Society/Culture Nobody has anything new to say about God.

(Log in to remove this ad.)

twotooto

Club Legend
Joined
Sep 26, 2015
Posts
1,120
Likes
2,130
AFL Club
West Coast
I feel like this may be the most important thread on BF, or maybe it's the least important. I don't know, you tell me, or not.

But what actually is god, anyway? Is it a being, a denominational being, an energy? Is it everything? Or nothing? Shouldn't we at least agree on what 'god' actually is before we discuss it?

Who/what actually is god? It's a question that has been asked throughout the ages. Is there actually any meaning in existence? Any meaning at all? Do you ever ask yourself these questions?

DISCLAIMER: it's Saturday night and I'm quite intoxicated(and will probably regret this post).
 

Boston tiger

Premiership Player
Joined
May 10, 2010
Posts
4,693
Likes
3,339
Location
Where it all began
AFL Club
Richmond
I feel like this may be the most important thread on BF, or maybe it's the least important. I don't know, you tell me, or not.

But what actually is god, anyway? Is it a being, a denominational being, an energy? Is it everything? Or nothing? Shouldn't we at least agree on what 'god' actually is before we discuss it?

Who/what actually is god? It's a question that has been asked throughout the ages. Is there actually any meaning in existence? Any meaning at all? Do you ever ask yourself these questions?

DISCLAIMER: it's Saturday night and I'm quite intoxicated(and will probably regret this post).
I think most of humanity has gone with God as the creator in some shape or form . The something from nothing guy.
 

twotooto

Club Legend
Joined
Sep 26, 2015
Posts
1,120
Likes
2,130
AFL Club
West Coast
Agreed. My own perception is that 'god' is not an omnipotent being, though that is not to discount the possible existence of 'gods', per se.

I also do not buy in to creationism but understand why, given the belief in god as a creator, people would see it that way.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Boston tiger

Premiership Player
Joined
May 10, 2010
Posts
4,693
Likes
3,339
Location
Where it all began
AFL Club
Richmond
Agreed. My own perception is that 'god' is not an omnipotent being, though that is not to discount the possible existence of 'gods', per se.

I also do not buy in to creationism but understand why, given the belief in god as a creator, people would see it that way.
Yes the fundamentalists have hijacked the term creation but most people who see god as the creator have no problem with evolution or what else we discover to be true. How things change or how things interact have no bearing on my concept of God.
 
Last edited:

FireKraquora

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Posts
5,841
Likes
8,771
AFL Club
Collingwood
Or astronomers who are now examining places 35 billion light years away and wondering why there’s not one sign of god yet
I'm an agnostic, and certainly don't subscribe to any of the organised religions. But the suggestion that science has just about got it all figured out is beyond ludicrous. So we can see stuff that is really far away, that certainly answers all our questions...

We can't agree on basics like how many dimensions there are, or even how many universes there are. We have basically zero concept of the very large or the very small. But we "haven't seen god yet"... rightio.
 

FireKraquora

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Posts
5,841
Likes
8,771
AFL Club
Collingwood
Science doesn't claim this.
The claim that "we've seen 35 billion light years away but haven't found god" could only be interpreted as "well, we've basically seen it all". Far from true. Science is still in its infancy in many regards.

IMO atheism is unscientific. On the one hand, we know that creationism etc is bullshit. But on the other, we have no real idea yet of what reality is or of how many "realities" there are, so how can we rule out the metaphysical?
 

Snake_Baker

L'enfant terrible
Joined
Apr 24, 2013
Posts
37,228
Likes
64,907
Location
inside your head
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Milf Smashers
Thread starter #5,093
The claim that "we've seen 35 billion light years away but haven't found god" could only be interpreted as "well, we've basically seen it all".
This is a single comment assigned from a single field of science, not science in total.

Science is still in its infancy in many regards.
How do you arrive at that conclusion?

IMO atheism is unscientific. On the one hand, we know that creationism etc is bullshit. But on the other, we have no real idea yet of what reality is or of how many "realities" there are, so how can we rule out the metaphysical?
1) Atheism is not necessarily "unscientific"
2) "Metaphysics" is basically philosophy. It's not synchronized with science until science ratifies some aspect of it and then it becomes science.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 24, 2018
Posts
402
Likes
790
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
The claim that "we've seen 35 billion light years away but haven't found god" could only be interpreted as "well, we've basically seen it all". Far from true. Science is still in its infancy in many regards.

IMO atheism is unscientific. On the one hand, we know that creationism etc is bullshit. But on the other, we have no real idea yet of what reality is or of how many "realities" there are, so how can we rule out the metaphysical?
Atheism is unscientific?!?!

i think that might be the most baffling comment I’ve read on the internet for some time.

Science deals in evidence alone. Given that there is no evidence of God, what other position would science adopt?
 

FireKraquora

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Posts
5,841
Likes
8,771
AFL Club
Collingwood
This is a single comment assigned from a single field of science, not science in total.



How do you arrive at that conclusion?



1) Atheism is not necessarily "unscientific"
2) "Metaphysics" is basically philosophy. It's not synchronized with science until science ratifies some aspect of it.
That single comment is what I was responding to, I was not making the suggestion that the science field in general believe that their job is nearly done.

I consider science to be in its infancy due to many reasons. Instead of debating semantics, I can walk it back and just say "it still has a long way to go". Very basic questions remain unanswered by physics, some i've already mentioned. A couple of fields I'm interested in are nutrition and psychiatry. Experts in both fields hold significantly different views to what they did 10 years ago, and will no doubt have a completely different consensus in another 10 years.

I largely agree with your last paragraph. It can all depend on one's particular branch of atheism, and their definition of "scientific". I personally don't rule things in or out without decent evidence. While it can be difficult to prove a negative, I'm not yet satisfied that there is good reason to rule out some form of "god".
 

Snake_Baker

L'enfant terrible
Joined
Apr 24, 2013
Posts
37,228
Likes
64,907
Location
inside your head
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Milf Smashers
Thread starter #5,097
That single comment is what I was responding to, I was not making the suggestion that the science field in general believe that their job is nearly done.
Cool.

I consider science to be in its infancy due to many reasons.
Science is in continual motion. It can only be viewed as "infancy" in hindsight.

As for scriptural gods, there's very little if any scientific support for them.
 

ShanDog

Moderator
Joined
Aug 12, 2012
Posts
17,134
Likes
30,989
Location
sv_cheats 1
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Edmonton Oilers
Moderator #5,098
I feel like this may be the most important thread on BF, or maybe it's the least important. I don't know, you tell me, or not.

But what actually is god, anyway? Is it a being, a denominational being, an energy? Is it everything? Or nothing? Shouldn't we at least agree on what 'god' actually is before we discuss it?

Who/what actually is god? It's a question that has been asked throughout the ages. Is there actually any meaning in existence? Any meaning at all? Do you ever ask yourself these questions?

DISCLAIMER: it's Saturday night and I'm quite intoxicated(and will probably regret this post).
God is the logos; that which creates and speaks things into being, the conscious creative thought that generates ideas and in turn manifests the un-real into the real, whether physically or meta-physically.

Or something. :)


 

FireKraquora

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Posts
5,841
Likes
8,771
AFL Club
Collingwood
As for scriptural gods, there's very little if any scientific support for them.
Totally agree. Which is why I consider it extremely unlikely that any of the major religions have it right, or are even close.
Yet you have ruled in the possibility of God with absolutely zero decent evidence.

I do wish people wouldn’t frame themselves as evidence-based when, in reality, they are happy to believe any madcap idea that fills a gap in their life.
Existence itself is unexplained by science. There is a hypothesis that existence is due to, or dependent upon, some higher being, or metaphysical energy or whatever. I don't believe such a theory, nor do I rule it out.
 

Roylion

Moderator
Joined
Oct 17, 2000
Posts
12,973
Likes
8,468
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
Moderator #5,100
While it can be difficult to prove a negative, I'm not yet satisfied that there is good reason to rule out some form of "god".
Apart from a lack of any evidence that an immortal, supernatural being / deity that is the perfect, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient originator/creator and ruler of the universe actually exists is not a good reason?
 
Top Bottom