Do you believe in God?

In 1927, the Belgian Catholic priest Georges Lemaître made one of the first modern proposition of the occurrence the Big Bang theory for the origin of the universe, although he called it his "hypothesis of the primeval atom". He based his theory, published between 1927 and 1933, on the work of Einstein, among others, as well as ancient cosmological-philosophical traditions. Einstein, however, believed in a steady-state model of the universe. Lemaître independently derived the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker equations and proposed, on the basis of the recession of spiral nebulae, that the universe began with the "explosion" of a "primeval atom"—what was later called the Big Bang. Lemaître took cosmic rays to be the remnants of the event, although it is now known that they originate within the local galaxy.

In 1929, Edwin Hubble provided an observational basis for Lemaître's theory. Hubble discovered a redshift of galaxies. He investigated spiral nebulae galaxies and measured their distances by observing Cepheid variable stars which were earlier determined to be standard candles by Henrietta Leavitt. He discovered that, relative to the earth, the galaxies are receding in every direction at speeds directly proportional to their distance from the earth. In 1929 Hubble and Milton Humason formulated the empirical Redshift Distance Law of galaxies, nowadays known as Hubble's law, which, once the redshift is interpreted as a measure of recession speed, is consistent with the solutions of Einstein’s General Relativity Equations for an homogeneous, isotropic expanding space. This led to the concept of the expanding universe. The law states that the greater the distance between any two galaxies, the greater their relative speed of separation. This discovery later resulted in the formulation of the Big Bang theory.

At this time, Einstein, whilst approving of the mathematics of Fr. Lemaître's theory, refused to accept the idea of an expanding Universe. He believed it immutable, but would later say that it was the greatest error of his life.

Not very concerned with honors, Fr. Lemaître did not think it desirable to become famous, nor to publicize his article. In fact, he was already concentrating on a new challenge: to solve the problem of the origin of the Universe. The same year, he returned to MIT to present his doctoral thesis on The gravitational field in a fluid sphere of uniform invariant density according to the theory of relativity. He obtained a PhD and was then named ordinary Professor at the University of Leuven.

In 1931, Eddington published an English translation of the 1927 article with a long commentary. Fr. Lemaître was then invited to London in order to take part in a meeting of the British Association on the relation between the physical Universe and spirituality. It is there that he proposed an expanding Universe which started with an initial singularity, and the idea of the Primeval Atom which he developed in a report published in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. Fr. Lemaître himself liked to describe his theory as "the Cosmic Egg exploding at the moment of the creation", which was later to be coined by his critics as the Big Bang theory.

This proposal caused a sharp reaction from the scientific community of the time. Eddington found Fr. Lemaître's notion unpleasant. As for Einstein, he found it suspect, because, according to him, it was too strongly reminiscent of the Christian dogma of creation and was unjustifiable from a physical point of view. The debate between cosmology and religion took the form of a polemic that would last several decades. In this debate, Fr. Lemaître would be a fundamental actor who unceasingly tried to separate science from faith.

However, in January 1933, Fr. Lemaître and Einstein, who had met on several occasions - in 1927 in Brussels, at the time of a Solvay congress, in 1932 in Belgium, at the time of a cycle of conferences in Brussels and lastly in 1935 at Princeton - traveled together to California for a series of seminars. After the Belgian detailed his theory, Einstein stood up, applauded, and said, "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened".

On March 17, 1934, Fr. Lemaître received the Francqui Prize, the highest Belgian scientific distinction, from King Léopold III. His proposers were Albert Einstein, Charles de la Vallée-Poussin and Alexandre de Hemptinne. The members of the international jury were Eddington, Langevin and Théophile de Donder. Another distinction that the Belgian government reserves for exceptional scientists was allotted to him in 1950: the decennial prize for applied sciences for the period 1933-1942.

He died on June 20, 1966 shortly after having learned of the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation, proof of his intuitions about the birth of the Universe.

GOD REVEALS ALL OF THE SECRETS OF THE UNIVERSE .... IN THE RIGHT TIME .. ISNT IT WONDERFUL TO KNOW.

This thread seems to have gone up a notch. Mr. Semper’s thoughts have caught my interest. Very impressive! tambayan/2.gif

Taking on the first position as to establishing the existence of God from the “Why?” question, it seems to me that this still does not necessarily establish the existence of God. Sure, the question “why” may stump the scientist on the nature of things, but I would still be a little weary on filling this gap with the answer – “God”.

Now with regards to EXISTENCE and PRESENCE, to add a little spice to the thought, do these (existence and presence) equate to REALITY?

Plato and Aristotle offered a very interesting insight – that existence is composed of Forms and Substance. If we think of something without a form, such as air, we have to consider particles before air can exist. If we think of forms without substance, it can be likened to thinking of a painting then removing the paint (substance), leaving us without any image.

But let's think of the relationship of reality and existence first. Are they equivalent? Does being real mean to exist? How do we test this?

Let's imagine us playing with two sets of Play-Dohs (Clay). Let's mold the first set into the shape of a dog and the second set into the shape of a tree. They have the same substance (clay) but the realities are different. So we may say that substance does not dictate reality. Now let's consider the form (shape). The dog has the shape of a dog which makes it a dog, the tree has the shape of a tree, which makes it a tree. A cube has the configurations of a cube which makes it a cube. But does the conception of a height, width, and length dictate the existence of the cube? Probably not, otherwise, the conception of a winged unicorn would establish it's existence. Existence has to have both Form and Substance, as the two philosophers shared with us.

So reality does not necessarily equate to existence. While we may say that our mental image of a cube is real, it doesn't necessarily mean that this cube that we imagine exists. It has to be combined with substance first before existence is established. Theists can say that their deities are real (however they conceptualize their deities to be), but their deities lack the substance to exist. Similarly, they can claim reality for an imagined 2 dimensional cube (I may lack the imagination for such but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt), but the existence of such is a different story.

So having said all these, the atheist cannot deny the reality of the theist’s God. But in the same token, the theist also cannot claim for their deity’s existence.

Now regarding Existence, Presence, and Effect.

Now since the theistic deity lacks the combination of form and substance, it’s existence may be questionable. However, I would agree with Semper and argue that it’s reality can be supported by Presence and Effect.

Bishop John Shelby Spong contends that God cannot be defined but can only be felt. Theologian Paul Tillich says that God is not an external being, but instead, the Ground of Being. God is an experience we feel from presence and effect – like love, for instance. This God-experience is like, as Bishop Spong described, “swimming in an eternal ocean of love”. When I try to describe this experience, words fail me; so I simply utter the name God. That name, to me, is no longer the name of a Supreme being, a miracle-worker, a magician, or a rescuer. That name is no longer a mere means but an end itself; and this end is love. With this in mind, I find myself realizing why I cannot see God but only know where God has been. From this, I realize that God is in me; God is a part of who I am, a part of who we are. God is love and another way I can think of in expressing God is by loving wastefully, by spreading love frivolously, by giving away love without stopping to count the cost.

If we look back at the Tsunami tragedy of 2004, we saw the way the way millions of people (regardless of religious or philosophical background) opened up their hearts to help the people who suffered. Same goes for the people who helped the ones who suffered in the Sept. 11 tragedy, from the hands of another group of fundamentalists living in "faith".

I think God (however we define God in our hearts) was revealed in the hearts of those who helped the victims. There was a convergence amongst Christians, non-Christians, religious, or secular groups, in the experience of love and compassion. There was one time I was watching CNN after the tragedy and I saw different people from different walks of life consoling one another and even putting their own lives on the line to rescue and recover victims. Right then and there I saw universal Truth in action. In tragic times like those, claims of proprietary to God does not matter. Whether you are a Christian, Muslim, religious, or secular, we get moved by the spirit of love for one and all. Could this spirit of love be God? Could this moving experience be God? I do not know. But I sure am glad that whatever it was, it was present.

I believe in God not because I have to & it's the best option but because I want to & endeavoring to know Him has been good for me.

Besides, on a worst case scenario that One doesn't exist, I think I'll pretty much live in a manner that I believe if everyone follows, the world will be a better place to live in & better when I leave it than when I was born into it.

ive believe in god not becoz my parents keep believing on it...

i believe in god becoz its my heart says....

What's important is if God makes a difference in your life or not.
If He exists pero masama ang tao sa sarili & sa kapwa, so what?
If He doesn't exist pero mabuti ang tao sa sarili & sa kapwa, so what?

I believe in God because he is the reason why I exist!
I believe in God because w/o him I am nothing, and he has proven to me many
times that he does exist in my life and here on earth!

He is my strenght, my hope, my rock, my everything!
tambayan/b010.gif

I believe that everyone believes in God, pwedeng iba-iba nga lang god ang pinaniniwalaan...it could be he believes that he himself is a god...or the sun is god...basta un

Do you believe in God??? YES if you do and NO if you dont... as simple as that... God do exist for those who blieve... But god also exists in many forms... Money will turn out to be a god for those put money as the center of their life... your beloved partner can be your god if you worship him/her. God is something we worship... if you dont worship it, then that is not your god. and of course you dont believe it.

Does christ exist? answer is yes... not physically but spiritually.. his spirit lives forever... this is because of the bible documenting his life and beliefs and principle... without those who documented Christs life, then Christ will definitely be dead right now...

God is beleived to be the spirit of righteousness, justice, love etc... Jesus Crist is called the Son of God for he posessed the qualities of the so called God the Father... He is the physical manifestation of the true nature of God... for those who believe God through Christ is called a christian... He can also become a child of God if he posess the qualities of God through the examples of Jesus Christ...

Reading the bible litterally creates confusions and debates... but if it is read with the wisdom to understand and see the true nature of God.. Wahtever the version of the bible may be... We can still see Gods character, and understand his principles that we can use as our guide to live a Godly life in this world... Those who cant see the true nature of God through the bible may have different interpretations and confusions and debates about who God is... so therefore we have different opinions and beleifs about God.