Do you believe in God

[Nick Thomas]

Last one for now...

I knew it wouldn't take too long for Alex H to get stuck in as he just can't seem to resist a good thread (or any thread really)...

[Matthew Turner]

Robert Thompson wrote
"1) Why should i believe in something there is no evidence for?"

There are some things that Science cannot explain. How did butterflies evolve? for example. Is it scientific to simply discount the possibly of a creationalist entity?
If you consider the 'multiverse' theories of science which I think most scientists believe in today, then with many many universes to consider isn't it much more likely that in one there exists a supremely powerful entity which one might call God for short?

There are many things that science cannot yet explain. Your butterfly example is a strange choice as an example. But my rather uninformed attempt is: By Darwinian evolution in gradual increments by means of natural selection over a long period of time.
It is not clear to me how a process of gradual Darwinian Evolution could result in a process of metamorphosis. That almost seems contradictory?
No it is not scientific to discount any possibility but then again no scientist would do that. Science is not by definition dogmatic and scientists are therefore always open to review new evidence and change their view accordingly. What makes you think that most scientists believe in the multiverse theory?
I don't think there is 'multiverse theory' but there a great many theories based around the idea of strings and additional dimensions and the like which would all fall under a multiverse umbrella. I think most scientists would say that one of these theories was the best that we had at present.
Certainly most think it a possibility. What do you mean "one might call god for short"? Are you lumping all sorts of different types of gods into the pot?

Yes

[Ian Kingston]

It is not clear to me how a process of gradual Darwinian Evolution could result in a process of metamorphosis. That almost seems contradictory?

Fortunately, developmental biologists don't give up quite so easily. The key paper is Truman, J. W. and L. M. Riddiford, 1999. The origins of insect metamorphosis. Nature 401: 447-452.

Even if we didn't have a good idea of how metamorphosis works, divine intervention is not a valid explanation, given the absence of any evidence for how that could happen.

I don't think there is 'multiverse theory' but there a great many theories based around the idea of strings and additional dimensions and the like which would all fall under a multiverse umbrella. I think most scientists would say that one of these theories was the best that we had at present.

All multiverse hypotheses are speculative; none is accepted as a good theory at present. M-Theory is the leading contender, but it lacks predictive power and empirical testability. Cosmologists certainly find the idea interesting, but evidence is lacking. What they're looking for is some aspect of our universe that would differ between a single universe theory and a multiverse theory - then they can test the theory and see which one best describes reality.

[Nick Thomas]

Robert Thompson wrote
"1) Why should i believe in something there is no evidence for?"

There are some things that Science cannot explain. How did butterflies evolve? for example. Is it scientific to simply discount the possibly of a creationalist entity?
If you consider the 'multiverse' theories of science which I think most scientists believe in today, then with many many universes to consider isn't it much more likely that in one there exists a supremely powerful entity which one might call God for short?

There are many things that science cannot yet explain. Your butterfly example is a strange choice as an example. But my rather uninformed attempt is: By Darwinian evolution in gradual increments by means of natural selection over a long period of time.
It is not clear to me how a process of gradual Darwinian Evolution could result in a process of metamorphosis. That almost seems contradictory?
No it is not scientific to discount any possibility but then again no scientist would do that. Science is not by definition dogmatic and scientists are therefore always open to review new evidence and change their view accordingly. What makes you think that most scientists believe in the multiverse theory?
I don't think there is 'multiverse theory' but there a great many theories based around the idea of strings and additional dimensions and the like which would all fall under a multiverse umbrella. I think most scientists would say that one of these theories was the best that we had at present.
Certainly most think it a possibility. What do you mean "one might call god for short"? Are you lumping all sorts of different types of gods into the pot?

Yes

Matt - do you believe that humans evolved through natural selection and share a common ancestor with birds, reptiles, fish, insects etc? How old do you believe The Earth is?
If you are lumping all "gods" together then perhaps one could imagine one (or many) who is likely to exist somewhere. Perhaps I could suggest a being so far advanced of others in intellect and technology that I could lump him/her/it into the god set. I would still insist that they evolved in some way from the bottom up though rather than being craned in from godland.

[Sebastian Stone]

It is sad that I can't help but compulsively follow this thread.

If nothing else, it's both amusing and tedious at the same time.

BTW, there are specialised religious forums if you are interested. Not that I wish to inflict more atheists on them.

[Nick Thomas]

I like you Sebastian. You remind me of myself when I was young and craved attention...

[Sebastian Stone]

I like you Sebastian. You remind me of myself when I was young and craved attention...

Ha. Ha.



But seriously, once you've seen the same arguments repeated year on year it gets a bit tedious.

[Nick Thomas]

I like you Sebastian. You remind me of myself when I was young and craved attention...

Ha. Ha.



But seriously, once you've seen the same arguments repeated year on year it gets a bit tedious.

That is a good point! Actually my purpose in starting this thread was not to debate the existence of god as I am well versed in the arguments and am fairly clear on my stance. I am actually interested in what makes educated people believe in god. How do they go from not believing in Thor, Zeus, Santa Claus God etc to becoming convinced that a god exists.

[PeterTurland]

I like you Sebastian. You remind me of myself when I was young and craved attention...

Ha. Ha.



But seriously, once you've seen the same arguments repeated year on year it gets a bit tedious.

That is a good point! Actually my purpose in starting this thread was not to debate the existence of god as I am well versed in the arguments and am fairly clear on my stance. I am actually interested in what makes educated people believe in god. How do they go from not believing in Thor, Zeus, Santa Claus God etc to becoming convinced that a god exists.

Perhaps for your next investigation, you could prove or disprove the existence
of consciousness.

[Matthew Turner]

Matt - do you believe that humans evolved through natural selection and share a common ancestor with birds, reptiles, fish, insects etc?
There is a lot of evidence to suggest that this true.
How old do you believe The Earth is?
Last weekend I listened to two very eminent academics tell me it was 13.7 billion years old. I accept that they have studied the subject in much greater detail than me. However, I also think that it is an interesting idea that if everybody believes something to be true then it must by definition be false. Science is evolutionary and theories are forged in the furnace of debate, where no debate exists, science stagnates and its theories have the status of folklore.
If you are lumping all "gods" together then perhaps one could imagine one (or many) who is likely to exist somewhere. Perhaps I could suggest a being so far advanced of others in intellect and technology that I could lump him/her/it into the god set. I would still insist that they evolved in some way from the bottom up though rather than being craned in from godland.

Yes, the slug in my garden may accord me the status of God. From it's perspective, I have existed from beyond it's comprehension of the beginning of it's universe and I will go on (hopefully) beyond it's comprehension of the end of it's universe. I hold it's life and death in my hands. If a being existed that had a similar relationship to me as I had to my slug, would I be wrong to call him, her or it God?

[Nick Thomas]

Matt - do you believe that humans evolved through natural selection and share a common ancestor with birds, reptiles, fish, insects etc?
There is a lot of evidence to suggest that this true. Enough to convince you that it is true?
How old do you believe The Earth is?
Last weekend I listened to two very eminent academics tell me it was 13.7 billion years old. This is the normal estimate for the age of the universe, the age of the earth being about 4.5 billion years old. I accept that they have studied the subject in much greater detail than me. However, I also think that it is an interesting idea that if everybody believes something to be true then it must by definition be false.I don't understand this at all. Are you talking about the argumentum ad pupulum? If so you appear to have misused it here. Science is evolutionary and theories are forged in the furnace of debate, where no debate exists, science stagnates and its theories have the status of folklore.But the crucial part of science is not the theorising, it's the experimentation and confimation of prediction.
If you are lumping all "gods" together then perhaps one could imagine one (or many) who is likely to exist somewhere. Perhaps I could suggest a being so far advanced of others in intellect and technology that I could lump him/her/it into the god set. I would still insist that they evolved in some way from the bottom up though rather than being craned in from godland.

Yes, the slug in my garden may accord me the status of God. From it's perspective, I have existed from beyond it's comprehension of the beginning of it's universe and I will go on (hopefully) beyond it's comprehension of the end of it's universe. I hold it's life and death in my hands. If a being existed that had a similar relationship to me as I had to my slug, would I be wrong to call him, her or it God?

Call it what you like but I would like to suggest that we give it the attribute of being hauled up by some form of evolution rather than being craned in fully formed.

[John Saunders]

Yes, the slug in my garden may accord me the status of God. From it's perspective, I have existed from beyond it's comprehension of the beginning of it's universe and I will go on (hopefully) beyond it's comprehension of the end of it's universe. I hold it's life and death in my hands. If a being existed that had a similar relationship to me as I had to my slug, would I be wrong to call him, her or it God?

Five misplaced apostrophes in one sentence (and six in all). Is this a record? There should be a forum rule - three 'its and you're out.

[Nick Thomas]

I don't think, anyone else, but you cares, John,

[John Saunders]

I don't think, anyone else, but you cares, John,

Do you have evidence for that belief or is it a leap of faith?

[Nick Thomas]

don't know, but i'm just, glad you're understanding the topic of the thread, as well as apostrophising,