Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Who is your god?

  1. Yes

    6 vote(s)
  2. No

    8 vote(s)
  1. Jun 10, 2003 #1
    I was recently visiting a reletive of mine, and we got into a discusion on the God of the Bible. She believed the Jesus was just a man that we should model our lives after. Where as I believed that He is the son of God. Most other religions (without degrading them) believe that in order to please and calm the gods they need to damage themselves or sacrifice parts of themselves. Kinda nasty if you ask me.

    The God or god of the catholics believe they need a woman to speak for them. I don't know about you, but I think that having to ask Mary to ask God to heal me is sad. Most of the catholics mean well and are sincere.

    Christians belive in the Trinity. The Son who is our sacrifice. The Holy Spirit our intercesor and God the Father our King.

    Some people say that they don't want to belive in a god that has to be worshiped all the time. Truth is all gods do. I mean if you want them to be satisfied right. Even your body can be a god.

    So what is wrong with believing in the true Christian belief 'system'. Going with John 3:16.
    Also with 'God is not willing that any should persish.'
    Why go with any god that is unmerciful. Hey even the Force is unmerciful screw up once and your path is the Dark Side forever.
    Just a thought. :)
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 10, 2003 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    There are plenty of examples of how the God you believe in is just as unmerciful, if not more so, then say, Zeus.

    Would you consider support of slavery to be an act of mercy? The bible seems to think so.

    Santa, is probably the coolest make believe guy of all.

    Because there are not two christians on this earth that can agree on what exactly that is. Because there is no way of knowing what exactly the true belief system is, due to many possibilities that could have happened through time.

    In fact, there is no way that you can tell me that the bible of today is the word of some all knowing god, and has remained unchanged from its origination. You can tell me that all you want, but you cannot prove this to me. You can not show me the first bible, that papers that Paul wrote on, etc, etc.

    And, as a classic response, a god with power such as the christian story portrays should have no problem in letting every single man, woman and child know definitively that he exists and is there god.

    And the bible defeats itself with its own logic, I borrow a line from you.

    'God is not willing that any should persish.'

    If that is so, then there is no excuse that god has not proven his existance to all. And since he hasn't and you believe in that word, this makes him a liar.

    Would you like me to continue?

    Do I need to vote?
  4. Jun 10, 2003 #3
    i have yet to be convinced of the existance of a god. (but you could try if you wanted)
  5. Jun 10, 2003 #4


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Fx25 - Your poll covers Theists & Atheists. You may want to insert a choice for Agnostics (those who are not sure either way).
  6. Jun 13, 2003 #5
    :frown: If there not sure they probably won't take the poll. Technically there isn't really such a thing as Agnostic anyway.
  7. Jun 13, 2003 #6


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Fx, you bring up an interesting point about technically there is no agnostic way...there are people who are still seeking, yet are not entirely convinced of the traditionaly god role that man and society has imposed on the human race...

    i am atheist by definition, but am still spiritual...
  8. Jun 14, 2003 #7
    Logic Defeat of own Logic ain't very logical huh?

    So does Evolution. I do not see it happening anyway.

    It seems to go round and round in circles never giving us a definite thought or complete laws. Or does it just take Faith to believe in it to?
  9. Jun 14, 2003 #8
    Genesis 2:7, "And the Lord God formed man of the DUST OF THE GROUND, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul." Surely, you don't take Genesis 2:7 seriously? Do you? November 1982, Reader's Digest had an article titled How Life on Earth Began. It stated that according to scientists at NASA's Ames Research Center the ingredients needed to form a human being can be found IN CLAY. The article said, "The Biblical scenario for the creation of life turns out to be NOT FAR OFF THE MARK."(Reader's Digest, November, 1982 p.116) No, it's "not far off the mark" - it's right on it! Scientists have laughed at the possibility of Genesis having any scientific credibility whatsoever - and yet, the more we learn, the more we find it to be SCIENTIFICALLY CORRECT! http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Meadows/2360/tracts/amazing.html

    Still reading.
  10. Jun 15, 2003 #9


    User Avatar


    Really, it isn't exactly surprising that parts of the bible are scientifical accurate. That is to be expected. If none of the bible was accurate, then that too would be a proof for a very intelligent author intentionally getting everything wrong.

    It's not very impressive considering the statistic length of the source, and the simultaneous proliferation of things that are blatantly wrong. The classic mistake is made is to count only the right bits or the wrong bits, as that always skews the data, adding to the bias already in place from the act of interpretation. Add to that the most cases where the bible is right are pretty much displaced by the authors hedging their bets by putting in an absolutely contradictory statement a few chapters later.

    If someone can dig up the thread from the old PF, I did a list of over 400 scientific inaccuracies in the bible (both old and new testament). I wouldn't be surprised at all if there were an equal level of scientific accuracies.

    (Of course, the extract given is pretty ignorant of a large number of facts. For example, how the chemicals used can be found in most places as well, how the abundancies in clay were very different from the abundancies in the body, how the breath of life is utter BS, how the chemicals in the soil lack any semblence of the complexity of life, how it was single celled organisms that appeared first and not a grown man, how the idea of genesis on dry land has been pretty much discounted, how there is no scientific evidence for a soul etc etc. But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of the Truth, right?)

    Very funny.
  11. Jun 15, 2003 #10
    Then how can something written over a span of 15,000 years with 40 different authors have accurate findings prior to their actual discovery in the 1900's? Unless of course it's either divine intersecion or it is tarot cards or other futurly communication devices?
  12. Jun 15, 2003 #11


    User Avatar

    (a) It wasn't written 15,000 years ago.
    (b) It isn't in chronological order.
    (c) It is thousands of pages long.
    (d) It is written by 40 authors, each writing a different thing, one of which happens to be right.
    (e) You use judicious bias in interpretation.
    (f) There is alot of science, and a lot of theories that aren't covered. (I don't see a QM reference in there, do I?)

    Run a search for Nostrodamus, and <insert ancient scripture> and Science in google and you will see.
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2003
  13. Jun 15, 2003 #12
    More than google to take this down. I am open to all conclusions. Christian and non Christian.

  14. Jun 15, 2003 #13

    Believing that the earth is over 1 billion years old is harder to believe than Bible. Big Bang require a speck which then explodes.
    Please elaborate on this.

  15. Jun 15, 2003 #14


    User Avatar

    Over 4 billion.

    Well, it comes mostly from radioactive dating. Though some people have expressed doubts about the accuracy of radioactive dating, the percentage uncertainty is insignificant compared to the number of samples confirming this sort of age to the earth, and the magnitude of the data recorded. In contrast, there is barely any evidence supporting a young earth scenario.

    Inflation as a force in the universe is pretty much confirmed by evidence from Cosmic background distributions, red shifting, spectral analysis of stellar composition etc. But not all big bang theories use the idea of an initial sigularity though, althought that particular hypothesis is dominant currently. The expansion of the universe doesn't require a speck.
  16. Jun 15, 2003 #15
  17. Jun 15, 2003 #16


    User Avatar


    Another one of those idiots...

    And that's what is so great about it. Science changes as our knowledge expands. Religions do not adapt until they are forced to. Remember the geocentric view of the universe? Flat earth? People found plenty of scriptural truth for these too. The fact is that scriptural truth doesn't exist. Someone can find anything in the scriptures that they like, and call the rest metaphorical.

    This writer is deeply, deeply mistaken. The proton is not fundamental. It is made up of quarks. Which may well be made up of Something Else.

    Interesting that the article misses a step - God is also refuted by our knowledge of physics. But the fundamental mistake is that our knowledge of physics in incomplete, and that in cases describing the situation before th universe and it's laws they almost certainly do not apply in the way we know them. They may not even exist entirely. While the author is perfectly happy with this idea when using god, he seems to forget this when talking about the big bang.

    One would be shocked at the number of things one must lay aside their common sense to accept. Like F=ma for example. Or the idea that oxygen exists. Or the lack of existence of ether. The concept of common sense is the most abused one in history. And guess what? The article abuses it again. Common sense can only be a beginning. You don't find any decent answers there.

    Scotland was never at the forefront of QM research, was it? One of the key conculsions of probabilistic QM theory, which has been tested to incredible accuracies is that causality does not apply at quantum scales. There is no reason why a particular atom should decay at a particular time - you can take a statistic about how likely it is to, but there is no cause. And the god idea involves the theorem that God, or atleast causality arises without a cause.

    The author then shoehorns the idea of "purpose" into the mess he has created. Big bang does not say there is a purpose. Rather, the concept arises because he has gotten into his head that the universe was created for a purpose, and can't get out of it. Purpose, as has been discussed is something that we impose on awareness. A car is just any old matter until a human finds it useful. In the same way, the ruins of an explosion can be "purposeful" for light and warmth.
    And talk order. Is the universe ordered? Hell no. The universe is in the state it is in because that is igetting towards it's equilibrium state. The universe is a mess, but being born in this mess, we consider this to be orderly compared to everything else.

    This is stupidity. The explosion analogy is a very misunderstood one. The big bang is a not a conventional explosion, but an effect of inflation - the actual fabric of space being drawn apart, and the objects on this fabric being carried with it. With this, there is no reason for orbital systems not to be formed at local dents in the distribution.

    When is this article dated? A recent satellite survey of cosmic radiation has been surveyed, and it is clumpy and exactly as big bang predicts. It is most definitely not evidence against big bang. In fact, it's the best evidence for it. The article ignores more recent data from more accurate surveys.

    Also notice ZERO evidence giving for alleged alternative.

    Conclusion: Author is blinded by personal beliefs and need to justify own irrationality, willfully ignorant of contrary evidence and lacks even the most arbitary knowledge of what he is supposed to be addressing. He misunderstand the philosophy of science in that research is on going, and concludes prematurely. This article is not a valid account of the reality of the situation.

    EDIT: If you want some idea of recent Big Bang efforts, type WMAP into a search engine.
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2003
  18. Jun 15, 2003 #17
    http://www.spiritual-answers.com/Learn/kenham.htm [Broken]

    Here check out Ken Ham if you really want to get in depth.

    I have had close encounter first hand with death.(I am a victim of A. Mercy Killing back in the end of the 80's and coma.).I know our soul does go some where. I am not one of the religious freaks.I do not believe that it is a sensation of our body.I have also been a student of Paranormal Investigation on a basics level for 12 in a half years stopped doing it recently. Just probing around seeing what is out there.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  19. Jun 24, 2003 #18
    i am my own god. i do not claim to be creater of the universe, or some all powerfull, all knowing super being.

    i am just me, i make my own choices, i have my own morals that i stick to, i live my own life my own way. why should i believe in a n all powerfull/knowing super being that calls it self god, but does not prove to me that it even exists?

    therefore i am god, i do as i say!
  20. Jun 24, 2003 #19

    i have a cool sticker that says: i am god . you'd like it.
  21. Jun 24, 2003 #20
    no that looks im taking responsability for the whole universe, which no way am i gonna do. im my own god, i answer only to me. and have responsability for myself only.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook