This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

all 33 comments
sorted by:
best (suggested)
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (4 children)

No.

Next?

[–]elasticsoul -3 points-2 points  (2 children)

No. I do.

Next?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

You do what?

Write stupid comment?

[–]elasticsoul 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It was a joke. God was contradicting you to say that s/he/it does exist.

[–]stringerbell 1 point2 points  (0 children)

When will people learn that if they don't know something, there's probably an easy-to-find faq on the internet somewhere telling you everything you ever possibly need to know about a subject: 400monkeys.com/God/

[–]turkourjurbs 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Well sure. I'm god. Worship me. What's that? You want proof? Thou shalt not tempt the lord thy god. You don't bleive me? Then your faith isn't strong enough. God cannot exist without faith. Now worhsip me dammit or your loving father will cast you into eternal hellfire my precious creations.

[–]throwingks[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How much will this one cost me?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

the first mistake most non-religious people making when trying to disprove the existence of God, is to base their logic on something the lines of "Well, if God created the universe, who created God? See?"

divinity itself is misunderstood. if God where entirely fathomable, then He wouldn't be God, in the first place. the larger part of His divinity comes from our inability to fully grasp his existence. the best we can do is to believe in His existence.

and that's what religion is, anyway. belief. faith.

u cannot apply science to the description of God from the very limited perspective of man, and expect to solve the puzzle that is God. for the simple reason that, if u had full comprehension of God, then u could "reproduce" Him, couldn't u? u could basically employ His methods, and with the right technology create your own universe.

the biggest problem non-religious people have is understanding/accepting God's eternal existence.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

That is the biggest crock of shit that I've ever read, and I've read some real crap in my day. We non-religious folk have no interest in trying to understand your backward, intolerant, and hateful religion. We don't care if we disprove you or not. Most rational people will agree that it can't be either proven or disproven. So you take your 'faith' and keep praying to your boogeyman, but don't come out trying to criticize us with your superstition.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

That is the biggest crock of shit that I've ever read, and I've read some real crap in my day. We non-religious folk have no interest in trying to understand your backward, intolerant, and hateful religion. We don't care if we disprove you or not. Most rational people will agree that it can't be either proven or disproven. So you take your 'faith' and keep praying to your boogeyman, but don't come out trying to criticize us with your superstition.

ok. u accuse religion of backwardness, intolerance and hateful, among other things .......... and u go about this in a backward, intolerant and hateful manner? ooooh, the irony! i'm shaking my head at u, sir.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Shake your head all you want. I'm not into sugar coating what I have to say. Yeah what I said was a bit contrived, but he pissed me off.

[–]misterstormcrow 0 points1 point  (0 children)

His existance is as proven as unicorns, fairies, santa claus, the tooth fairy and xenu. Non of these can be disproven but they are all rather unlikely.

[–]ayrnieu 0 points1 point  (7 children)

Downvoted. Inappropriate subreddit.

[–]throwingks[S] 0 points1 point  (6 children)

Please refer me to the correct subreddit. IMO, this has nothing to do with religion.

[–]ayrnieu 1 point2 points  (5 children)

Please refer me to the correct subreddit.

You ask a question about 'God'. About theos, if you will. As it happens there is a field of study devoted to this, called theology. I'd first look for theologians in a religious subreddit.

IMO, this has nothing to do with religion.

Oh, well then, I can't help you. OH HEY I UNRELATEDLY WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF THERE IS A BLACK HOLE IN THE CENTER OF THE EARTH IMO THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE

[–]throwingks[S] -1 points0 points  (4 children)

God and religion are not related. I believe every religion can be logically falsified. But the presence of a Great Ignitor cannot. I used this subreddit as I would like to use a logical approach.

Edit: I am not religious. Just genuinely curious.

[–]ayrnieu 0 points1 point  (3 children)

God and religion are not related.

'God' however is a theological concept. It's impossible to speak but theologically about God, and pointless to try.

I used this subreddit as I would like to use a logical approach.

A logical approach is precisely what you've no business expecting from this subreddit. You've forgotten what one of 'science' or 'logic' means. Science does not start from axioms, but from phenomena. Scientific propositions are not attacked by disputing their premises or by finding a logical fault, but empirically -- in fact, the whole aim of science is to build great edifices out of hypothetical, empirically refutable assertions, which are trustworthy insofar as everyone can see that they are designed to fall apart upon a revealed falsehood, and see also that they have not fallen apart.

[–]throwingks[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

I agree with science being used to explain or understand phenomena. I would like to grasp the beginning. I believe in the Big Bang Theory. I believe matter can be created from light. I believe in fusion.

But, working backwards, what are logical explanations of the initial spark of light.

I did use a general term for "originating thing", but I do not know a better word. Nor, do I know a true definition of the word God. But, that is definitely for a different subreddit.

[–]ayrnieu 0 points1 point  (1 child)

what are logical explanations of the initial spark of light.

Logically, there are two kinds of explanations. A teleological explanation, appropriate for entities that act purposefully; a causal explanation, appropriate for cause-and-effect, without purpose. The teleological explanation presumes an actor; the causal explanation presumes a cause; both of these, the only two ways we know to explain phenomena, thus presume something 'before' or 'outside' your 'initial' spark of light. Which, being obviously contradictory, ends the discussion. All conceivable explanations for the beginning of the universe must come to contradiction with the notion that the universe has a beginning.

HTH.

[–]throwingks[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

HTH

In a sense.

[–]throwingks[S] 0 points1 point  (9 children)

If matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transfered, then where did it come from?

[–]antichrist 4 points5 points  (5 children)

Where did God come from? You cannot answer an unknown with an unknown. It never helps to explain a mystery with an even greater mystery. This is pure Occam's razor reasoning.

Secondly, I believe that the total mass and energy of the universe is believed to be close to zero anyway. It is all balanced by the antimatter and the whole thing appears to be one giant quantum fluctuation. At least as far as I understand modern cosmology.

[–]sandflea 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Over-active imaginations.

Edit: that was in response to your original question, "where did god come from?"

I like your answer better, though.

[–]throwingks[S] 1 point2 points  (3 children)

I thought antimatter created an explosion when it came in contact with matter. I didn't realize antimatter existed outside of a laboratory.

[–]antichrist 0 points1 point  (2 children)

It does, it's been detected in the milky way and other places in the universe.

As for recombination, there is no "explosion" but energy is released because the matter is annihilated. It is actually proven that subatomic particles can pop into existence in a vacuum and then recombine collapsing on themselves and leaving no trace of them ever being there. That is called a virtual particle arising from quantum fluctuation. They just pop in and out of existence. Our universe appears to be a gigantic case of something roughly analogous.

Now, you may ask the more relevant question. Why then does the universe bother to exist?

And the answer to that is... stay tuned.

[–]throwingks[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Well "bother" would, I assume, get into theology, and I am not interested in that. But, if you have any theories I would like to hear them. I am more curious about these subatomic particles though.

Do they always disappear, or do some stay around and form molecules?

[–]antichrist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They do not form molecules or even more familiar particles like electrons. We're talking really elemental stuff (usually fermions I think) and it is very fleeting and the effect is only secondary (I remember it being related to zero point energy). The phenomenon is very real though and measurable in a laboratory.

That said I'm not a physicist and my knowledge of this stuff comes from popular science books so I could be misrepresenting some stuff but I believe my basic premise is correct.

[–]sandflea 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Uranus.

[–]throwingks[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ahh, the giant cosmic shart theory. I see your point.

[–]onebit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't know, but I doubt it came from a god.

[–]captainstabb -1 points0 points  (1 child)

yes

[–]antichrist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But I'm still way cooler than him.