Do you believe in God?

[shadow15]

hi all, well, i dont believe in the god that many pepole thinks that exist, i mean, i dont believe the god that made things, the life, man, woman, thinks like that, but i think that other things like another king of god exists, lol

regards

[mr kennedy]

This is a sensitive topic so I'll try to not offend anybody with my opinion...

If I do anyways, I humbly apologize...

Believing in a supreme being is up to the person to decide but my personal views on it is I believe that there is one Supreme Being as my faith is under Christianity...

I just respect others' beliefs because it's their belief... and I'm not the kind of person that disses other people just because they don't agree w/ me :P

[ichwar]

i said 13.7 billion light years away...

Yeah, I meant to say billion. Just a typo... Maybe my fingers haven't evolved enough yet?;)

besides there being no empirical evidence for c-decay - it poses some serious problems...
let's go back to the Law of Conservation...
E(t)=E(r)+E(m) (where E(t) is the constant Energy total, E(r) is Energy raw, and E(m) is energy mass). This equation can be re-written as:
E(t)=E(r)+mc^2
now, if the speed of light (c) was faster in the past then to balance the equation, somethng else must be reduced on an equivalent scale (in this case, approx. by a factor of 2,000,000).
we have 3 options:
1 - if c increases, E(r) can be reduced. however, that doesn't work since energy cannot be destroyed.
2 - if c increases, m can decrease by reducing the amount of mass in the universe. however, this would require eliminating over 99.9% off all matter thus eliminating just about everything we see in the universe.
3 - if c increases, m can decrease by reducing the amount of mass contained in particles - to a scale where a 70kg person would have the mass of about 200 red blood cells.
but here's the problem...
gravity is F=G(m1m2/d^2)
reducing the mass of an object reduces it's gravity. in a universe where the speed of light is 2million times faster, the gravity between any 2 objects would be 16trillion trillion times weaker. that much a reduction in gravity and the solar system would fly apart.
in order to have a young universe, you have to deny gravity.

Could you first explain to me how you came up with 2,000,000?

[truthguild]

Yeah, I meant to say billion. Just a typo... Maybe my fingers haven't evolved enough yet?;)


Could you first explain to me how you came up with 2,000,000?

it was an act of generosity to you...
distance light traveled - 13.7 billion light years
source you quote age of universe - 6000 years
thus, the average speed of light would need to be 2.535 million times faster than it is currently.

[d13600]

hi all, well, i dont believe in the god that many pepole thinks that exist, i mean, i dont believe the god that made things, the life, man, woman, thinks like that, but i think that other things like another king of god exists, lol

regards

with no offense, i totally agree with shadow15, i dont believe in the god of this days, i mean, the god that most of the people believes, but i think that it could exist another kind of god

see ya

[misson]

shanedk posted a wonderfully simple proof that light speed decay isn't compatible with a young universe using basic trigonometry and observations of supernova SN1987A.

[truthguild]

it was an act of generosity to you...
distance light traveled - 13.7 billion light years
source you quote age of universe - 6000 years
thus, the average speed of light would need to be 2.535 million times faster than it is currently.

sorry, i have to correct this - i mixed notes with some other calculations i was doing.
the average speed of light would have to be 2.283million times faster than it is now.

[newyork3]

hi all, well, i dont believe in the god that many pepole thinks that exist, i mean, i dont believe the god that made things, the life, man, woman, thinks like that, but i think that other things like another king of god exists, lol

regards

I bleive in GOD that made our mind , personality and ... these are more important than for example things or earth .

Who made you alive and aware ?! and how your thinking start and when it will be end ?!

[truthguild]

I bleive in GOD that made our mind , personality and ... these are more important than for example things or earth .

Who made you alive

my parents

and aware ?

what makes you think my awareness is the product of a 'who'?

! and how your thinking start

it's one of the functions of the human brain

and when it will be end ?!

when i die or suffer serious brain injury.

[mdtforex]

I'm fascinated by these discussions because they tend to follow a pattern. I observe that those who express belief in god almost always describe a singular god, not a plurality of gods (such as would be expected if this discussion were to occur in a society where belief in a multiple gods is common).

It's not rational to believe that this is by coincidence. We obviously have encountered the concept of god previously, or else we would not be discussing it here.

Our society has a common, essential concept of god that may be described as follows:

(1) God is omnipotent
(2) God is ultimately the source of all things in existence
(3) God is directly involved in and oversees the afterlife

The third part is most interesting to me, because we assume that there IS an afterlife. This clearly does not extend from simple belief in god, since god as the source of all things in existence does not require that god will continue our existence after death. Indeed, it does not require that god is involved in our daily lives at all.

This is where the belief of a personal relationship with god comes into play. For those who express belief in god, there is almost always an adjoining belief that god is intimately involved in each individual's life. There is also a seemingly invariable belief that if god is involved in our personal lives, then there must be an afterlife. Although there is no essential reason why this must be true, it is accepted nonetheless. The idea that god will be involved in our lives without providing an afterlife is not something that most of us will consider.

Scientific knowledge is not the appropriate source of support for the existence of god. This is partly because those who believe in god are not simply concerned about the origins of the universe. Rather, if we examine the thoughts expressed on the topic, it seems clear that the main concerns about god are of a personal nature.

For example, suppose we took a random group of people and assigned to them the task of determining if a prisoner should receive the death penalty. We then ask them to pray separately for god's guidance in completing this task. After they have had some time to consult god, we ask them to write down what god has told them to do. If we then took these results from the group and compared them, how often would we find agreement between all persons? How often would even most of them agree? There are presently those who believe that god is NOT in favor of the death penalty, and there are others who believe the opposite. We would find those who express a personal relationship with god in both groups, and yet they have assumed opposing perspectives on what god wants. So how would we determine what god has actually said?

In scientific inquiry, we could not accept such a conclusion. For anything to be accepted as valid in science, it requires the ability to be repeated independently by other scientists. In other words, the conclusion is not based upon personal belief, but by critical analysis of facts. In science, one cannot claim to have special knowledge of the universe, but personal beliefs to do not require validation from others. We may choose to believe whatever we wish. For this reason, I argue that science will never become an appropriate basis for belief in god, since belief in god is focused upon personal beliefs. Science is only capable of disproving specific religious beliefs regarding the nature of the observable universe.