Christianity vs. Evolution

This thread was better off closed >.>GTA3_Darkel

No, it wasn't. If you're not going to contribute anything useful, please do not contribute at all.

[QUOTE="dicpunch"]

I think believing in both implies you are able to lmove beyond how something happend and have moved into the why it may have happened.

diz360

Surely faith is more than maybe. The certainty that theists place on the existence of god is based purely on their faith.

However, science (or specifically evolution) needs no faith for a belief. There should be plenty of unambiguous evidence instead.

The process for scientific beliefs stems from being sceptical. But for religion, people can believe things without any evidence for them, while rejecting rational alternative views.

"Why" is also a valid question in the realms of science. But rather than jump to an irrational conclusion, rationalists just weigh up the possibilities.

There are all sorts of questions with regards to scientific theories that require huge leaps of faith. There isn't really much evidence at all as to how life came to be about or how complex cells came about or how these cells formed even more complex organisims or organs. I assume that you have faith that someday there will be an scientific explination for all of these questions and you don't take a very sceptical view of the gaps in scientific understanding to things we can't understand or explain. To fault others for belief in something isn't provable and yet hide behind scientific principles isn't all that intelectually honest. There are many things that science can't explain itself that you have to believe without good evidence or scientific backing.

When I was saying "why" I was meaning it in an aplication way.

Not exactly I was implying that someone may have questions about how we got here and also why we're here and now that we are here what are we supossed to do. Two different realms of questions and two differentgroups of people to answer them.

dicpunch

The scientific field of human psychology has many revealing insights into the human quest for meaning in their lives.

People can gain comfort from "knowing" their role or purpose in the world. The fear of death often forces people to imagine existence post-mortem. These cozy thoughts could also be construed as ego-centric selfishness in human psychology.

Atheists have goals, purpose and roles in society. The absence of religion does not change the validity of my life.

There are all sorts of questions with regards to scientific theories that require huge leaps of faith. There isn't really much evidence at all as to how life came to be about or how complex cells came about or how these cells formed even more complex organisims or organs. I assume that you have faith that someday there will be an scientific explination for all of these questions and you don't take a very sceptical view of the gaps in scientific understanding to things we can't understand or explain. To fault others for belief in something isn't provable and yet hide behind scientific principles isn't all that intelectually honest. There are many things that science can't explain itself that you have to believe without good evidence or scientific backing.

When I was saying "why" I was meaning it in an aplication way.

dicpunch

What scientific theories require leaps of faith?

[QUOTE="dicpunch"][QUOTE="Decessus"][QUOTE="dicpunch"]

I think believing in both implies you are able to lmove beyond how something happend and have moved into the why it may have happened.

Decessus

Perhaps, but let me ask you a question.

I'm assuming that you mean someone could believe that evolution happens, but why evolution happens is because God created it that way, correct?

Not exactly I was implying that someone may have questions about how we got here and also why we're here and now that we are here what are we supossed to do. Two different realms of questions and two differentgroups of people to answer them.

Yes, I understand what you're saying now. I think the issue still remains though. Even if you ask questions about why we are here, and what we are supposed to do, don't you feel the answers to those questions should be based on solid reasoning? If we allow ourselves to answer those types of questions based on faith, then what prevents people from giving any answer they want?

[/QUOTE

Yes. Just because you have faith in God, or Gods, or a set of other relgious principles doesn't mean you shouldn't come to a clear understanding of them and reason for believing in them. People do sometimes give the answers they want and that is what leads to much of the problems religion has had throughout history. It isn't the religion itself that causes the problems its the religious, but that just come with being human.

[QUOTE="dicpunch"]

There are all sorts of questions with regards to scientific theories that require huge leaps of faith. There isn't really much evidence at all as to how life came to be about or how complex cells came about or how these cells formed even more complex organisims or organs. I assume that you have faith that someday there will be an scientific explination for all of these questions and you don't take a very sceptical view of the gaps in scientific understanding to things we can't understand or explain. To fault others for belief in something isn't provable and yet hide behind scientific principles isn't all that intelectually honest. There are many things that science can't explain itself that you have to believe without good evidence or scientific backing.

When I was saying "why" I was meaning it in an aplication way.

Decessus

What scientific theories require leaps of faith?

Many that deal with the development of early life, cells and changes in the pre-human enviorment. Discoveries are constantly being made that totatlly change the way we think things have happened. Gotta run. i'll try to make it back.

Yes. Just because you have faith in God, or Gods, or a set of other relgious principles doesn't mean you shouldn't come to a clear understanding of them and reason for believing in them. People do sometimes give the answers they want and that is what leads to much of the problems religion has had throughout history. It isn't the religion itself that causes the problems its the religious, but that just come with being human.

dicpunch

To be honest, I don't think that religion is the problem. Religion is really just the sympton. The problem is that human beings are not completely rational creatures.

There are all sorts of questions with regards to scientific theories that require huge leaps of faith. There isn't really much evidence at all as to how life came to be about or how complex cells came about or how these cells formed even more complex organisims or organs. I assume that you have faith that someday there will be an scientific explination for all of these questions and you don't take a very sceptical view of the gaps in scientific understanding to things we can't understand or explain. To fault others for belief in something isn't provable and yet hide behind scientific principles isn't all that intelectually honest. There are many things that science can't explain itself that you have to believe without good evidence or scientific backing.

When I was saying "why" I was meaning it in an aplication way.

dicpunch

What huge leaps of faith are made in scientific theories? Scientific method precludes these leaps of faith. I assume you are unaware of the scientic method.

There are hypotheses about the creation of life. There is plenty of firm evidence regarding evolution. I choose to accept these hypotheses and evolutionary truths as far more acceptable than the various mis-interpretations of many different authors written thousands of years ago.

I have no faith in science, but a belief that it has far better governance (peer review and scrutiny, empirical evidence and foundations in scepticism) than some mythical and unsubstantiated happenings that we're told to believe.

Science is not afraid to say "don't know, but here are some possibilities." Theistic religions tend to say "I know - believe me or rot in hell".

You can believe what you like. Am I faulting you for saying your beliefs are irrational? If you feel aggrieved, then please rationalise your faith.

Many that deal with the development of early life, cells and changes in the pre-human enviorment. Discoveries are constantly being made that totatlly change the way we think things have happened. Gotta run. i'll try to make it back.

dicpunch

As far as I know there are no scientific theories that attempt to explain the early development of life. There are many hypotheses that attempt to do this, but none of them have been completely accepted by the scientific community.

[QUOTE="dicpunch"]

Yes. Just because you have faith in God, or Gods, or a set of other relgious principles doesn't mean you shouldn't come to a clear understanding of them and reason for believing in them. People do sometimes give the answers they want and that is what leads to much of the problems religion has had throughout history. It isn't the religion itself that causes the problems its the religious, but that just come with being human.

Decessus

To be honest, I don't think that religion is the problem. Religion is really just the sympton. The problem is that human beings are not completely rational creatures.

The carrier of the disease, then?CptJSparrow

If the powerful didn't use religion to control the masses, then they would just use something else.

It's simply the product of human beings not being completely rational. People give into emotions, they base their decisions on what they wish would be instead of what really is. That sort of mentality can be taken advantage of, and it does get taken advantage of.

[QUOTE="dicpunch"]

There are all sorts of questions with regards to scientific theories that require huge leaps of faith. There isn't really much evidence at all as to how life came to be about or how complex cells came about or how these cells formed even more complex organisims or organs. I assume that you have faith that someday there will be an scientific explination for all of these questions and you don't take a very sceptical view of the gaps in scientific understanding to things we can't understand or explain. To fault others for belief in something isn't provable and yet hide behind scientific principles isn't all that intelectually honest. There are many things that science can't explain itself that you have to believe without good evidence or scientific backing.

When I was saying "why" I was meaning it in an aplication way.

diz360

What huge leaps of faith are made in scientific theories? Scientific method precludes these leaps of faith. I assume you are unaware of the scientic method.

There are hypotheses about the creation of life. There is plenty of firm evidence regarding evolution. I choose to accept these hypotheses and evolutionary truths as far more acceptable than the various mis-interpretations of many different authors written thousands of years ago.

I have no faith in science, but a belief that it has far better governance (peer review and scrutiny, empirical evidence and foundations in scepticism) than some mythical and unsubstantiated happenings that we're told to believe.

Science is not afraid to say "don't know, but here are some possibilities." Theistic religions tend to say "I know - believe me or rot in hell".

You can believe what you like. Am I faulting you for saying your beliefs are irrational? If you feel aggrieved, then please rationalise your faith.

[QUOTE="diz360"][QUOTE="dicpunch"]

There are all sorts of questions with regards to scientific theories that require huge leaps of faith. There isn't really much evidence at all as to how life came to be about or how complex cells came about or how these cells formed even more complex organisims or organs. I assume that you have faith that someday there will be an scientific explination for all of these questions and you don't take a very sceptical view of the gaps in scientific understanding to things we can't understand or explain. To fault others for belief in something isn't provable and yet hide behind scientific principles isn't all that intelectually honest. There are many things that science can't explain itself that you have to believe without good evidence or scientific backing.

When I was saying "why" I was meaning it in an aplication way.

dicpunch

What huge leaps of faith are made in scientific theories? Scientific method precludes these leaps of faith. I assume you are unaware of the scientic method.

There are hypotheses about the creation of life. There is plenty of firm evidence regarding evolution. I choose to accept these hypotheses and evolutionary truths as far more acceptable than the various mis-interpretations of many different authors written thousands of years ago.

I have no faith in science, but a belief that it has far better governance (peer review and scrutiny, empirical evidence and foundations in scepticism) than some mythical and unsubstantiated happenings that we're told to believe.

Science is not afraid to say "don't know, but here are some possibilities." Theistic religions tend to say "I know - believe me or rot in hell".

You can believe what you like. Am I faulting you for saying your beliefs are irrational? If you feel aggrieved, then please rationalise your faith.

Science bases itself on fact, even upon it's shakiest foundations. Scientists will never propose anything as fact without evidence. Rather, it's more of a "well this is probably what went down" notion. Creationism is fine believing that the world needs no more proof than their God.TongHua

[QUOTE="dicpunch"][QUOTE="diz360"][QUOTE="dicpunch"]

There are all sorts of questions with regards to scientific theories that require huge leaps of faith. There isn't really much evidence at all as to how life came to be about or how complex cells came about or how these cells formed even more complex organisims or organs. I assume that you have faith that someday there will be an scientific explination for all of these questions and you don't take a very sceptical view of the gaps in scientific understanding to things we can't understand or explain. To fault others for belief in something isn't provable and yet hide behind scientific principles isn't all that intelectually honest. There are many things that science can't explain itself that you have to believe without good evidence or scientific backing.

When I was saying "why" I was meaning it in an aplication way.

mig_killer2

What huge leaps of faith are made in scientific theories? Scientific method precludes these leaps of faith. I assume you are unaware of the scientic method.

There are hypotheses about the creation of life. There is plenty of firm evidence regarding evolution. I choose to accept these hypotheses and evolutionary truths as far more acceptable than the various mis-interpretations of many different authors written thousands of years ago.

I have no faith in science, but a belief that it has far better governance (peer review and scrutiny, empirical evidence and foundations in scepticism) than some mythical and unsubstantiated happenings that we're told to believe.

Science is not afraid to say "don't know, but here are some possibilities." Theistic religions tend to say "I know - believe me or rot in hell".

You can believe what you like. Am I faulting you for saying your beliefs are irrational? If you feel aggrieved, then please rationalise your faith.

So you accept scientific truths and hypotheses today even though that haven't been proven and are just as likely to be false tomorrow based on new and better interpretations? It seems that you have fallen trap to your own misgrivings about the irrationality you find in religion. dicpunch

The most rational choice doesn't necessarily have to be the one that is proven to be absolutely correct. The most rational choice is the one that is most likely to be correct.

For example, suppose you walk into a store that is full of one hundred clocks. Ninty-five of those clocks say the time is 12:00PM. One clock says it is 3:45PM, two say it is 4:45PM, and two say it is 5:50PM. If someone were to ask you what time it was, what would you tell them?

[QUOTE="dicpunch"]So you accept scientific truths and hypotheses today even though that haven't been proven and are just as likely to be false tomorrow based on new and better interpretations? It seems that you have fallen trap to your own misgrivings about the irrationality you find in religion. Decessus

The most rational choice doesn't necessarily have to be the one that is proven to be absolutely correct. The most rational choice is the one that is most likely to be correct.

For example, suppose you walk into a store that is full of one hundred clocks. Ninty-five of those clocks say the time is 12:00PM. One clock says it is 3:45PM, two say it is 4:45PM, and two say it is 5:50PM. If someone were to ask you what time it was, what would you tell them?

So you accept scientific truths and hypotheses today even though that haven't been proven and are just as likely to be false tomorrow based on new and better interpretations? It seems that you have fallen trap to your own misgrivings about the irrationality you find in religion. dicpunch

Theories must have proof, so I accept them as the current truth. For example, evolutionary theory has only been extended, rather than been changed dramatically. I think the overwhelming evidence all around us and the constant discoveries supporting the theory are the reason that many christains have abandoned their previous positions for fear of looking dumb over their beliefs.

Hypotheses are subject to debate. The liklihood of dis-proof is an outcome of the debate associated with the hypothesis, counter arguments and evidence gathered that either accepts or rejects them. Debate and questioning is welcomed and encouraged in these areas. This process either:

A: progresses the hypothesis into a theory ( a statement of fact ), or

B: fails in garnering enough supplimental evidence (whereby it reamains a hypothesis), or

C: reduces it to an incorrect assertion.

Therefore, I would not believe in a hypothesis. I may accept it as a possibility though.

I have not fallen into any traps here. I simply choose not to fall into the trap of believing without reason. Please look into the deinitions of THEORY and HYPOTHESIS. These terms will help you understand scientific method and create a common framework for discussion. Agreed definitions are hugely important when discussing this topic.

Your turn now - What is rational about religion?

[QUOTE="TongHua"]Science bases itself on fact, even upon it's shakiest foundations. Scientists will never propose anything as fact without evidence. Rather, it's more of a "well this is probably what went down" notion. Creationism is fine believing that the world needs no more proof than their God.dicpunch

[QUOTE="diz360"][QUOTE="dicpunch"]

There are all sorts of questions with regards to scientific theories that require huge leaps of faith. There isn't really much evidence at all as to how life came to be about or how complex cells came about or how these cells formed even more complex organisims or organs. I assume that you have faith that someday there will be an scientific explination for all of these questions and you don't take a very sceptical view of the gaps in scientific understanding to things we can't understand or explain. To fault others for belief in something isn't provable and yet hide behind scientific principles isn't all that intelectually honest. There are many things that science can't explain itself that you have to believe without good evidence or scientific backing.

When I was saying "why" I was meaning it in an aplication way.

dicpunch

What huge leaps of faith are made in scientific theories? Scientific method precludes these leaps of faith. I assume you are unaware of the scientic method.

There are hypotheses about the creation of life. There is plenty of firm evidence regarding evolution. I choose to accept these hypotheses and evolutionary truths as far more acceptable than the various mis-interpretations of many different authors written thousands of years ago.

I have no faith in science, but a belief that it has far better governance (peer review and scrutiny, empirical evidence and foundations in scepticism) than some mythical and unsubstantiated happenings that we're told to believe.

Science is not afraid to say "don't know, but here are some possibilities." Theistic religions tend to say "I know - believe me or rot in hell".

You can believe what you like. Am I faulting you for saying your beliefs are irrational? If you feel aggrieved, then please rationalise your faith.

I don't think that there has to be a dichotomy between science and religion any more so than math and literature. It's the question that bothers me. I'll ask you the same question, Do you find fault with scientist who have religious faith?dicpunch

Many scientists of old have been religious. They have bought humanity forward in giant steps because they worked using the scientific method.

In the context of the last few centuries, it was very difficult to go against the dominance of religious teachings. Darwin held on to his "Origin of Species" for 10 years before deciding it was too important not to publish. The 10 year wait was due to him not wishing to upset the religious society he was involved with.

[QUOTE="dicpunch"][QUOTE="TongHua"]Science bases itself on fact, even upon it's shakiest foundations. Scientists will never propose anything as fact without evidence. Rather, it's more of a "well this is probably what went down" notion. Creationism is fine believing that the world needs no more proof than their God.CptJSparrow

well, i believe in evolution

though in terms of religious beliefs, i believe (and im being serious) that god is the devil and that the meaning of life is for us to suffer for his entertainment

You're right, however I don't think that there has to be a dichotomy between science and religion any more so than math and literature. It's the question that bothers me. I'll ask you the same question, Do you find fault with scientist who have religious faith?dicpunch

The reason that math and literature can coexist just fine is because the two deal with two entirely separate subject matters. I'm not entirely sure what exactly a mathematician does, but I know it has nothing to do with what a novelist does.

This isn't necessarily the case with religion and science. Look at history. How many times have science and religion come into conflict with each other? It's because religion and science often deal with the same issues.

As to your question, it really all depends. You'd have to be a little more specific for me to really answer the question.

[QUOTE="dicpunch"]You're right, however I don't think that there has to be a dichotomy between science and religion any more so than math and literature. It's the question that bothers me. I'll ask you the same question, Do you find fault with scientist who have religious faith?Decessus

The reason that math and literature can coexist just fine is because the two deal with two entirely separate subject matters. I'm not entirely sure what exactly a mathematician does, but I know it has nothing to do with what a novelist does.

This isn't necessarily the case with religion and science. Look at history. How many times have science and religion come into conflict with each other? It's because religion and science often deal with the same issues.

As to your question, it really all depends. You'd have to be a little more specific for me to really answer the question.

well, i believe in evolution

though in terms of religious beliefs, i believe (and im being serious) that god is the devil and that the meaning of life is for us to suffer for his entertainment

REforever101

now, I have just found some proof that the earth is 6000 years old. my first piece is the bible. the bible is the most scientifically accurate book of all time. it says right there in the bible.

my second piece is that I personally have never seen evolution. have any of you seen evolution? of cource not. Now, I've never seen creation either, but the people who wrote the bible did:o

there. God said it, I believe it, that settles it

mig_killer2

LOL

You are officially, my favorite poster on Gamespot. Even more than Silver_Dragon now!

Atheist: let's discuss religion and science

Christian: jesus loves youuu, you need himmm you need himmm

Atheist: bye.

I've kind of fell short trying to defend religion. There's too many "assumptions" that need to be made.

Christianity...lol. Silver_Dragon, I accidently deleted the message you sent me that linked to answering all of the Bible contradictions thinking this thread was closed. Can you re-post it?

I did read the link, but I'd like you to re-post it, so I can hear some more opinions from everyone else here. From what I saw, those guys did possibly everything they could to fix any contradiction, very ridiculous and comical.

For Islam, they at least have "arguments" to make. Heck I was making some of em, being interested in it. The verses can be metaphorical, or literal, can be right, or wrong. The most impressive is Embryology, and I forgot the guy's name but he made the Atanomy textbook that is the most widely used in the world. He said that there must have been divine intervention, and muslims quoted it repeatedly (he's from University of Toronto).

Then I looked more into the matter, and other professors showed him that the stuff (all of the right stuff) was just borrowed previously from Greeks and Hippocrates, and so he stopped quoting the Koran.

If this is true, which I don't know if it is or not, then it means:

Koran is divine, they didn't copy.

Or the one that I'm falling into a bit more now... that whoever wrote the Koran (person or persons) were really smart, smart enough to borrow stuff that would make it "seem" more "divine".

If this is true, atheists/agnostics you must agree that at least the creators of the Koran were smarter than the Gospels :)

That's why I'm anti-Christian, they didn't even try to make the Book sound divine, well, unless you count spiritual guidance, which is a bunch of bull. We don't need spiritual guidance, you Christians need it, and most religious people.

Koran however, if it's not divine, used smart tactics borrowing from stuff that was already known, but not widely accepted (since most people believed what the Bible said at that time).

I'll give props for that.

I also found a funny comment by someone in a different thread, that Atheists see Richard Dawkins as their Messiah. Just wanted to share that :D

It's really hard defending religion, I think I'll just quit. We will just never know, no point wasting your life on it. While people are trying to prove religion correct, Stephen Hawking and others are helping us understand our Universe better, Science is progressing.

Hopefully I'll do something good in my career of astrophysics.

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"][QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"]

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]Which proves my point. Because you have no evidence to support your claims, you cannot say you do not have faith. Faith is, by definition, any belief without concrete evidence to back it up. You have no evidence to say that God doesn't exist, therefore your athiestic belief is based solely on faith.Decessus

No, you still don't understand what I'm telling you. I have no faith, I do not believe in god because you still haven't proved him. I could care less if you have faith in him, I'm not going to believe in him until he is proved. I do not have faith that he doesn't exist, that's not what I'm telling you.

Then why call yourself an athiest? If you accept the possibility that God may exist, then you are not an athiest.

Again, that isn't true.

An atheist does not believe in God, but he does not necessarily reject the existence of God.

I'm kind of confused between agnostic and atheist, if you could underline the main difference. I thought agnostics were the ones that were neutral, and atheists rejected God.

I'm kind of confused between agnostic and atheist, if you could underline the main difference. I thought agnostics were the ones that were neutral, and atheists rejected God.

ab1205

This is from the British Humanist Association:

Agnosticin normal usage means "don't know" or open-minded about religious belief, but it can mean something much firmer: that nothing is known, or can possibly be known, about God or supernatural phenomena, and that it is wrong to claim otherwise.

Atheistincludes those who reject a belief in the existence of God or gods and those who simply choose to live without God or gods. Along with this will usually go disbelief in the soul, an afterlife, and all other religious beliefs.

From my readings about them, Humanists believe that ultimately some questions - like proof that god does or does not exist - are beyond knowledge, unknowable and unanswerable. With this in mind, humanists choose to live their lives as atheists and reject traditional theist beliefs.

The two terms are seperate and mean different things. It is possible to call yourself an "agnostic atheist" (like humanists), or an "agnostic christian". The term agnostic has widely been used by people to describe their religious status, but it does not limit itself to religious views and can include any field of knowledge. Theism and atheism deal specifically with god(s).

Its basically the difference in terminology between personal statements about knowledge and belief.

string theory /threadganon42

That doesn't help at all.

I'm kind of confused between agnostic and atheist, if you could underline the main difference. I thought agnostics were the ones that were neutral, and atheists rejected God.

ab1205

Diz wrote a pretty good explanation in the post right after yours, but just in case you didn't understand it I'll go ahead and give an explanation as well.

The first thing to understand is that theism and atheism are metaphysical positions. Metaphysics is basically the branch of philosophy that deals with existence and reality. There are only two possible choices when it comes to the question of whether or not God exists. You either believe God exists or you do not believe God exists. If you believe God exists, then you're a theist. If you do not believe God exists, then you're an atheist.

Let me put it another way. Take a look at the following statement:

"God exists"

Person A believes that the above statement is true, therefore Person A would be considered a theist. Person B does not believe the above statement to be true, therefore Person B would be an atheist. Notice that I did not say that Person B believed the statement to be false. The only qualification to being an atheist is if you do not believe the statement "God exists" is true. This would include people that are supposedly neutral as well. A neutral person does not believe the statement to be true, so by definition that person would be considered an atheist.

Agnosticism on the other hand is an epistemological position. Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that deals with knowledge. An agnostic believes that the nature and existence of God are not just unknown, but ultimately unknowable. The agnostic believes that it is impossible for the human mind to ever know whether or not God exists. This however does not prevent someone from believing in the existence of God.

Hopefully this helps clarify things a bit.

Also, how come theists use the argument "Who created the Universe?"

You can use the word "Universe" and "God" interchangeably when you talk of infinite. If you say God is infinite, then I say the Universe is infinity.

However, theists always say that "today we know that the Universe had a beginning, it had the Big Bang, and where did the stuff come from that triggered it? God". When in honesty, there are many different answers to this problem. The Universe that the Big Bang created, could have been the cause of a different Universe.

Though there's no proof to prove or disprove the Oscillating Universe having no real beginning, and being infinity. It's just so hard to think of infinity...

I think that the answer to "who created God" is "Man did".

Though in all honesty, religion is good as long as no one intends to force it on others.

There's been many Jewish, Muslim, Christian, and Atheists that have helped develop Science. The only difference, is that when these religious figures stumbled upon a question, instead of trying to figure it out they said "God" did it. This goes for Isaac Newton, and anyone you can think of.

I'd still hope that there is a God though, why not. As long as He's not anything like the Judeo-Christian God.

He cares for us but doesn't care enough to do anything about it. That's a contradiction.

Also, how come theists use the argument "Who created the Universe?"

You can use the word "Universe" and "God" interchangeably when you talk of infinite. If you say God is infinite, then I say the Universe is infinity.

However, theists always say that "today we know that the Universe had a beginning, it had the Big Bang, and where did the stuff come from that triggered it? God". When in honesty, there are many different answers to this problem. The Universe that the Big Bang created, could have been the cause of a different Universe.

Though there's no proof to prove or disprove the Oscillating Universe having no real beginning, and being infinity. It's just so hard to think of infinity...

I think that the answer to "who created God" is "Man did".

Though in all honesty, religion is good as long as no one intends to force it on others.

There's been many Jewish, Muslim, Christian, and Atheists that have helped develop Science. The only difference, is that when these religious figures stumbled upon a question, instead of trying to figure it out they said "God" did it. This goes for Isaac Newton, and anyone you can think of.

I'd still hope that there is a God though, why not. As long as He's not anything like the Judeo-Christian God.

He cares for us but doesn't care enough to do anything about it. That's a contradiction.

ab1205

Thanks for your post.

The ultimate questions to the origins or nature of the universe are interesting ones. There are various possibilities. On those terms, faith becomes abstract. How does pinning your flag to the most appealing possibility turn it into a "faith"?

An infinite universe implies infinity other earths as this one, and an infinite variations besides. How does the nature of the universe affect our personal behaviour, nature and actions? That's not the sort of god the mainstream religions speak of.

The problem with religion is that it does get forced on us. We typically adopt the same religious views as our parents. For example, we don't always accept the political views of our parents because its ok to argue about politics. Many religions are hostile, or at least arrogant, about different beliefs (i.e we can live with them, but they'll rot in hell.) Many people get comfort and support from their community of faith that re-enforces their collective beliefs.

Most recent conflicts have had religious influence. Religious wars have occurred globally throughout history. Its scary that some of the most important decision-makers in the world today have strong but contrasting religious views, and possible access to destruction on an unimaginable scale.

Not thinking about religion does not make you immoral. Moral values have been around far longer than religious ones.

For me, atheism less comforting and cosseting in many ways, but far more liberating on others, especially in helping me make sense out of my life.

It interests me why you hope there is a god?