Why do we believe in God

Radrook said:
Actually, atheists panicked when the idea of the Big Bang was presented as fact because they feared it was confirming the statement in Genesis.



The purpose of the Bible is to introduce us to the concept of a fall of mankind and its redemption. it is not meant to provide evidence of a creator. Instead, it tells us, that such evidence, such as the DNA code, for example, is compellingly present within nature itself, to such a degree, that those who deny it are without any valid excuse.
Click to expand...
I would be interested to know who it was that told you what the purpose of the Bible was.
 
JustDave said:
If I actually had my wish that something came before, why would it have to be a metaphorical thinking watchmaker? From what we now know about our universe, many amazing (at least amazing to our limited minds) have happened through laws of physics and hundred or so basic units of matter, not a watchmaker. But not according to the Bible, where fully formed life and material things just poofed into being, which we now now absolutely didn't happen. Yes something poofed into being, but Adam and Eve descended from an ancestor to apes and humans and it took billions of years for that to happen, not 7 days.

Humans lack the humility to understand that the thing we praise so highly as human intelligence, is not necessarily a thing of the highest order. The Earth got a long quite well before it led to intelligence.
Click to expand...
So far I haven't heard any convincing argument as to how anything exists. I don't see how a universe from nothing is possible.
The definition of nothing is the absolute absence of everything.
No laws of physics, no energy, no virtual particles, no gravitational forces, no quantum mechanics, no nothing.
It seems to me that either matter or energy has always existed with no beginning, or some eternal force or energy through an unknown process caused it.
Without knowing how matter and energy came to be, I have to keep an open mind to any reasonable possibility.
 

Radrook said:
Anyone can claim inability to perceive glaring evidence. It's easy. Takes no effort. Just a declaration of inability to see. The excerpt below describes this common evasive tactic which is considered flawed or fallacious reasoning.

The invincible ignorance fallacy, also known as argument by pigheadedness]is a deductive fallacy of circularity where the person in question simply refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given. It is not so much a fallacious tactic in argument as it is a refusal to argue in the proper sense of the word. The method used in this fallacy is either to make assertions with no consideration of objections or to simply dismiss objections by calling them excuses, conjecture, anecdotal, etc. or saying that they are proof of nothing, all without actually demonstrating how the objections fit these terms. It is similar to the ad lapidem fallacy, in which the person rejects all the evidence and logic presented, without providing any evidence or logic that could lead to a different conclusion.
Invincible ignorance fallacy - Wikipedia

​


Rather comical. LOL! :LOL:
Click to expand...
Let's skip all the talk. Go buy a lottery ticket. What are the odd???????? You live in a harmonious world where you breath oxygen and the trees use your co2 to replenish that oxygen . You live in a perfectly balanced environment that supplies all your needs. What are the odds??:?>?
You can dispute yet you can't explain. The Japanese could have won in WW2. why didn't they?

There is too much in our history that tells us that we are not in charge. Go buy a lottery ticket for your life. Let men know if you win.
 
Mr. Ed said:
I accept and support the notion of god, however, it is Christianity I have trouble believing. How does salvation feel in our daily lives? Is salvation the ability to live without fear or hesitation from one moment to the next? To rely solely by instinct because you know yourself so well there is no need to second guess, standing fast on every decision because you understand the consequences.

life without worry or guilt, past behavior and events have been reconciled, no remorse or shame. I am the person I want to be, I am content, without need or desire to be something or someone else.
I am saved from the desire to look elsewhere, I have all I need and want in the person I am.

Can Jesus offer more to me than who I am? I think not. I disagree with Christianity because it focuses on things we supposedly cannot have without Jesus, which I think is wrong and misgiving.

it is awkward during communion because I do not partake. I cannot support what I do not believe.
Click to expand...
Interesting. I agree that you should live your life without the burden of guilt. Salvation simply removes your inability to move forward. Your sins have repercussions but they need not prevent you from moving forward. If you read the Bible, read about David. His sins had repercussions but he "was a man after Gods own heart". Why? because he acknowledged that he had sin against GOD, first and foremost. David was a great man, blessed by God yet he suffered the consequence of his sins.

Look, I know it's easy to pontificate about why we believe what we believe but you posted on this forum. Why? If you are convinced of your beliefs then why post? To me the obvious answer is that you still have questions.
 
bobcat said:
So far I haven't heard any convincing argument as to how anything exists. I don't see how a universe from nothing is possible.
The definition of nothing is the absolute absence of everything.
No laws of physics, no energy, no virtual particles, no gravitational forces, no quantum mechanics, no nothing.
It seems to me that either matter or energy has always existed with no beginning, or some eternal force or energy through an unknown process caused it.
Without knowing how matter and energy came to be, I have to keep an open mind to any reasonable possibility.
Click to expand...
I haven't heard any convincing argument either, because all we have is Theoretical Physics which is quite malleable. Like you and I, scientists have to keep an open mind too. The something from nothing concept, as it is now described, is beyond normal human comprehension.

I mentioned in another forum how absurd much of quantum mechanics sounded, and I received a reply something to the effect that physicists are placing a great deal of confidence in it at this time. I'll guess at the moment that the key to something from nothing will have something to do with quantum mechanics, because that requires the same kind of head scratching imagination we are talking about. Or maybe the two things are not related the way we think they should be. The world of the very small does not seem to be subject to the same physics of the world of the very large, but they are probably related somehow.

I've also seen internet sites explaining the possibility of something from nothing, but I wasn't able to understand it, so I lost interest pretty quickly.
 
Pepper said:
I don't. There is no god. JMHO.
Click to expand...
If god can only be a kind of being then I'd agree with you. But I don't think God is a 'somebody' with extra powers. God is no more omnipotent or omniscient than He is male or an engineer. For me God only makes sense as a place holder name for that from which everything becomes what it is.

Maybe that isn't word we need but I've fairly recently become convinced it is helpful in understanding what we are as human beings. There is no reason I know of why everyone should agree with that and I have no simple explanation for why I think it is helpful but I do. For the recored, I don't think my belief entitles me to afterlife benefits but I do find it enhances my point of view here and now. It wa
 
boliverchadsworth said:
Could it be that the Universe is actually God? and the God IS THE UNIVERSE?
Click to expand...
That is precisely what Pantheists believe. Depending on the Pantheist, they may or may not assign the universe any mystical or human like qualities. They just worship the universe, and call it God. I don't know why they don't call it the universe and let it go at that, but when I asked why they call it God, the Pantheist I talked to just said he needed a God. I took him at his word, but of course, just like "something from nothing," I got no closure from that.
 
bobcat said:
Ahhh ..... Did God create man, or did man create God. - This is the age old question, and at first, it would seem that it is dead on arrival, since there is no proof either way. It seems quite natural for the human mind to try to make connections between cause and effect (It was a survival mechanism). We exist, so something must have caused that to happen, and it could be a supreme power. However, without any evidence, the cause must remain unknown.

I tend to gravitate to the philosophical. Why would any supreme power create man and woman. Humans don't have a good track record for someone you would want to spend a great deal of time with. We are temperamental, prone to boredom, and often do things that are not in our best interests. Perhaps if you could make all that go away, then maybe it could work. However, if God has existed forever without the need for companionship, why at this point decide to create irrational beings to commune with?

There are over ten thousand religions throughout the world, with each believing something different, and each believing they are the correct one, and the others are wrong. If you were God, wouldn't that be something you would want to address or alleviate. In addition, why make our existence appear to be a product of evolution if you wanted the created ones to believe it wasn't. We share 95 % of our DNA with Chimpanzees. That seems counterproductive to the God made man in his image argument.

Here's another troubling thought. Could a loving and compassionate God watch for thousands of years while hundreds of millions of innocent humans (Including little children) have suffered with a staggering number of illnesses, others horribly tortured, beaten, raped, killed, and starved to death, eaten alive by cancer and other diseases just so that God could have company in heaven or be worshipped?
That's a disturbing thought.

I don't know if there is any "God", as I have no proof either way, but if this superhuman entity exists, I don't think it is even close to the traditional concept many have come to embrace. Perhaps I'm missing something. It won't be the first time.
Click to expand...

So since you are disqualifying the existence of a DNA code as valid evidence of a mind at work, how exactly do you propose that such a code which, contains the meticulous information on how molecular machines can assemble a human brain, a skeletal systems, digestive systems, a circulatory systems, immunological systems, reproductive systems, respiratory systems, etc. come into existence? Via billions of happy accidents?o_O
 
Nathan said:
Agreed đź’Ż Evolution is the AI function of the genetic code that God the Creator / master programmer wrote into the DNA matrix. But it was first creation then evolution to aid living species to adapt to changing environments.

The Primordial Slime theory is just a little short on credibility. Lol, you can't Google "primordial slime" and get a straight answer, the term apparently has been co opted by Japanese fantasy entertainment stuff.

"Primordial Soup" points to a sufficient definition. Primordial soup - Wikipedia
Click to expand...
Well, actually, and as I am sure you already know, it isn't adaptation that is being denied. Adaptation is evident. What is considered controversial is the transformation of one kind into an entirely different kind of animal via those small adaptations.
 
JustDave said:
I haven't heard any convincing argument either, because all we have is Theoretical Physics which is quite malleable. Like you and I, scientists have to keep an open mind too. The something from nothing concept, as it is now described, is beyond normal human comprehension.

I mentioned in another forum how absurd much of quantum mechanics sounded, and I received a reply something to the effect that physicists are placing a great deal of confidence in it at this time. I'll guess at the moment that the key to something from nothing will have something to do with quantum mechanics, because that requires the same kind of head scratching imagination we are talking about. Or maybe the two things are not related the way we think they should be. The world of the very small does not seem to be subject to the same physics of the world of the very large, but they are probably related somehow.

I've also seen internet sites explaining the possibility of something from nothing, but I wasn't able to understand it, so I lost interest pretty quickly.
Click to expand...
There is a book A Universe From Nothing, but it doesn't take much reading to realize that the author doesn't understand the concept of nothing. He begins with a quantum vacuum, and strict quantum laws of physics. These do not exist in nothing. It's just a catchy title to sell books.
Anyway, I am always open to a reasonable explanation as to why anything exists.
 
Radrook said:
So since you are disqualifying the existence of a DNA code as valid evidence of a mind at work, how exactly do you propose that such a code which, contains the meticulous information on how molecular machines can assemble a human brain, a skeletal systems, digestive systems, a circulatory systems, immunological systems, reproductive systems, respiratory systems, etc. come into existence? Via billions of happy accidents?o_O
Click to expand...
I think you have me confused with someone else who made that statement.
However, I will say that not knowing the mechanics of how something occurred is quite different from using that as a basis to make a claim that you know how it must have occurred.
 
VaughanJB said:
DNA is a "code" in terms of a descriptive sense, but some could argue against it in reality.
But how does it point to a "planning mind at work"? It's purely chemical.
Click to expand...

Whatever role God might or might not play, DNA does seem to be a product of evolution, an evolution that is somewhat remarkable in its wisdom. My cat has two eyes, two ears, a mouth with tongue, a nose with two nostrils, and four appendages, plus a tail which humans are believed to have had in millennia past. The same is true of my beloved parrot. God? or an evolution that has suppled many creatures with practical equipment required for survival, without which they would not have flourished. A puzzle difficult to answer.
 
Last edited:
bobcat said:
I think you have me confused with someone else who made that statement.
However, I will say that not knowing the mechanics of how something occurred is quite different from using that as a basis to make a claim that you know how it must have occurred.
Click to expand...
Sorry if I confused you with someone else. However, concerning your comment, you are absolutely wrong. My basis for concluding that a mind is essential for a coded information isn't based on not knowing. Instead, it is based on knowing that codes cannot assemble themselves without a guiding mind. You see, my conclusion is firmly based on empirical evidence which repeatedly proves it to be true. In contrast, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that your idea that information spontaneously assembles itself into a code is true. So if indeed you honestly believe such a thing, it obviously has absolutely no foundation in observational reality. The video below discusses this subject.

Coded Information Comes from?
 
ElCastor said:
Whatever role God might or might not play, DNA does seem to be a product of evolution, an evolution that is somewhat remarkable in its wisdom. My cat has two eyes, two ears, a mouth with tongue, a nose with two nostrils, and four appendages, plus a tail which humans are believed to have had in millennia past. The same is true of our beloved parrot. God? Or an evolution that has supplied many creatures with practical equipment required for survival? A puzzle difficult to answer, but a God or evolution that has supplied many creatures with attributes required for survival.
Click to expand...
Difficult to answer? Can you please provide any logical reason for assuming that codes designed to convey information in a systematic symbolic way assemble themselves? After all, all codes that we are familiar with always have a mind as theirs source. So if indeed this is the case, then what possible logical reason could you have to doubt that the DNA code, which if far more complex and which transmits informational instructions which are far more intricate than any code fashioned by humans, doesn't' need a coder because it magically assembled itself? Can you clearly explain why you are making this glaring exception specifically and only with DNA?
 

Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top