Does God exist?

[Vioh]

People say there is no beginning for the universe. but how? there must be a starting point

Imagine you are listening to a song without a beginning then how will you find the middle portion of the song?

You can only find it if there is a beginning for the song

Ultimately it leads to GOD being the creator of the universe and the things that are in it.

 

There are only few people in the world claiming that the universe doesn't have a beginning. The scientific consensus is that the universe has a beginning, and that beginning is called the Big Bang. And the fact that the universe has a beginning is not an argument for the existence of God. By the way, speaking about the beginning, does your God have a beginning?

[Guest]

I will admit that I have seen God before, I was 7 when this happend (my mother saw it same time I did, and my cousin saw the virgin Mary), however this is not the main reason of why I believe there is a God. 

My reason is that I believe that the Earth and everything associated with he knowledge that we know today had to come from somewhere;someone or something had to start it. Now, the Earth being a born from a star - that's understandable - but the question is where did that star come from? Questioning everything leads to the Creator. Everything had to be created for it to exist. 

[Guest]

No evidence exists for the existence of a God, but if belief in God were to be beneficial to a person that would make it true according to a theory of truth (TOK).

There actually is evidence. Its all in the Bible. Everything that God and Jesus said in the prophecies of what will happen to the world is happening. That's all the evidence needed. PLus, people have seen the figure of God. I am one of the witnesses. I can't prove that I've seen Him, however my mother was there when this happend, and she too did see Him.

[Guest]

If there is no God, there is no hope for the less fortunate. And without hope we are all nothing.

Sorry, but this reminded me of what Winston Smith said in George Orwell's 1984, "Hope lies with the proles."

 

But, I agree. Not only that there is no hope, but then there is no answer to anything. Nothing would make sense. 

[IB_taking_over]

Everything had to be created for it to exist. 

This statement proves god/God/GOD also was created. 

 

But, I agree. Not only that there is no hope, but then there is no answer to anything. Nothing would make sense. 

 

The hope created by the existence of God is merely an illusion. Historically, it's a way to unhappy people quiet about their misery. Take the Middle Ages, a time where suffering was 'divine.' To be poor during one's life meant the promise of an wonderful afterlife. The catch -- Churches were exactly living by their model of divine suffering. Another example is Marx's bit about religion being opium for the masses. Again, the promise of a better afterlife kept the poor from doing about their condition. 

I'm also pretty sure that God has nothing to do with concepts we, as people, arbitrarily define. 

[King112]

 

No evidence exists for the existence of a God, but if belief in God were to be beneficial to a person that would make it true according to a theory of truth (TOK).

There actually is evidence. Its all in the Bible. Everything that God and Jesus said in the prophecies of what will happen to the world is happening. That's all the evidence needed. PLus, people have seen the figure of God. I am one of the witnesses. I can't prove that I've seen Him, however my mother was there when this happend, and she too did see Him.

 

a) Please do not double post.Use the edit feature

b) Not to be offensive, but the Bible is not evidence of God. The Bible only shows one God, but there are so many different Gods. India, for example, has hundreds of Gods. So the Bible is no evidence that God exists. I haven't read the Bible, so I don't know what Jesus says, but from what I know of what my friends have told me, his prophecies are not coming true. 

I am not an atheist, but I have my own belief of God, but that is irrelevant.

Just my two cents.

Cheers,

King112 

[Sandy]

 

 

No evidence exists for the existence of a God, but if belief in God were to be beneficial to a person that would make it true according to a theory of truth (TOK).

There actually is evidence. Its all in the Bible. Everything that God and Jesus said in the prophecies of what will happen to the world is happening. That's all the evidence needed. PLus, people have seen the figure of God. I am one of the witnesses. I can't prove that I've seen Him, however my mother was there when this happend, and she too did see Him.

 

a) Please do not double post.Use the edit feature

b) Not to be offensive, but the Bible is not evidence of God. The Bible only shows one God, but there are so many different Gods. India, for example, has hundreds of Gods. So the Bible is no evidence that God exists. I haven't read the Bible, so I don't know what Jesus says, but from what I know of what my friends have told me, his prophecies are not coming true. 

I am not an atheist, but I have my own belief of God, but that is irrelevant.

Just my two cents.

Cheers,

King112 

 

 

 

Its true, you can go around India and find innumerable Gods. I live in India and I still get surprised when I hear about some God that I didn't even know about.

I think God doesn't exist, because he/she/it (I honestly have no clue which one to use) is beyond existence. At this point of time, the existence of God (if he/she/it exists) cannot be proven or disproven, maybe we'll have some means to so do in future, but till then the argument can go both ways.

 

We can rely on the holy texts and myths to tell us what happened before our time. But I don't believe them to a great extent because they could easily have been forged. And the worst part is, they are biased. At least I find them pretty biased. I haven't read any of them but I know people who have and the beliefs, morals so many things are so different. On top of this, they are also very subjective. So its interpretation depends on the person reading it, which is outrageous because if God did pass on a message, it should be clear. The more I hear about God, the more I believe that its nothing more than a human construct, a pretty important one that too.

 

That said, I think its sort of trivial trying to prove or disprove God's existence because if you wanna believe in God, believe in God. If you don't wanna believe in God, then don't believe in God. End of story. If you ask me, its not possible to do either. But of course I'd say that, I'm an antagonist

[mac117]

To add my two cents to the discussion:

I personally do not believe in God. Too many heartbreaking and cruel things happened to me and my family in the past (back when I was younger and believed in it), and if God did exist he would at least have some mercy and listen to some of our prayers.

Ever since I turned 11-ish I stopped going to the church regularly, as (unfortunately) it stopped being a place for believers to meet and pray, and started focusing on politics and improvements in the society - the priests focused on homosexual marriages and women having in vitro instead of actual religion.

im not a person who has to see to believe - I haven't seen atoms, but I believe they exist. There's enough concrete evidence and documentation of them, and that's what's important for me.

I also don't believe in God, because if he did allow human's to have free will (and therefore know the consequences since was the "almighty") , then why would he then kill the sinners and punish them? For me it seems kind of sketchy and therefore I'm an atheist.

I have nothing against religion, as long as it doesn't harm anyone. Sadly many people use the image of God to discriminate against others, which is a bummer since I met many religious Muslims and Christians who were open-minded and very modern in term of their lifestyles.

Whatever your beliefs are, I hope you find happiness in life - because after all that's what's important

Edited January 23, 2016 by mac117

[^stress^IB>H2pi/4]

Wowowow, this thread omg!

Anyway, I like not to have to respond to this definitively. I certainly am in disagreement with any canons on this matter, however one must consider the duality of several scientific solutions to this notorious question.That is- considering what Lawrence Krauss currently attempts to prove, and is getting closer to,( the flat universe ), one would use this as a definitive response to the lack of total change of energy in the universe which basically means- existing and not existing is all together the same. On the same principle of energy having 'popped' into existence it could 'pop' out of it. We could just stop being at any time which to me seems odd. Yes electrons come into and out of existence, but all at the same time?
Anyhow, I am nowhere close to knowing enough to be talking about this, but my point is that all responses to this matter seem to have double takes. they seem to be just as useful argumentation for both sides of the argument. 

Likewise, String theory.. That seems like a concept worth considering as some sort of solution... for something... 

To me the idea of creation is very interesting. OK here's what I'm most baffled by, if all laws of the universe are just functions and and programs set up to exist and grow what has become to be the universe then- that would be an ( oh no we're in a matrix!) explanation, but that doesn't solve anything because whatever is outside of the matrix will also be facing the same questions. 

Lol, sry for the long (stream-of-consciousness) post. 

 

 

[talalrulez]

im not going to rant or anything but im just going to ask you to watch this. so can you please watch.

reply to me WHEN youve watched it.

[azara]

Okay, duly watched.  I will admit I found his point difficult to follow as his accent is quite thick, but here is what I think he was talking about:

1. Scientists say that the Big Bang occurred and that they can prove it

2. Scientists say life came from the sea and that they can prove it

3. The Qu'ran appears to say that life came from water and that earth and heaven was one unit

4. Therefore implicitly the Qu'ran supports the Big Bang theory

Well, I actually went and looked up what the Qu'ran says about creation, and it is (expectedly) quite similar to the Hebrew story.  Yes, this text says Allah made everything from water, and that the heaaven and earth was one unit which was rent apart.  The problem is what was omitted from the above speech.

How could the "heaven" (which I presume to mean the rest of space) and the earth be cloved asunder if they're two completely different ages? The Universe is 14 billion-ish years old and the Earth is only 6 billion-ish years old.  That doesn't sound like six days to me (or eight, as the Qu'ran appears to contradict itself).  And why would the earth be so special as to break apart from the whole rest of the universe? And isn't the Earth a part of the universe, not separate? 

The Qu'ran also says that every animal and plant was made at the same time.  And that every geographical landform was made at the same time.  And it forgets completely about that molten earth stage, or the fact that condensation and a suitable atmosphere would have to occur for so much rain to fall, or the fact that another planet crashed into the Earth (you'd think this would have some kind of significance), and so on and so forth.  If you want to accept science's methods, as the speaker above has chosen to do, you will accept that evolution has been essentially conclusively proven as well, which the Qu'ran makes no provision for whatsoever.  Or that geological change must occur over millions of years.

Certainly, it doesn't totally contradict the Big Bang (at least in the heaven and earth part; it does contradict evolution) but it's so vague that you can't say it supports it.  If the knowledge was really there through divines sharing it with humans, why wouldn't they be more accurate and specific? Why say "everything was smoke for a while and then heaven and earth was made" which is not that accurate at all, instead saying "everything came from one point, Allah caused an explosion to take place and now everything is expanding outwards really fast" which is far closer to the truth?

I suspect the reason is that this text just states the common religious beliefs of the time, and the reason it wasn't more accurate is because people just didn't know about life's origins (we're only just beginning to learn about it now!).  Water is a logical thing to choose if you need life's origin, because it's the one thing every animal needs to stay alive that ancient people would have recognised.  The earth and the sky seem very separate entities to the uneducated, so it would make sense to argue that in creation they were separated.

What do you think?

[talalrulez]

BBT talks about a single point(point of singularity) that than bursts and is continuously expanding. anyway, i had the patience to read your post, so please have the patience to read mine. thank you very much.

"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before We clove them asunder, and We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?"
(The Qur'an, 21:30)

 

The word ratq " is the verbwe unstitched" means "mixed in each, blended" in Arabic dictionaries. It is used to refer to two different substances that make up a whole. The phrase "sewn totranslated as " fataqa in Arabic and implies that something comes into being by tearing apart or destroying the structure of ratq. The sprouting of a seed from the soil is one of the actions to which this verb is applied.

 

Let us take a look at the verse again with this knowledge in mind. In the verse, sky and earth are at first subject to the status of ratq. They are separated (fataqa) with one coming out of the other. Intriguingly, when we remember the first moments of the Big Bang, we see that a single point included all the matter in the universe. In other words, everything, including "the heavens and earth" which were not created yet, were included in this point in a condition of ratq. This point exploded violently, causing its matter to fataqa and in the process created the structure of the whole universe.

anyway back to a bit of ranting.

14 centuries ago, when the sky was believed to be one unified body, the Qur'an miraculously stated that it consisted of layers, and what is more, "seven" layers. Modern science, on the other hand, discovered the fact that the atmosphere surrounding the Earth is made up of "seven" basic layers only very recently.

you were talking about landmasses, so  role of the mountains is pointed out by a comparison with "pegs":In a verse, the

 

"Have We not made the earth as a bed and the mountains its pegs?"
(The Qur'an, 78:6-7)

 

Mountains, in other words, clench the plates in the Earth's crust together by extending above and beneath the Earth's surface at the conjunction points of these plates. In this way, they fix the Earth's crust, and prevent it from drifting over the magma stratum or among its plates. Briefly, we may liken mountains to nails that keep pieces of wood together.

 

This fixing function of the mountains is described in scientific literature by the term "isostasy". Isostasy means the following:

 

Isostasy: general equilibrium in the Earth's crust maintained by a yielding flow of rock material beneath the surface under gravitational stress.(5)

 

This vital role of mountains, that was discovered by modern geology and seismic research, was revealed in the Qur'an centuries ago as an example of the supreme wisdom in God's creation.

 

"We placed firmly embedded mountains on the earth, so it would not move under them..."
(The Qur'an, 21:31)

and the quran does not say the land is still, like you stated without proof. 

In one verse, we are informed that mountains are not motionless as they seem, but are in constant motion.

 

"You will see the mountains you reckoned to be solid going past like clouds."
(The Qur'an, 27:88).

anyway i hope you read and please if your going to submit something, there always need to be proof. you cant just sumbit something and expect me to understand you or have belief in you whether there is proof. and yes, when you said the quran does speak rather vaguely about smoke, you are correct, but this is 1400 YEARS AGO!!! there are no proper scientists, or good equipment and all that, and the quran still manages to state:     "Moreover (God) turned to the Heaven when it was smoke ..."

anyway, i dont want to turn this into a debate on islam. lol. anyway love to talk more, so please if you can continue.

 

Edited April 17, 2016 by Sandwich
Please use proper english rather than chatspeak on the forum

[azara]

I definitely don't want to hijack the thread, but I'm also one of those people who can't leave a debate unfinished, so I'll respond! I do enjoy religious debates, very interesting topics.  I'll try and address them thematically:

You've told me the creation story is vague, because it was made 1400 years ago.  I reckon, if knowledge was given to the people by a divine being, there should be no excuse for vagueness because they didn't need instruments or any of that to work it out, it was given to them.  Surely God is capable of providing a more specific truth to avoid all of this argument later on? 

Okay, now let's talk about mountains.  Certainly they affect the Earth's crust, in that they help determine topographic height.  But far from causing the earth underneath to "stay still", the land underneath huge mountain ranges is often some of the most unstable on the planet.  You can argue that mountains stop the earth from moving, but I point towards the fact that earthquakes not only still exist (so the earth clearly does move, even with mountains in existence), but they are most common in mountainous regions, like Japan and Nepal.  Why? Because mountains are formed at precisely the places where the earth underneath them is the most weak, at the edge of tectonic plates (they're made by two plates colliding with each other and pushing the land above upwards, as I'm sure you know).  So arguing that mountains create stability is very false; they are (among other things) an indicator that the land on which they lie is volatile!  I'm sure you wouldn't argue that volcanoes are particularly stabilising.  In fact, volcanoes - a type of mountain - are a good example of the ways in which mountains actually drastically alter the world around them, as they can destroy and create whole geographical regions.  For example, the islands of Hawaii.

As for the "seven heavens" I believe that references the entire universe, since in 41:12 (I had to look this up, I'm not a Qu'ranic expert haha) it says: "Then He made them seven heavens in two days and revealed to each heaven its law. And We adorned the lower heaven with lamps [stars], and firmly secured it."  Clearly, the stars are far outside of our atmosphere, so the fact the numbers match is very nice, but the facts certainly do not.  I also see "two days"; this totally didn't happen in two days, either.  I would also say that many people believed the sky was in several parts.  Look towards the idea of many planes of the heavens in the Dark Ages, for example (the word for this concept escapes me, but I know there is one.  Ugh.)  The idea has been around for a long, long time.

I'm enjoying the debate, and learning something about Islam, too, so thanks for your engagement!

Edited April 17, 2016 by azara
typos

[talalrulez]

tbh, i actually like having religious debates, as this does force me to learn more about my religion, so im very thankful for you and to others like you. first id like to address your 2 days problems. 

The thing about the  verses, 41:10-12, is that they follow a specific sequence. This sequence was done with the original recipients of the Qur'an in mind, that being the early Muslim community and the Jahiliyyah-era Arabs (this surah, Fussilat, being revealed in the later Makkan period). As any good writer knows, you write to the level of your audience. Verse 41:9, for example, talks about the creation of the Earth, but Allah (swt) uses concepts that the audience at the time of the revelation would have understood; i.e., it took two of His days to complete. He, Allah (swt), didn't talk about things like the nebular hypothesis of solar system formation orprotoplanetary disks. That sort of thing would have been far above the heads of the original recipients of the Qur'an. 

So He followed a specific sequence that could be understood. Verse 41:10 first discusses the earth, the mountains, and the necessary chemicals - including water - that were needed to support life (once again, written in a way that could be understood by the original recipients). This verse came first, IMO, because everyone knows what the Earth is and would have asked a question like "How was the Earth made?" at some point in their life. The following verse, then, would be the next logical question: "How was the sky made?" And, finally, verse 41:12, completes the sequence by discussing the heavens and the stars. These verses were written in an order that is completely natural from the perspective of a human: we look down at the ground and then progressively higher, into the sky and then up to the heavens.

lol, btw your comment about the earth really made me laugh, like how you kept on explaining to me, but tbf i did do a kind of similar thing i think, but i did not talk about stabilization of the earth itself. yes when plates come together they they fold and all that, but what does the shape come out like. it ends up like those pegs that you put for the tent. 

and when you spoke about volcanoes, i noticed a little mistake in your writing. you compared mountains to volcanoes as though they were similar structures below the mantle.  however, volcanoes are formed when magma from within the Earth's upper mantle works its way to the surface.(usually through the sliding of tectonic plates) while mountains are a full-on collide between plates. also, i just wanted to direct you to this paper: http://bssa.geoscienceworld.org/content/97/6/2066.abstract. only the abstract is available, but i think you can get a general understanding of the paper itself.  

anyway, i am thoroughly enjoying this, so ditto to what you said before, and thanks for the engagement. 

[azara]

Yah sorry for overexplaining, I knew I should edit that paragraph when I posted but couldn't be bothered haha.

The "two days" thing: describing time in days is very common in religious texts.  I understand that going into the scientific specifics would be difficult to comprehend for a society that hasn't discovered things like gravity yet, but I'm sure people understand the concept of time.  Just " an incomprehensible number of years" would be enough.  After all, you're already asking the population to believe a number of fantastical things, like understanding heaven and earth can separate, or the origins of life.  It's not a stretch to ask people to believe things took more than one day.  I do like your argument, though, because usually I hear "well days means eons in this context" which has never made any sense to me as a logical argument whatsoever  I will buy that sometimes dumbing down is necessary, hence why the Qu'ran, and the Torah/Bible never explain exactly how God did the life-creating thing, but I think this is not one of those instances where you can invoke that logic.

And yeah, volcanoes are not exactly like other mountains.  They're still large rocky things with the added bonus of explosions, so I hope you'll accept my points anyway.

I'm glad that particular volcano is protecting that particular area, but there are a lot of instances in which the volcanoes don't.  Like, they explode on principle, and they create a lot of destruction when they do.  Saying that particular mountain protects the land is great, but it exists because of faults in the first place.  Places where there are no mountains at all are far less likely to have earthquakes or eruptions than where there are.  That seems to point towards mountains being correlated with destruction, not peace.

Quote

i did not talk about stabilization of the earth itself. yes when plates come together they they fold and all that, but what does the shape come out like. it ends up like those pegs that you put for the tent. 

Not seeing your argument here, sorry.  Could you rephrase? 

[talalrulez]

lol thanks for the complement. um, but that mountain in the way i was phrasing it was that it should be used as a generalization- that mountains do shield areas from earthquakes, and i said it before, but ill say it again. mountains arent volcanoes. they have similar forms but the way they are formed is completely different. 

your question at the end of my point is at the (tectonics collide pic). the way how it is literally like a peg, both above and below the surface if you get what i mean. band i never did say that mountains are associated with peace, just that the quran contrasts them to pegs.

and i thought i'd tell introduce this, but the quran literally is an expert in embryology, as this canadian embryologist came to learn.

so please if you have the time, read this: http://www.islam101.com/science/embryo.html

[Sandwich]

In my opinion you can re-interpret pretty much every religious text to find miraculous 'truths'. The more creative you're willing to be, the more things you can uncover. If you're happy to let 2 days mean billions of years, references to a "chewed lump of flesh" translate into secret knowledge of embryology and some random stuff about mountains being pegs all actually be highly coded and vague evidence that current knowledge was known in the past... I'm going to be honest, you're much more flexible with your thoughts than me.

Rolling out vague and generic statements, giving them somewhat far-fetched modern correlations and then expecting an "ah-hah!" moment from anybody who didn't already have your point of view is, in my opinion, a little optimistic. Honestly, I think you could interpret all that stuff to fit any number of stories if you wished. You are interpreting it that way because you already have preformed ideas of what you're trying to prove and so you're trying to fit them together. However it's a bit like those pages of black splodges they show criminals in films and ask them if they can see a butterfly or a gun - ultimately it's neither, just a black splodge specifically intended to be formless but suggestive of pretty much anything because the human brain automatically tries to find form in these things. People see what they want to see. You can see a butterfly if you want, but you can't use it to show other people what a butterfly looks like.

[talalrulez]

"and he gave you hearing and sight and feeling and understanding." 32:9

I kind of get you but where is the vagueness in the above line, which is literally in order of what we develop as a foetus. But I guess an atheist would probably say that, "oh maybe Mohammed got lucky," in which case you're just making up excuses for yourself.

I'm not going to force my religion onto other people, but why did all these random religions come up around the world all sharing some form of god/s. someone here will reply to that in that people wanted to have some sort of reliance that when they die, that's not the end for them and they can continue. most religion has this as an eternal heaven, some have it as continuous incarnation. but in that case, what's the problem of believing in some higher entity. if you're going to live out your life and die eventually, why don't you join a religion or cult or anything you find to your fancy and follow that religion/cult's rules. you can meet some people and you'll probably have some common interests and you can live happily ever after. 

[Sandwich]

9 minutes ago, talalrulez said:

"and he gave you hearing and sight and feeling and understanding." 32:9

I kind of get you but where is the vagueness in the above line, which is literally in order of what we develop as a foetus. But I guess an atheist would probably say that, "oh maybe Mohammed got lucky," in which case you're just making up excuses for yourself.

 

Well, I would say feeling develops first in the sense that neural tissue is probably the first to kick off, the eyes and ears then begin to develop at around exactly the same time,  neither is fully sorted by the time you're born. To claim it is predicting the future understanding of embryology is a stretch and a half.

I could say a similar phrase - "he has a head, arms, legs and feet which touch the floor" and you could say I've predicted the discovery of gravity because lo, the head is furthest away from the floor, followed by the arms and then the legs. Or perhaps I've predicted the fact that man walked barefoot before they invented shoes because lo, the feet "touch the floor". Or perhaps I've discovered the pre-human ancestors of homo sapiens, who gradually went from being four legged to being two legged and this is in fact one of the first ever descriptions of mankind ascending from four feet onto to because lo, there are just two feet which touch the floor. That's what I mean when I say it's vague. I've either referenced gravity, the invention of shoes or the evolution of man (or perhaps all three) and all I've done is describe some random man standing up.

Like I said, you can interpret it however you like to suit yourself, but I don't think you can really volunteer it as independent truth. At best it's an ambiguous sentence that you've interpreted in a particular way which fits with your own opinions.

[talalrulez]

2 hours ago, Sandwich said:

 

Well, I would say feeling develops first in the sense that neural tissue is probably the first to kick off, the eyes and ears then begin to develop at around exactly the same time,  neither is fully sorted by the time you're born. To claim it is predicting the future understanding of embryology is a stretch and a half.

The primordia of the internal ears appear before the beginning of the eyes, and the brain (the site of understanding) differentiates last.