What do you believe in?

[rpo.castro]

I don't know, so I can't give you the answer for this. Yet, although I don't know, I don't assume that there is something 'magical' or 'supernatural' about it.

So you admit you don't know how everything began, but basically, you choose to believe something too. You believe something came out of nothing. Even though no one has shown you any proof of how this is possible, because everything we know of has a cause, you have chosen to believe that something popped out of nothing, a very long time ago.

No one knows how it began and so many otherthings that we don't understand why.
EarlofBug believes that there is a scientific reason behind that, although no evidence exist.
Polak believes its God work.

No one can prove one way or another, that why its called belief. If there was evidences in one way and you claim other way (like earth being flat), its not belief. Its just ignoring the truth.

I am ok with beliefs as long as they respect the others, and that includes not trying to convert someone. As far as we know, maybe the Egyptians were right and in the end we might face 100 gods instead of one.

[EarlofBug]

Yeah I understand what you're saying that if you didn't know how things worked you'd think it might be God, but because you know how things work you don't need it to be God.

OK, we are progressing. You argue that god is needed, because we don't know what happend at the beginning of time and the universe.
But, as I was saying, we didn't know for much of the human existance how many things work, like the earth movement, chemistry, electricity, even how the human body works. So we (as humans) used god to explain everything that we didn't know.
Now, after we learned and gained some knowledge, we don't need a supernatural factor to explain things about astronomy, biology, physics, chemistry and such.
So, I'm using induction, and I assume that we will learn in the future more about how things began, so we will not need "god" to explain how things happen.

[Oldelpaso]

On topics such as this, science and theology end up being different approaches to the same question: Why? On the origins of the universe, both stray into the realms of philosophy.

Astrophysics and cosmology attempt to explain the observable universe. No matter how well that is done the question "But what was there before that?" can be asked. I suppose asking a theologian "Where did God come from" might be equivalent.

At university I did a unit on cosmology. The parts of it where science and philosophy collided made my head hurt; I scored poorly on the exam. But why are scientists so sure on the Big Bang model? In quick basic terms we know the universe is expanding. We see a red shift (a form of Doppler effect) when observing galaxies. We see this whichever direction we look. The further the galaxies are, the faster they are moving away from us. Extrapolating this backwards, we get a singularity and the Big Bang theory. There are important observable phenomena that fit this model, like the Cosmic Microwave Background.

Incidentally, "Big Bang" is a misleading term. It was originally coined by Fred Hoyle, a critic of the theory. It took hundreds of thousands of years for the the first atoms to form from subatomic particles, not so much the "boom" of popular imagination.

[EarlofBug]

On topics such as this, science and theology end up being different approaches to the same question: Why? On the origins of the universe, both stray into the realms of philosophy.

Science doesn't relate to the question "why?". Its main questions are "What (is/was happening)?" or "How?".

But why are scientists so sure on the Big Bang model? In quick basic terms we know the universe is expanding. We see a red shift (a form of Doppler effect) when observing galaxies. We see this whichever direction we look. The further the galaxies are, the faster they are moving away from us. Extrapolating this backwards, we get a singularity and the Big Bang theory. There are important observable phenomena that fit this model, like the Cosmic Microwave Background.

Incidentally, "Big Bang" is a misleading term. It was originally coined by Fred Hoyle, a critic of the theory. It took hundreds of thousands of years for the the first atoms to form from subatomic particles, not so much the "boom" of popular imagination.

Thanks for this

[Oldelpaso]

On topics such as this, science and theology end up being different approaches to the same question: Why? On the origins of the universe, both stray into the realms of philosophy.

Science doesn't relate to the question "why?". Its main questions are "What (is/was happening)?" or "How?".

Nah, that's engineering. An engineer asks what works. A scientist asks how it works. As someone trained in one but working in the other, it's clichéd but true

Or at least, asking questions like "why is the sky blue" are what made me want to study science. Admittedly, some of that spark had gone by the time of the lecture covering the derivations and formulae related to Rayleigh scattering to explain it.

[Polak]

OK, we are progressing. You argue that god is needed, because we don't know what happend at the beginning of time and the universe.
But, as I was saying, we didn't know for much of the human existance how many things work, like the earth movement, chemistry, electricity, even how the human body works. So we (as humans) used god to explain everything that we didn't know.

This isn't the first time that you said this, and it's a false premise. It isn't true that in the past when many things were unexplainable, everyone, or most people, believed it was God's work. You said you've read the Bible. There were a lot of non believers like you, thousands of years ago too. Being or not being able to explain how things work has no bearing on belief in God. There are plenty of very smart people now, who work in complicated fields, in medicine, in astrophysics, quantum mechanics etc. They do a lot of research to try to explain things. Many of them believe in God. They don't think, 'well now I've figured out how this works, I don't need God'. Do you call these people, far smarter than you or I, childish also?

You say you don't know why or even exactly how existence began, and yet you're comfortable 'ruling out' God. That seems like a leap of faith on your part. You have no idea, but you are still prepared to say it wasn't God.

Do you understand what nothing actually is? It isn't like anything you can imagine, because anything you've ever known has been something. Even what you might call nothing now, is still something. Things happen now, when there is something, some groundwork, some framework, some elements in place for them to happen. When there is nothing at all, no air, no oxygen, not even any darkness, just absolutely nothing, there are no conditions for anything to come from that, yet you believe that's exactly what happened. You believe there wasn't anything at all, and then there was suddenly something for no explainable reasons, and that's how things began.

So everything you know has a cause, yet you believe there was an uncaused cause at the beginning, even though there isn't anything you know exists that backs that claim up. Isn't that an illogical leap of faith on your part?

[EarlofBug]

When there is nothing at all... not even any darkness, just absolutely nothing, there are no conditions for anything to come from that, yet you believe that's exactly what happened. You believe there wasn't anything at all, and then there was suddenly something for no explainable reasons, and that's how things began.

First, Darkness is the lack of light. Now, I don't know, as you don't know, what was before the "beginning of the universe". Yes, something might have come out of nothing, It might've happend, you don't know. You call it "god's work", the same as people from ancient times called the sun movement, etc. You and I don't grasp what happened, the same as people from ancient times didn't grasp quantum physics. There might have been something before the "beginning of the universe". So what? I still don't see it as "god". It might have been just another state of the nature, that we may understand someday.

So everything you know has a cause, yet you believe there was an uncaused cause at the beginning, even though there isn't anything you know exists that backs that claim up. Isn't that an illogical leap of faith on your part?

By "cause" do you mean "intentionally"? If a butterfly flips its wing, and causes a hurricane in the other side of world... Would you call that butterfly "god of hurricanes"?

Let's look in another way. Even if there was a creator, that the universe became in glimpse of thought, in some mind, I don't know the nature of this creator. Is he good or evil? What are his wishes and intentions? Does he intervene in my life?
The answer to the last question is a big no from me. As I examine the world, I can see more "proofs" for the lack of god (or maybe he is just watching and not intervening, as Ricardo wrote). I don't believe that god spoke to Abraham, I don't believe that god gave Moses the Torah, etc. It's all fantasy story imo.
And last, even if there was a creator, that we don't understand its nature, how does it affect my life in anyway? Should I act differently? He doesn't tell me what to do. Does the pope hear him and speak on his behalf? I don't think that the pope or someone else knows what the creator (if it exists) wants better than anyone else. So there is no point listening to some priest over another.

[Natan]

Or at least, asking questions like "why is the sky blue" are what made me want to study science. Admittedly, some of that spark had gone by the time of the lecture covering the derivations and formulae related to Rayleigh scattering to explain it.

Haha, that's funny! Believe me, I totally get you.

To answer the original question, I am pretty much a practicing Jew and believe in Orthodox Jewish dogma.