Do you believe in God, even you being gay?
-
I don't believe in "god" in any traditional religious sense. I consider myself to effectively be an atheist. It has nothing to do with my orientation, though. And I have nothing against theistic people. If anything, I'm envious of them.
The way I see it, a divine creator who watches over us on earth and decides our fate in the afterlife just doesn't seem plausible. First of all, I don't believe there is life after death. I don't believe we have immortal "souls". I wish I did, because it's a very reassuring thought, but I can't force myself to believe it if I don't have any faith in the idea to begin with. Secondly, even if there is some universal/cosmic consciousness, or a sentient creative being (be it the universe itself, or something outside of it), I have a hard to believing it has any interest in (or perhaps even knowledge of) our puny lives on this puny planet in our pathetically minuscule galaxy within the universe. So, for all intents and purposes, there is no god.
-
Well, as a physcist i must say that there is not need for a "god", the actual theories, must to be proven, i need to say, allows the begining of the universe from nothing because of the concept of quantum vaccum. The quantum theories says that there are particles always stepping in and out of reality, since their life time is too small to be measured. This quantum fluctuation produced the big bang and all we know. Of course it is not my intention to offend the believes of any one, just saying about the actual theoriesof the physcists. But the beauty of physics is that it wants to explain everything through mathemathics, and with evidence, obviously
I'm not sure about a theologist or a phylosopher would say about your belive of schrodinger's god, but, some where i read that the proof of god is way beyond the hands of science. As a physcist your analogy is kind of cute, and weird.
Cute and weird, kinda encompasses my entire personality lol
And please don't think I'm offended you because I'm always open to discussion, and I wasn't really very good at physics in school so I didn't really expect any of my theories to be scientifically correct; I just came up with them with the extremely limited knowledge of physics I have.
But then again, as I mentioned, I have neither the patience nor the interest to go that deep into something like the existence of God lol
-
I don't think there's any relation.
As for if I believe in God, kind of. Lemme explain.
I believe that there is some God-like entity out there somewhere, but I don't believe in any religion, least of all those religions which bash other religions and discriminate. I mean, sure there are many good things we can learn from religion (I was raised as a Hindu, and there are a lot of stories and tales from which you can learn a lot of life lessons) but that's no reason to literally start killing people because they don't believe in the same thing.
So, basically, I don't believe in creationism and I'm all for science and The Big Bang Theory and stuff. But here's my theory/belief: According to the Big Bang Theory, the entire universe was like a dense structure and then there was a Big Bang and everything started expanding, right? But what created (Idk if that's the word I'm looking for) this dense structure? My belief is that some God-like entity may have created it.Another theory I believe is that God, or any equivalent to God, is kinda like Schrödinger's cat. God is neither real nor unreal until we can see God. Does that make any sense?
But then again, I try not to get too engrossed in these subjects, cuz like it or not, we're probably not gonna get an answer to whether there is a God or not in our lifetime. Of course we should continue research and stuff about the creation of the universe, but there's no point in common people like us to be arguing about this kinda stuff.
Well, as a physcist i must say that there is not need for a "god", the actual theories, must to be proven, i need to say, allows the begining of the universe from nothing because of the concept of quantum vaccum. The quantum theories says that there are particles always stepping in and out of reality, since their life time is too small to be measured. This quantum fluctuation produced the big bang and all we know. Of course it is not my intention to offend the believes of any one, just saying about the actual theoriesof the physcists. But the beauty of physics is that it wants to explain everything through mathemathics, and with evidence, obviously
I'm not sure about a theologist or a phylosopher would say about your belive of schrodinger's god, but, some where i read that the proof of god is way beyond the hands of science. As a physcist your analogy is kind of cute, and weird.
Uhmmm if I understand correctly what you wrote you are referring to the physical nature of the quantum vacuum.
There is no need for god in physics is yet to be said : …<<
The Higgs boson has been measured as an energy distribution with a peak of 5σ and a mass of 126 GeV.You know the Higgs boson is called the god particle for a reason,
and this reason is because it is the key to further research in physics.
This research has a unique scope: a unified theory.This unified theory is what you need to say if you need what Aristoteles called "first cause - unmoved mover" (an alias for god) or not.
And there is plenty of philosophical writings about this ...
Let's quote only "De philosophia" to have a direct bound with the principles of Christian theology known as Augustinianism,
(that accredited philosophically the Catholic Christian religion).What the physics currently lacks is a theory that properly fit into (read predict/foretell) this fact (the mass) ...
Apparently the mass of the boson is really interesting as it was believed:
it is located in a sort of no man's land,
it does not prefer symmetries, which would require a mass contained in a interval of about 115 GeV,
nor a multiverse, which would require a mass contained in an interval of about 140 GeV,
it is perfectly located in the center.The data were puzzling for physicists,
because they do not exclude any of the accepted theories,
but they require some adjustments to each of them (to exclude paradoxes) ...One boson with this mass is a critical data for the fate of the universe because, without any other particle, this makes it unstable, temporary;
and since higgs holds everything together, if the boson were to disappear, everything would disappear altogether.
Higgs, the center of the standard model, could also be the one that will destroy everything:
the creator and destroyer, like an all in one Shiva, Brahma and Vishnu.
Let's have another binding with another religion, but this could go further with any of the existent ...It is unlikely that any of the current theories, without being refined and revised to predict the discovered phenomena,
manages to be proven, and therefore,
saying that current theories do not need a god, then the physics does not need a god, is a stretch, a big big big stretch.The science doesn't know.
What we, as a specie, have found during the scientific journey is what Dante Alighieri wrote asConsiderate la vostra semenza:
fatti non foste a viver come bruti,
ma per seguir virtute e canoscenza.
(vv. 118-120 / Inferno / Canto twenty-sixth)Consider well the seed that gave you birth: you were not made to live as brutes, but to follow virtue and knowledge.That God exists or not, it will not change what we learned:
what defines us is what we do, what we do is what makes us who we are, humans.And regardless of any loophole used by any human interpretation of any dogma to justify murder and discrimination,
no one should be remembered for barbarism (also against homosexuals).
So let's everyone believes what makes feel better and what makes us strive to improve our behaviour,
whatever it is, for the good of all.To answer that question, ontologically speaking, that makes perfect sense (if you have been able to follow the thought):
God is neither real nor unreal until you can see God (Principle of uncertainty &/or Gödel's incompleteness theorems).This is what Nietzsche takes for granted in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_is_dead:
god is neither real or unreal until you see him, but to see him, you have to kill him
( in the sense that to undercover god you have to debunk him first ) …
Side side note : one of his books, that partially concerns this, has been named "the gay science" >:DI was talking about the fact that some theories that describes the universe as it is today requiring nothing but energy zero in its initial state. Several physicists like Lawrence Krauss, and of course Stephen Hawkings support the zero energy initial state. And actually it is not the quantum vaccum itself but some other phenomena i'm not famuliarized with. The main evidence about the universe from a zero point has been observations related to background radiation. Of course yet it is needed more evidence about this topic. The main reason of this research is learning about cosmological constant. But I need more research
The Higgs Field is the mechanism developed (yes, developed by Higgs and Englert to break spontaneously th CP simetry) to give mass to the elementary particles, and just because Peter Higg's editor is why it is called god's particle. Several years ago when its discover was announced was said that it could be the bososn predicted by Standard Model how ever, i didn't read the data you mention, but the mass reported seems actually fitting on stsndard model.
And just speaking of that, Standard Model is best theory we have to explain the universe, its full of holes. It has 19 values that we just needed to get from the experimentale data. And the main prescence of matter over antimatter is unexplained by th Model. And so many reasons. The physics needs so much work to do
and i say in my original comment every unified theory needs experimental prove, as in any other science, so, there is still many research to doI promess get the proper references!!!
I know what you're talking about, and you're right, but …
What I was trying to say is that giving mass to the elementary particles is important
to go beyond the impasse of GUTheories toward a TOE one.
And that only with a TOE you may be able to say if you need a god or not to make the physics works !I was underlining that making assumptions over the absence of a presence in a GUT
is something everyone would call a speculation, and only a speculation.But even beyond this, physicists in future may have a huge problem in the formulation of a TOE:
the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems.
So this peculiar mass of the Higgs boson may be an omen to the limit of the human knowledge ...
You can prove the internal logic coherence of a theory but you cannot verify a TOE in a multiverse.
Let's try to catalogue every and all particles in a SUSY universe and to be perfectly sure you caught them all. xDSomeone take this as a proof of a god existence, but this depends on you.
Someone take this as a proof of a god inexistence, but this depends on you.
Someone take this as a proof that you cannot say if god exists or not, but this depends on you.The fact is that the science doesn't know and doesn't care:
the scientists believe (someone call this a faith) in a standardised peer review method,
but we may be reaching the limit of the obtainable knowledge from this system.This is one of the many things that many nihilist philosophers refers to when they are
talking/writing/thinking about the deconstruction of the absolute that is happening in the contemporary era:
accepting the limits of the human knowledge could mean that there are things no one will ever be able to understand,
this applies both to the physic world (probability + principle of uncertainty + and all the consequences)
and to the metaphysic one (relativism of moral values in every religion). -
I need to disagree, I strongly belive if something is limitless it is the human intellingence. Some day, on a far far faaaaaaaaar futuro) i shall understand everything, and of course we will discorver a GUT. Every day we are closing. But that doesnt mess with god, because he/she/it is beyond the scope of science. But who knows, may ve some day we meet him too if exists. My actually point of view is that physics doesn't mess with god, are two very different stuff, personally i am a non beliver because in my country the Church is too discrimiartory, and by my formation i dont belive there is a need for god, (just like luminiferous aether) a prove if his existence will be if a become pregnant, i need keep trying. XD
-
I believe in nothing.
-
I believe in God and he creat all people gay and str8
-
I do believe in God.
-
I do believe in god (or a higher power, if you will. What I don't believe in is how much of organized religion attempts to say "We are the only true religion and if you don't do X or Y you will burn in hell…" However, when you read their "holy" book it talks about how it is not their place to judge.
In my humble opinion organized religion has proven again and again it's use in control of groups to do as they wish and use biblical quotations to justify their actions. I also am against any one individual acting as an "authority" on religion and profiting from the religion (much of the born again movement falls into this category). I repeat this is just my opinion. I have nothing against any religion, I take issue with those who try to lead a religion and insist that theirs is the only true one. You'll only know when it won't make a difference anymore.
-
I'm atheist. The world would be a better place without religions, isn't it obvious? But we can't do anything with this, it's a nature thing after all, so yes you can be gay and believe in god. Sadly, religion is always used to justify hate.
