God v No God

[Mr JP Fugley]

Certain people believe that there is a God, who brought our Universe into existence. They cannot explain God's nature, however they believe that he exists.

Other people believe that the Universe simply exists. That it was not created, that it just exists. Logically that can only mean that it always has existed, or that it just popped into existence, from nowhere.

Forget things like "the Big Bang", because even if we accept that it took place then something must have started that. Either God, or the Universe pre Big Bang. (Or we're just back to the "simply popped into existence with no cause" solution.)

At the end of the day neither side can currently prove that they are right. It's just down to individuals to make up their own mind. This can be done in two ways (or some combination of them). By logical deduction or by faith (that goes for either side, faith is not solely the province of those who believe in the God solution).

Personally I go with the God scenario. For the simple reason that it is the simplest solution, I am a fan of "Occums Razor" as you may have noticed.

Please also bear in mind that the existence of God does not pre-suppose an afterlife for us, or a Heaven, or anything like that. We may simply be a self-aware part of the Universe God created. That's another story entirely. It's not an "if you believe God created the Universe, then you must accept everything else" situation, much as some people may try to convince you it is.

[DorisInsinuate]

Shut it, zealot.

[Wolfmight]

Scientific Anomalies = Religion

Religion = Scientific Anomalies

Their single connection to each other.
plus it's the single reason I believe there's some truth to religion. (what else is there to believe when believing in science only tells you technically we shouldn't exist. Science says, No Very First Creator = No Product...yet the universe is still here, when it would be "scientifically" impossible to have the very first creator in existence without one before it. Religion says, God = Very First Creator whom doesn't need anything to create itself.
Now what gets me is, why are there so many different religions??? It's insane. They can't all possibly be worshiping the "creator of the universe" god.

And what's up with Satan? This existance of life "REQUIRES" evil for good. One can't "be" without the other. There was a time without evil? Were people in a neutral state, doomed to never do good nor evil...always doing as you say, so-so?
Also, why couldn't god just destroy that fallen angel?

[Mr JP Fugley]

You're falling into the old "must take the whole package" trap.

Assume that God created the Universe, how does anything else automatically follow from that. It doesn't.

[DorisInsinuate]

Real scientists won't deny the possibility of deities, nor fully acknowledge their existence.

[Mr JP Fugley]

science galactacos ftw.

[manker]

Something once created stuff. Must have.

That's about as much truck as I'll have with any god or gods.

[peat moss]

I don't believe myself but when my children ask me I say yes , they can decide them selves later in life . Bit of a cop out but what can you do .

[ilw]

Personally I go with the God scenario. For the simple reason that it is the simplest solution, I am a fan of "Occums Razor" as you may have noticed.

Isn't that totally arse backwards?

Occam's (alt spelling Ockham) razor was written in latin but basically translates as:
"entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity"

'Occam's razor states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory'

or to put it simpler don't invent unnecessary crap to explain stuff.

Occam's razor = no god.

(Info from wikipedia)

Edit: And even if you interpret it as simpler is better. How is creating a god to create the universe simpler than just creating the universe?

[Mr JP Fugley]

Good point.

Your solution that the universe just popped into existence, from nothing is much simpler.