Tom Cruise on Scientology

[Tommy Tallarico]

Okay, without any made up numbers or anything to nitpick with -

Theory B: Some infinitely dense dot that had no plausible way to exist to begin with blew up and the results of this cosmic fart is what we call the universe.

Theory C: Something beyond human understanding, for whatever reason, put the dot there.

If you're honestly going to tell me that one is more fantastic than the other, you're just being silly. After much soul searching, I go with the something because it makes me feel better to think there might be some reason for it.

It makes you better to feel like there's some unknowable knowledge out there, but it makes me feel better to think that there's a ton of untapped knowledge out there that we haven't even begun to understand yet.

The fact is, with theory C, you also have to explain what made the thing that made the dot, and that fact, in and of itself, makes theory C more fantastic by a long shot.

[Othello Harrington]

I compare it to thinking about the universe actually. Our brain can't fathom that it goes on forever so we put a wall at the end. Well, what's on the other side of the wall? Our brain doesn't understand closure either.

It's the same with God. Humans need a crutch, someone to blame when they are down and to pray to when nobody else listens. However we can't see or feel him or find ourselves to completely believe he is there. So we invent "faith" which basically says "Yeah, nobody in the history of man has ever seen him or proof of him being here, but if you BELIEVE in him he will be". Yeah bullshit, tell that to the other 100 religions in the world that have died out in our history.

[Thief Silver]

Saying "you can't prove god false, not at this current time" is ridiculous, because the only arguments left to support god's existence are the ones based on unknown circumstances that can't be verified in any way. God cannot be proven false now because god's existence is defined as unprovable. However, that definition is based on absolutely nothing, so god's existence in that light is just a "what if!?" scenario, not a case for serious argument.

God is a giant What if Scenario, that's generally what I think of him as.

If you give the same allowances to Santa Claus, flying dogs, or anything else then their existence becomes just as viable. For example: change Santa to a deliverer of intangible personal gifts through imperceptible means and make the flying dogs who shit turkey sandwiches intangible and invisible to anyone who isn't a member of the cult of sandwich-shitting-dog. Conversely, if you look at god in the same way you originally looked at Santa, then any miraculous behavior of a god that could be tested and shown to be false would be proof that that god doesn't exist.

I don't believe in the miraculous behavior of god, the only thing I feel attributed to him is the creation of the universe. I don't believe that god hears the magical words of prayer and decides to suddenly heal someone on the brink of death. I believe in luck and modern science, and the power of humanity in of itself. Which lends itself to my next statement:

It's one thing to say there is something about existence we can't explain. It's another to fashion an unsupportable possibility from nowhere and assign probabilities for how likely it was based on nothing. The inclusion of god does not better our understanding in any way, the only thing it does is support the continued belief in... unsupportable explanations. It would be perfectly acceptable to simply recognize that you don't have an explanation and stop there; there is really no reason for god to enter the equation at all. With no reason for god to enter the equation, it's no reason to support inconclusive views about god's existence. The real unexplained mystery is existence itself and it also serves as proof that when people are presented with strong evidence to support something they can recognize as being beyond their understanding, they are capable of believing it exists. I also think it's weird to say existence exists is kind of weird but that's how it turned out =|

Ok, 50/50 isn't the best way to put it. But your choices are either: Some Super Omnipotent being was just there and created everything, or the universe was just there. both have extra questions added onto them, such as why. I agree the problem with god is "Well god works in mysterious ways, you can't tell but he did that." but that's the nature of it. But isn't that just as bad as "The universe just did exist, I can't tell you how but it just existed." There may never be an answer for that, just as there may never be an answer towards god existing or not, that's why I don't concern myself with it. God to me, is a Hypothetical situation that is irrelevant to anything we're doing today. If there is a god, and he created the universe, thanks god, high five. I appreciate having the chance to live. Agnosticism has no bible, no holy scriptures for us to go by. Honestly I think Agnosticism is simply a stepping stone, it's a spot to put your belief until you find a belief system that fits you. Just as Doc pointed out Deism, that's something that rings quite well with me, and maybe I'm believing in it because, that'd be cool if it were true. It does feel to me that their is a being above us, whether or not he has any implications on anything, I don't know. Maybe he's off creating another universe for the hell of it, and we're all in giant expanding snowglobes that will eventually intersect and cause wars between Parallel universes.

And I completely lost the point of what I was talking about, I think because I stopped being objective and just went with what I felt. But yes, the nature of god is a huge what if scenario, and idealistically, people would pick the what if scenario that felt closest to their heart, go on with that and live life without feeling that they have to make everyone else subscribe to their what if scenario. So honestly, I think I agree with just about everything you said Reno.

[Othello Harrington]

Ugh! I hate being out of this thread!! Can you get the atheists to define and explain consciousness? What is it’s purpose in the logic driven ‘No God’ Big Bang theory?

Don't shoot the messager.

[kingoffighters]

Are you going to tell your kids there is no god?

Just curious...

I am going to tell her what I believe, and then tell her to find out for herself.

[Othello Harrington]

You are a good father for that.

[rezo]

But your choices are either: Some Super Omnipotent being was just there and created everything, or the universe was just there. both have extra questions added onto them, such as why. I agree the problem with god is "Well god works in mysterious ways, you can't tell but he did that." but that's the nature of it. But isn't that just as bad as "The universe just did exist, I can't tell you how but it just existed."

The main difference is that we can confirm the existence of the universe so there is a real question to answer there, and "I can't explain why it exists" is a fair conclusion to draw. There's nothing to support the existence of a god, so there's no reason to draw a conclusion referencing one at all, unless once again it's just as a hypothetical. There's no reason to put "god existed" on equal footing with "universe existed."

Really, we're basically on the same page evidently so I'll just add that I think the importance that god is given for these kinds of questions is basically cultural. Kind of like how religious people out here are gradually toning down the mysticism of their views, some people who don't really have any strong religious beliefs take in the basic viewpoints surrounding the existence of a god and respond with a weak "well... maybe". Then it gets a little weird when the "maybe" becomes something people will argue for fiercely, but that's how people are, I guess?

[g0zen]

Don't shoot the messager.

He's not making any sense. Why does there have to be a 'purpose' in the Big Bang Theory other than the best explanation using current data to describe the universe's existence? I think it's the misplaced need to find deeper meaning in something that lacks one which leads to ridiculousness like a Godhead.

[Thief Silver]

The main difference is that we can confirm the existence of the universe so there is a real question to answer there, and "I can't explain why it exists" is a fair conclusion to draw. There's nothing to support the existence of a god, so there's no reason to draw a conclusion referencing one at all, unless once again it's just as a hypothetical. There's no reason to put "god existed" on equal footing with "universe existed."

Really, we're basically on the same page evidently so I'll just add that I think the importance that god is given for these kinds of questions is basically cultural. Kind of like how religious people out here are gradually toning down the mysticism of their views, some people who don't really have any strong religious beliefs take in the basic viewpoints surrounding the existence of a god and respond with a weak "well... maybe". Then it gets a little weird when the "maybe" becomes something people will argue for fiercely, but that's how people are, I guess?

I think it more comes to it gives them meaning to their lives. I mean, if there's no afterlife why not just go kill as many people as you can and eventually take your own life. It offers comfort as well to people in such tragedies in the Virgin Tech Shootings (Though I'd say it more helps people who weren't directly affected but think "OMG HOW HORRIBLE") to say "Well he's going to hell for that, he's going to get that in the end." Where there is a certain possibility, that he has taken those lives, and there will be no retribution, which makes people angry. What you said is right, but I think there's a lot of depth to religion and what it offers people.

[g0zen]

I mean, if there's no afterlife why not just go kill as many people as you can and eventually take your own life.

Umm, if the only reason you're not going on a brutal murderous rampage is because you fear punishment in the afterlife, then you need to get into therapy quickly.

It offers comfort as well to people in such tragedies in the Virgin Tech Shootings (Though I'd say it more helps people who weren't directly affected but think "OMG HOW HORRIBLE") to say "Well he's going to hell for that, he's going to get that in the end."

This is a dodge. It may provide comfort to some, but by the same token it might bring extreme pain to others. People will ask themselves "Why did God take away my child? What did *I* do to deserve this?" and now their pain is not only still there but amplified. You can't just make fiat claims that religion makes every situation easier to bear, it may make some easier, but it makes others much harder. Take for example a child who dies at birth and presumably goes to hell from the stain of original sin. Does religion make that easier? Or rather does it make a tragedy even more horrific?

Where there is a certain possibility, that he has taken those lives, and there will be no retribution, which makes people angry. What you said is right, but I think there's a lot of depth to religion and what it offers people.

What religion offers people has nothing whatsoever to do with the veracity of its claims. People may think astrology works or chiropractic medicine, they may be able to point out all these great things that they perceive as being benefits for their belief. That alone doesn't make any of it true.