned approach is what got them to think clearly, not people who told them Christianity was a complete joke. Also the in Catholic Canon law, evolution is accepted. Exactly 50% of Catholics do not belive in the bible literally. In a couple of years the nonliteralists will become the average.

[Needcatscan]

That will be nice. Non-literalist Christians are much more down to earth. Fundies are the scary ones

[Dreamworld]

That will be nice. Non-literalist Christians are much more down to earth. Fundies are the scary ones I agree.

[Sandform]

Are you kidding me? We are nowhere near the "theory of everything". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Everything Theory of Everything Gravity Electronuclear force (GUT) Strong force su(3) Electroweak force su(2) x u(1) Weak force su(2) Electromagnetism u(1) Electric force Magnetic force It's the theory of how everything works. Your believing that the theory of everything is literally the theory of everything, but it isn't, its the theory of the driving force behind everything. I.E. weak force, strong force, electric, and gravity. Anyway, you just have to have Faith when it comes to God.

[Dreamworld]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Everything Theory of Everything Gravity Electronuclear force (GUT) Strong force su(3) Electroweak force su(2) x u(1) Weak force su(2) Electromagnetism u(1) Electric force Magnetic force It's the theory of how everything works. Your believing that the theory of everything is literally the theory of everything, but it isn't, its the theory of the driving force behind everything. I.E. weak force, strong force, electric, and gravity. Anyway, you just have to have Faith when it comes to God. That has no relevance to what God is. A Fundamentalist would say the "theory of everything" is a step closer to finding out God's mysterious ways. Not God himself. Could you elaborate on the last sentence?

[Sornaensis]

God is nothing. The theory of everything is the explanation of the basis of everything it seems. Not a single unified theory that literally explains each and every specific phenomenon ever in the universe as a lot of people think...

[Sandform]

That has no relevance to what God is. A Fundamentalist would say the "theory of everything" is a step closer to finding out God's mysterious ways. Not God himself. Well that is great if it is true, but God is just an answer in the form of a question...Sortof like... What is this?, replied by, what isn't it? Could you elaborate on the last sentence? You just have to have Faith that God is God. Meanwhile, why does the rest of the universe exist if the universe is centered around life when so much of the universe is full of nonlife.

[Dreamworld]

Well that is great if it is true, but God is just an answer in the form of a question...Sortof like... What is this?, replied by, what isn't it? You just have to have Faith that God is God. Meanwhile, why does the rest of the universe exist if the universe is centered around life when so much of the universe is full of nonlife. If God is meant to be the womb of creation, you would have to go a bit further than physical physics. I have no idea what point you are making about your middle sentence. I don't know which defintion of life you are refering too, but a galaxy, or planet can be classfied as a living object. Without any cellular activity. By the way I'm not a Fundamentalist, and I don't seem to understand your point.

[Sandform]

If God is meant to be the womb of creation, you would have to go a bit further than physical physics. I have no idea what point you are making about your middle sentence. I don't know which defintion of life you are refering too, but a galaxy, or planet can be classfied as a living object. Without any cellular activity. By the way I'm not a Fundamentalist, and I don't seem to understand your point. You can believe that I don't really care. Like I said, God is just an answer without an reason for its necessity. "God is needed", but there is nothing needed for God, God exists independent of a need for him to exist. The first one. You can't prove God, no matter what you do, so you just have to have faith that God is God. The second one. When was the last time a planet (or galaxy) reproduced (You could argue the moon, but it isn't a planet, nor are comets, and essentially they would just be pieces of the planet.)...or maintained homeostasis (a stable internal temperature to keep itself alive, a planet exists independent of its temperature, and also, planets have temperatures based on their closeness to a source of energy.) Some of the other characteristics can be argued but I don't feel like it. The last one.

[Sandform]

You can believe that I don't really care. Like I said, God is just an answer without an reason for its necessity. "God is needed", but there is nothing needed for God, God exists independent of a need for him to exist. The first one. Besides, in terms of religious ideology, life is a thing with a soul and consciousness.

[LucidFlanders]

I hope some of you don't view your opinions as facts....

[Sandform]

That has no relevance to what God is. A Fundamentalist would say the "theory of everything" is a step closer to finding out God's mysterious ways. Not God himself. If it is true to you whether plus x or minus x, then no matter what you say its true to you...

[Dreamworld]

You can believe that I don't really care. Like I said, God is just an answer without an reason for its necessity. "God is needed", but there is nothing needed for God, God exists independent of a need for him to exist. The first one. You can't prove God, no matter what you do, so you just have to have faith that God is God. The second one. When was the last time a planet (or galaxy) reproduced (You could argue the moon, but it isn't a planet, nor are comets, and essentially they would just be pieces of the planet.)...or maintained homeostasis (a stable internal temperature to keep itself alive, a planet exists independent of its temperature, and also, planets have temperatures based on their closeness to a source of energy.) Some of the other characteristics can be argued but I don't feel like it. The last one. You don't seem to understand that what is a God to somebody varies by person. Almost all of quantum physics is not needed at all. We don't need astronony, or need to contact alien civilizations to survive. Its the nature of curiosity. Speaking of, God is energy to me. Touch your desk. Proof God is real. But do we know everything about energy? Of course not. God can be hope. When there isn't any. To Atheists this is occurs in you also, but you just call it a different term. Several billions years ago. When millions of rocks met each other and were binded by gravity. Which came from dying stars, and other planets. What about the galaxies need to become bigger and expand? Just like the purpose of any form of life. planets have temperatures based on their closeness to a source of energy.) Wait a second.. Isn't the sun.. The reason we have life? Unknown>gravity>heat>light>waves>matter>life Its all not as different as you think. The later stages you get to the more slowed down energy is. And more complex it gets.

[Sandform]

I used the word need in the sense of needed in order for blank to have happened. Almost all of quantum physics is not needed at all. We don't need astronony, or need to contact alien civilizations to survive. Its the nature of curiosity. Speaking of, Your mistaking what is meant by needed. Quantum physics is needed in order for the things that are the effect of quantum physics to occur. The theory of quantum physics isn't, but the thing quantum physics defines is needed for things related to the theories to occur. Let me try to clear this sentence up it sounds confusing. Creating a theory of quantum physics isn't needed. However, the actual action that the theory tries to explain is needed in order for something relating to the action to occur. God is energy to me. Touch your desk. Proof God is real. But do we know everything about energy? Of course not. God can be hope. When there isn't any. To Atheists this is occurs in you also, but you just call it a different term. Then you aren't using it as the definition of a conscious creating God, which is the only thing I was trying to speak of. I could call anything God, it is pointless to argue over semantics and often that is what these threads turn into. Btw where do you think your definition of God came from? You took the word of a defiition of something else and twisted that definition to meet your own ends so that the original word now means something different to you. Several billions years ago. When millions of rocks met each other and were binded by gravity. Which came from dying stars, and other planets. What about the galaxies need to become bigger and expand? Just like the purpose of any form of life. Wait a second.. Isn't the sun.. The reason we have life? Pure energy>heat>light>waves>matter>life Its all not as different as you think. The later stages you get to the more slowed down energy is. And more complex it gets.". Dreamworld, did you not get the point about homeostasis? The point was that planets to do not independently focus themselves on keeping a stable temperature needed for it to exist. Planets can exist independently of suns. Their temperature is based off of the sun, and there is no temperature that is specifically needed for a planet to continue to exist. There are temperatures that are specifically needed for living things to exist.

[LucidFlanders]

I'd love to be on a planet that had 5 suns, all different colors and you can see them all with the naked eye. I'd also love to see trillions of stars aswell.

[NonDualistic]

all the bible is a morality lesson. That is correct. Keys lie embedded within Unlocking that which is beyond the confines of knowledge

[Dreamworld]

I used the word need in the sense of needed in order for blank to have happened. Your mistaking what is meant by needed. Quantum physics is needed in order for the things that occur because of quantum physics to occur. The theory of quantum physics isn't, but the thing quantum physics defines is needed for things related to the theories to occur. Let me try to clear this sentence up it sounds confusing. Creating a theory of quantum physics isn't needed. However, the actual action that the theory tries to explain is needed in order for something relating to the action to occur. Then you aren't using it as the definition of a conscious creating God, which is the only thing I was trying to speak of. I could call anything God, it is pointless to argue over semantics and often that is what these threads turn into. Dreamworld, did you not get the point about homeostasis? The point was that planets to do not independently focus themselves on keeping a stable temperature needed for it to exist. Planets can exist independently of suns. Their temperature is based off of the sun, and there is no temperature that is specifically needed for a plant to continue to exist. Then you aren't using it as the definition of a conscious creating God, which is the only thing I was trying to speak of. I could call anything God But 43% of non literall chrisitians soon to be the majority of christians, would find this OP offending, and misleading. God is just hope, and what you would call your super ego for them. Nothing more. Many Atheists speak plainly, and say Chrisitanity makes no sense, etc, which just furthers their need to become fundamentalists in the first place. Religion, is family, and community oriented, and if somebodies life is getting better through religion why stop? Because some Atheist on youtube said it made no sense? Religion should be reformed, not taken down. But in order to reform, you need to find relevance to your atheist beliefs, with a religious group. Look back in history when people broke away from the church instead of reforming it (Matin Luther's main idea), and created Evangelists which are 93% literalists. And hey Catholism has become the biggest religion after that attempt. Catholism has reformed itself greatly. Canon law has accepted evolution, and the geological age of the earth. Completly seperation from the religion itself, will cause more religions, and more problems. Gradual reasoned approach is what is logically correct. If by God you meant a conscious creating God, I agree. And we can stop this arguement. The other part of our arguement has no relevance, since this was a error in semantics.

[Sandform]

But 43% of non literall chrisitians soon to be the majority of christians, would find this OP offending, and misleading. God is just hope, and what you would call your super ego for them. Nothing more. Many Atheists speak plainly, and say Chrisitanity makes no sense, etc, which just furthers their need to become fundamentalists in the first place. Religion, is family, and community oriented, and if somebodies life is getting better through religion why stop? Because some Atheist on youtube said it made no sense? Religion should be reformed, not taken down. But in order to reform, you need to find relevance to your atheist beliefs, with a religious group. Look back in history when people broke away from the church instead of reforming it (Matin Luther's main idea), and created Evangelists which are 93% literalists. And hey Catholism has become the biggest religion after that attempt. Catholism has reformed itself greatly. Canon law has accepted evolution, and the geological age of the earth. Completly seperation from the religion itself, will cause more religions, and more problems. Gradual reasoned approach is what is logically correct. If by God you meant a conscious creating God, I agree. And we can stop this arguement. The other part of our arguement has no relevance, since this was a error in semantics. Agreed on all points except that I don't think religion is necessary to carry out the functions you state it carries out. I'm not saying I want religion gone, or that I even care what you believe, however I do want religious beliefs of other people not to be involved in my countries government.

[Dreamworld]

Agreed on all points except that I don't think religion is necessary to carry out the functions you state it carries out. I'm not saying I want religion gone, or that I even care what you believe, however I do want religious beliefs of other people not to be involved in my countries government. I completly agree on seperation of state and religion. P.S: By the way I meant religion often includes family and community, not induces it.

[Sandform]

The next statement isn't directed at anyone but this is what you should say when in an argument about religion. "Why don't you give me the single best rock solid piece of objective evidence that you have that X religion is true. We'll have a discussion about why it's most likely nonsense and you will refrain from changing the subject because by giving your next response, you will be agreeing a priori that all the other evidence is less compelling."