# Belief in God



## Ian (Mar 29, 2008)

Physics theories seem to be getting us closer and closer to God the Unknown the One without a name. This is a good time to reflect on God and Creation, so here are a few ideas which I'm sure will be challenged by any true atheist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some people, believe because they’re afraid. Others believe because they see the order and purpose of nature. A third group believes because modern science has opened up new dimensions. 

We are now faced with scentific theories that are more difficult to digest than the belief in a supernatural force. New physics has replaced Newton's classic claim of "cause and effect," at least in the microworld. Now we can have something happen without a cause. Something out of thin air as you might say. Would this not challenge evolutionists as well as creationists? 

The arguments between evolutionists and creationists have raged for a long time. The first would have us believe that it all happened by chance, while the second, got us here ready made. Either way there had to be an initial seed. The main issue here is not about what form we started off as, but whether there was a Prime Mover an Intelligent Designer. At the limit, this could still leave some room for evolution. 

If photons and electrons can change and appear as both particles and waves, depending on whether we are looking or not then why not God taking on whatever form suits the occasion? A particle changing form as it approaches two holes and then becoming a wave interfering with itself could be taken as a sort of miracle. Why not admit that we don’t understand what really goes on? We set up scientific models to explain things we cannot see. Why not a scientific model concerning God?

Scientists are now talking of higher dimensions, places or universes parallel to ours. Is such a higher dimension where God might be? Fiction writers or for that matter theologians are finding it difficult to keep up with science these days. With theories of parallel worlds being legitimate, the idea of God is no longer so improbable.

Of course some scientists and philosophers would tell you that this is all sonsense.  Some would go so far as to exclude Him from any model. They would say that there’s no physical proof of God's existence and in saying it so persistently they’ll make it more likely. As if theories into multiple higher dimensions and black holes with tunnels to other worlds are less preposterous. Fortunately there are  other scientists and philosophers who take a different view.

Other scientists have taken up psychology, telling us that nothing is real; that there’s no independent universe. According to them if we were not here the universe wouldn’t exist; Physics is fast becoming the sphere of new prophets. Science has grown up, it’s not embarrassed to speculate with theories that cannot yet be proved. 

We seem to be living in a big balloon. It’s being blown up more and more as we advance, with a possibility of it going bust releasing us from the three dimensional spatial straight-jacket. 

We often ask how can there be a God with so much suffering and injustice in the world and with religion being responsible for so many wars. We forget that religion is human and that we cannot blame God for human failings. As for the natural injustices - we simply do not know. Theories abound just as they do in science. Maybe we as  part of the God thing have only ourselves to blame for the crime and human injustice. 

We know that there are many invisible forces all around us, and although we cannot see them we feel their presence. Space is buzzing with invisible energy. Why stop at electromagnetism or gravity? 

Science observes certain truths and draws conclusions which are evolving as new observations are made. From these facts we can conclude that science is open minded.

I have not had any mystical experience but I have an open mind and accept the magic that others may see. Man was given the faculty of reason and should use it to draw conclusions. To say that miracles are simply things that have a physical future explanation, is the very same argument used to explain quantum phenomena that cannot be explained. Maybe there are some things which will remain unknowable, at least while we are in our spacial three dimensional bubble. 

The use of the word phenomena is very apt I think. In Plato's cave, those who are tied and can only see the images or shadows thrown up by the fires behind them would hardly believe the enlightened one who tells them of the brilliant world outside.

Men much wiser than me have spent their lives studying the question of God. It's easy with hindsight to ridicule some things; Prophets were endowed with extrordinary wisdom and knowledge relative to their humble education. 

Seeing how Paul universalised a Jewish obscure sect and achieved so much within the civilised Greek world with his epistles gives some credence to the concept of a "guiding finger". Maybe there is and always was an easier path to the top of the knowledge mountain as in the Pilgrims Progress.

There are too many fantastic and unexplained phenomena to leave the whole thing to nothingness. Nature has a high degree of symmetry and for me that implies intelligence. From that point, belief is a question of degrees and sophistication.


----------



## Borsia (Apr 12, 2008)

One day in the cave 150,000 years ago there was a small tribe sitting around the fire. Fire was a new breakthrough technology and had just been given a great write up in “Stone” magazine and the tribe was really into sitting around it!
But Ernie (which was pronounced urr-rah-ee), the tribe’s leader, had eaten some spoiled mammoth trunk. Note* cooking would not be invented for another 5 years.
Anyway Ernie had a terrible case of gas, and we all know how bad spoiled mammoth gas smells!! 
Since manners wouldn’t make the scene for at least 1,000 years Ernie cut loose right there in the cave.
Everyone wanted to say something to Ernie but that wasn’t wise because Ernie had a very bad temper. 
So they all looked for someone else to blame. They all looked at each other; then they
all looked at the dog.
Bob was named bob because he was the world’s first dyslectic and bob it the same either way. He looked at the dog and said “the god did it, throw him out!!” 
At first they laughed at his getting dog backward. But as time went by they realized that Bob blamed almost everything on the god. 
They thought about this and Ernie said “I think we may have something here!”
And so man created God and could be blameless for all of his actions that he could not bare to admit.


----------



## Ian (May 5, 2008)

Thanks for the nice story Borsia but I'd read that one about the dog before. Sounds just like the Flintstones don't you think? I liked their mag "stone" and attempts at writing. The anagram for God is a good one too. Pretty smart guys on the whole our ancestors.


----------



## SoNickSays... (May 5, 2008)

With growing technology and more very logical theories (like the String Theory of the universe, for example) it has been getting harder to continue belief in god, and maybe that is why countries that tend to be more technologically advanced, or even economically advanced seem to lack the true religion.

I do not think (although it is arguable) that long ago (when God was a being that would dine with you everyday, a being that if you needed guidance you would turn to, and if you disrespected his laws you would stray from his path and be sent to hell by death) the people were dumber, and that is why it was so easy for them to believe in things like witches and ghosts, but because they lacked the technology to prove them wrong. Nevertheless, the lack of technology may have been the result of being less intelligent. To back up this point, poorer countries like Afghanistan are generally very religious. 

Despite this, god could be a last measure for desperation. In the older days, it was common to be mugged, disease was spread by every fly you saw and the death rate was high. Could the people have turned to someone they believed could help them? When all hope had fled and they had been abandoned, it is very logical that they would find comfort in knowing they was a powerful and mysterious being in the sky willing to help for the small fee of belief. 

In economically and technologically advanced countries and continents, knowing god may be there gives comfort. Every day a man cheats on his wife, and the man may be a christian, or a muslim, or a jew. They do not feel that god needs the fee of loyalty as much as he needs the fee of belief. As long as they go to a pleasant afterlife and as long as they say "Yeah, I believe in god," many people of religion can do almost anything they like. 

Technology and science is destroying religion very slowly. 

Nick


----------



## desm (May 5, 2008)

I only skim read the original post, but if you're hoping to make belief in god more likely because it's simpler than science. Then you're wrong. Namely because a belief in god is simpler than most things, simple mathematics, even the alphabet included. It doesn't take many braincells to attribute things you don't understand to somebody else. 

We often ask how can there be a God with so much suffering and injustice in the world and with religion being responsible for so many wars.

Nobody said he had to be nice! And when most people use that old gem of a flawed argument they're trying to bring down the Christian god. Who, as the old testament tells us, is very far from nice. And trying to bring down the Christian god, the Muslim god, the Hindu gods, is pointless. Because picking holes in Christian theology doesn't make a supreme being more unlikely, it just makes Christian theology more wrong. 

Well, I could go on for ages. I really could, but by the time I hit "post" there will all ready be innumerable replies. In short, there's no evidence for a god, he's just as likely as invisible pink unicorns, since when did a lack of evidence imply something existed(?). Who can seriously (and with evidence) argue for a theististic (and omni-this-and-that) god? If there is one, highly unlikely (how did he get there?), he'll be desitic. Anyway, I urge you to read the god delusion, and something pro-god too, but don't waste your money because you will end up an atheist.


----------



## Chessrogue (May 6, 2008)

I believe that there is good to be learned from all religions, science, and nature. The more we learn about ourselves and our environment, the closer we'll be to finding our answers....


----------



## Zensati (May 6, 2008)

A writer should beleive in god, Santa, the tooth fairy, Freddie Krueger, Jesus, buddha, Borat and other such characters. This will help him develop his creativity and imagination. Science is the enemy of imagination.


----------



## SoNickSays... (May 6, 2008)

Zensati said:


> A writer should beleive in god, Santa, the tooth fairy, Freddie Krueger, Jesus, buddha, Borat and other such characters. This will help him develop his creativity and imagination. Science is the enemy of imagination.



Very true, but if you questions most successful writers [ones with good imagination ] then you will find they did not believe in them until they wrote. 
Whenever I write, it's like nearly anything is possible. I try desperately to believe in beings like God and I still dream about Freddy Kreuger and Jason Vorhees attacking, which is about as close to belief as I'll get.

I don't feel belief is necessary until you have your pen in your hand. Think of it as a child and his toy chest. He won't open his toy chest (which could represent belief) until he wants to play. 


Nick


----------



## Ungood (May 6, 2008)

desm said:


> I only skim read the original post, but if you're hoping to make belief in god more likely because it's simpler than science. Then you're wrong.



Actually what the opening author provided was nothing more then the application of Occam's Razor to the current situation.

Science is a tool, belief is not required, no more then I need to "believe in my hammer" however the application of science towards some Naturalistic Theories is what the OP is doing.

BTW: "The God Delusion" was not all that great. Have you read "Darwins Black Box" or "Why be a Christian"?

Ungood.


----------



## Ungood (May 6, 2008)

SoNickSays... said:


> Very true, but if you questions most successful writers [ones with good imagination ] then you will find they did not believe in them until they wrote.
> Whenever I write, it's like nearly anything is possible. I try desperately to believe in beings like God and I still dream about Freddy Kreuger and Jason Vorhees attacking, which is about as close to belief as I'll get.



I know what you mean, I means some days I am like "Well why the heck not?" even if I KNOW it's fake, false or just beyond anything to believe. 

I get a goofy grin and just shake my head and entertain "Well what if"


Ungood.


----------



## Linton Robinson (May 6, 2008)

> It doesn't take many braincells to attribute things you don't understand to somebody else.



I think you're right.  You realize that's exactly what your post does, right?


----------



## Ian (May 8, 2008)

Ungood was right about Occam's Razor. Judging by the answers I failed to make my point  that science was now putting up theories that could not be proved any more than string theory or parallel universes wormholes and the rest. Things that appeared impossible are now practical science such as the quantum theory which some find difficult to understand. Human progress is not the prerogative of our modern society and lack of technology does not make people less intelligent. We have built on many past civilisations and progress is exponential so those at the start were building on very little so that we may take off at higher rates. 

It's also wise not to ignore the thinkers of the past who spent in some cases a life time contemplating the unknown and I have tried to distinguish between man made religion and intellectual belief. I have repeated my arguments for those who found the original too long or too confusing.

_Summary of arguments_

_New physics has replaced Newton's classic claim of "cause and effect," at least in the microworld. Now we can have something happen without a cause. Something out of thin air as you might say._

_A particle changing form as it approaches two holes and then becoming a wave interfering with itself could be taken as a sort of miracle. Why not admit that we don’t understand what really goes on? We set up scientific models to explain things we cannot see._

_Other scientists have taken up psychology, telling us that nothing is real; that there’s no independent universe. According to them if we were not here the universe wouldn’t exist; Physics is fast becoming the sphere of new prophets. Science has grown up, it’s not embarrassed to speculate with theories that cannot yet be proved._

_We forget that religion is human and that we cannot blame God for human failings. As for the natural injustices - we simply do not know. Theories abound just as they do in science. Maybe we as part of the God thing have only ourselves to blame for the crime and human injustice. 

We know that there are many invisible forces all around us, and although we cannot see them we feel their presence. Space is buzzing with invisible energy. Why stop at electromagnetism or gravity? 

Science observes certain truths and draws conclusions which are evolving as new observations are made. From these facts we can conclude that science is open minded._

_To say that miracles are simply things that have a physical future explanation, is the very same argument used to explain quantum phenomena that cannot be explained. Maybe there are some things which will remain unknowable, at least while we are in our spacial three dimensional bubble. _

_There are too many fantastic and unexplained phenomena to leave the whole thing to nothingness. Nature has a high degree of symmetry and for me that implies intelligence. From that point, belief is a question of degrees and sophistication._

_Even Einstein said that God does not play dice and he believed in nature's intelligence.




_


----------



## Ungood (May 8, 2008)

Ian said:


> Ungood was right about Occam's Razor. Judging by the answers I failed to make my point  that *science* was now putting up theories that could not be proved any more than string theory or parallel universes wormholes and the rest.



Please correct this as it is misleading. 

Science is a tool or a method as such it does not put forth Theories or ideas, *Scientist* do. 

Or more to the point *People* put out ideas that claim are based on scientific research. It is very important to express this distinction because People are prone to bias, bigotry, ego, personal ideals, and private agendas. 

A method or tool like science is not, no more then a wheel or fire can be prone to bigotry.

I believe proper allocation to what one is addressing is very important when dealing with this subject as sometimes "Science" ends up being viewed as an entity or "force" by some groups. 

Such illusions must not be entertained if one is to get their ideas and sentiments across.

I hope your work continues. Perhaps a rewrite to express this might be in order.

Ungood.


----------



## Ian (May 9, 2008)

An error on my part. *Scientists or people* put up theories. I'll have to rewrite the whole thing but as you say people are biased and I am no exception.  

Thanks.


----------



## Ungood (May 9, 2008)

Ian said:


> An error on my part. *Scientists or people* put up theories. I'll have to rewrite the whole thing but as you say people are biased and I am no exception.
> 
> Thanks.



You also might want to express that the Theories are "Naturalistic Theories" not "Scientific theories". When you seek to present an argument or idea like this, especially in the written format it is important that you make these distinction as if you don't it can give people a false sense of insecurity about your stand, what you are addressing, and what you are trying to say.

I would recommend eliminating "Science" from your argument as a whole unless you are directly talking about a "science as a tool" IE: A method by which data and evidence is gathered and tested.

Ungood.


----------

