Does TLR believe in God?

[Anerdyblackguy]

I believe in God

 

[JahFocus CS]

I believe in a higher power but I do not believe it takes the form of a Sky Father.

 

[King Musa]

Anybody who's on the fence about the existence of God should read up on what Deism is. It's not a religion at all, it's not counterproductive to science and scientific methods either. God =/= religion.

 

[Marc Spector]

The one mistake that Atheists always make is likening God to the depictions and historical scriptures of Christians, Jews, and Muslims etc. But, they won't look at God from any other perspective. An infinite creator and maintainer of the universe, not necessarily a righteous and moral being that looks at every human being under a microscope at all times of reality and has to save humanity.

One other thing Atheists tend to do is debate only religion in relation to science to get a strong arm in their arguments. They will not debate you on science vs science, they won't, I say this from experiences with debating Evolution with Atheists.

A French scientist by the name of Louis Pasture was quoted as saying something of the lines of "Evolution is a Fairy tale" and this is because he did a thorough experiment on an evolution myth which suggests that one cell organisms can evolve from even inorganic matter even in a vacuum. The results of the experiment showed this to be completely false. It is a scientific impossibility for organisms to form from inorganic matter...Not possible now, and it wasn't possible even a billion years ago. Something else is behind the universe's creation and it's not what you can really fathom but, I'll let both the Christians and Atheists cook.

@ThreeLetterAgency @Frank Lucas

Nah bruh

Most atheists are pretty okay with the idea that SOMETHING more than we know was instrumental in construction of the universe.

In fact, on this very board ive said that its more possible that life in our universe is simply an ongoing experiment of extra dimensional beings than a god.

Calling something a "God" basically is saying this being has "mystical" power and serves a "higher purpose" and is a "creator figure"...instrumental to the very foundation of all planes of existence. IF something created us simply due to greater technology than us (due to existence in a higher dimension), then I aint calling it god . That aint Harlem

 

[King Musa]

Nah bruh

Most atheists are pretty okay with the idea that SOMETHING more than we know was instrumental in construction of the universe.

In fact, on this very board ive said that its more possible that life in our universe is simply an ongoing experiment of extra dimensional beings than a god.

Calling something a "God" basically is saying this being has "mystical" power and serves a "higher purpose" and is a "creator figure"...instrumental to the very foundation of all planes of existence. IF something created us simply due to greater technology than us (due to existence in a higher dimension), then I aint calling it god . That aint Harlem

You're arguing semantics breh...That's not where I'm coming from. Call this force a "banana" if it makes you feel better.

 

[NoCones]

Personally I don't like these topics because the topic of a persons conception of god never enters the conversation.

To make it plan there is a whole level of assumption that people refuse to even discus.
I.E. If someone believes in "GOD" who says they are referring to a human being like entity sitting in a char off in space somewhere.

There is so much baggage the first question should really be what is your conception of GOD be it you believe in that conception or not.
(you can't argue against something you don't already have a conception of ...even if that conception is simply what you believe/know other people to hold)

Without the above being established you end up with people making arguments against things no one ever even said ....or people making proxy arguments
(debating with someone not in the room via the person your currently debating; based on loose similarity of debate topic)

quoted for emphasis but it'll be ignored

 

[Sukairain]

Anybody who's on the fence about the existence of God should read up on what Deism is. It's not a religion at all, it's not counterproductive to science and scientific methods either. God =/= religion.

There are loads of philosophers who have demonstrated why the science of today and the scientific method will never furnish us with a complete and truthful account of how and why the universe is, and what our purpose is in it - the relevant schools are rationalism, idealism, dualism and non-reductive materialism. None of these competing philosophical schools necessarily evoked a god in the traditional religious sense, either - a god of faith who you just have to believe in and who sends down avatars/messiahs/prophets to Earth to do miracles, and all of that far-fetched storytelling.

In science's corner is reductive materialism, the idea that all phenomena in the universe can be explained in purely physical terms. This is the first mistake a lot of people make about science. They tend to think it's infallible, when in reality it's just another philosophy, just another way of interpreting reality, and not a particularly good one at that. So, in accordance with the reductive materialist philosophy that science operates under, atheists can declare that god does not exist because it cannot be detected physically, god can't be seen, smelled, touched, heard, tasted or otherwise measured.

But because scientists and atheists are staggeringly illiterate in and ignorant of philosophy, they don't understand the implication of reductive materialism. If reductive materialism is true, then the laws of science themselves can't exist. Just to explain what I mean here, Christians say gravity exists because their god created it. Scientists say gravity exists because *insert equations here*, and because the effects of gravity are easy for everyone to understand since we experience the effects.

But where scientists and atheists say the Christian god cannot exist because it can't be seen, smelled, touched etc., and therefore gravity could not have been caused by the god, the same exact thing can be said about the law of gravity that scientists say is responsible for gravity. How do you go about seeing or smelling or touching the law itself? You can only do that with respect to the effects of the law, and never the law in itself. Once again, going back to reductive materialism's position that if something is real, it must be physical and it must be detectable by the senses, then the law of gravity cannot be real.

 

[The BasedFather]

any of u guys read about consciousness

how consciousness isnt confined by the brain

n scientist dont know where it originates?

-The BasedFather

 

[SirReginald]

BUMP

The nerve of this cat Napoleon AKA @ThreeLetterAgency

 

[AlainLocke]

I don't believe in God or gods...

 

[HabitualChiller]

The older I get, the more I start to believe in resurrection and energy transfer. Energy can't be destroyed, but can be transferred.

 

[PeridotPuss]

I am a beliver in God and the risen Jesus Christ

 

[Billie Jean]

any of u guys read about consciousness

how consciousness isnt confined by the brain

n scientist dont know where it originates?

-The BasedFather

Yes

If consciousness isn't limited to the functions of the brain/neurons, but can't be proven by something magical (like Descartes thinking it has got to do with the soul being in the pineal gland) then it points to some higher, supreme awareness that can't be solved? What?

Michio Kaku is too based friend