Why do we believe in God

[ElCastor]

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?

Huh? Discussion of God aside, DNA Did Not magically assemble itself. Those DNA codes you spoke of are a product of evolution. Living creatures might have benefited from one eye, but depth perception and a broader view supplied by two eyes, eyes that changed by chance, not a coder, over a course of centuries, was a far superior form of vision which added to the success and survival of those possessing it, thus replacing their less successful predecessors. The DNA of more successful creatures is of course passed along to their progeny In a slow evolutionary process. DNA cannot magically assemble itself, it is a product of genetic happenstance which over the course of centuries sees more successful creatures gradually replace those that are inferior In some respect.

BTW If you are interested in learning more about evolution, here is an interesting source …
Human evolution | History, Stages, Timeline, Tree, Chart, & Facts

 

[bobcat]

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?

I think if you were to watch an episode of Perry Mason, you may discover that evidence is simply evidence. It is not proof.
That is the error you may be making. You could be correct, but you could be wrong in concluding it was God behind it.
Here is an example:
We are living in a very sophisticated simulation created by advanced aliens, and none of this is actually real (As we understand it).
All the DNA mechanics, physics, and everything else are just part of the simulation.
Prove me wrong.

 

[JustDave]

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.

This sounds familiar. I wonder if that thing I read may have been from that book. I distinctly remember that sensation of, "Wait a minute, the nothing being described is really something."

 

[MarkD]

This sounds familiar. I wonder if that thing I read may have been from that book. I distinctly remember that sensation of, "Wait a minute, the nothing being described is really something."

Lawrence Krause and his supposed ‘nothing’ is an example of a scientist misusing his reputation earned in cosmology to opine on religious matters for which he clearly has no sympathy. His performance on atheist debates has shown him to be a person of low character in spite of his accomplishments in cosmology.

Edited to add that his low character as I see it does not stem from his atheism but from his willingness to distort the truth as he knows it in order mislead others and to deny what he doesn’t understand.

 

[JustDave]

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.

Creationism at one time was a simple "God did it" explanation for all living things. And creationists brushed off evolution as a hoax. But the evidence supporting evolution keeps growing year by year, so as evolution became a known fact, some creationist, if not Ham, would have had to make a compromise with evolution.

The latest tactic grudgingly agrees that evolution exists, but says it couldn't work without a planning mind. Something must be directing it because it can't happen naturally. Saying God made it happen naturally, is too big of a compromise for Ham. So he comes up with reasoning too complicated for a logical mind to follow that describes the process of evolution the way he wants it.

There is also a greater benefit here. If he can make it sound like science, he might be able to convince the courts that he is actually talking science, and maybe they will require creationism to be taught in public school science classes.

 

[JustDave]

Lawrence Krause and his supposed ‘nothing’ is an example of scientist misusing his reputation earned in cosmology to opine on religious matters for which he clearly has no sympathy. His performance on atheist debates has shown him to be a person of low character in spite of his accomplishments in cosmology.

I remember being directed to a video of Krause one time, where I was not impressed with his reasoning. I actually watched a couple of his videos, and then lost interest. Now that I'm thinking about it, I believe a troll in another forum was pushing him as a guy that any thinking person must listen to.

 

[Radrook]

I think if you were to watch an episode of Perry Mason, you may discover that evidence is simply evidence. It is not proof.
That is the error you may be making. You could be correct, but you could be wrong in concluding it was God behind it.
Here is an example:
We are living in a very sophisticated simulation created by advanced aliens, and none of this is actually real (As we understand it).
All the DNA mechanics, physics, and everything else are just part of the simulation.
Prove me wrong.

Please note that I am not claiming that it is God. I am claiming that it is a mind at work. Whether you want to consider it the mind God, as the Bible does, or anything, else is entirely up to you. Also, you are now shifting the goal post and bringing in the universe as merely simulation hypothesis.

Well, then it logically follows that the mind that coded DNA is the same mind responsible for your simulation and has chosen to make reality for us dependent on that simulation. Once more, wthey0u wish to consider the one responsible in for the simulation God or not is entirely u[ to you.

My sole claim is at a code does not code itself and is indicative of a mind at work. You on the other hand, are totally focused on disproving that the source of the code is the biblical God. which has absolutely nothing to do with whether the code is indicative of a mind or not. In short, you are creating a straw man and arguing against it.



No confusion whatsoever.

Evidence vs. Proof

What's the Difference?
Evidence and proof are two terms often used interchangeably, but they have distinct meanings in the context of supporting a claim or argument. Evidence refers to any information, data, or facts that can be used to support or refute a claim. It can be subjective or objective and may come in various forms such as witness testimonies, documents, or scientific research. On the other hand, proof is a higher standard of evidence that establishes the truth or validity of a claim beyond a reasonable doubt. It requires a more rigorous and conclusive body of evidence that leaves no room for doubt or alternative explanations. While evidence can be persuasive, proof is the ultimate goal in establishing the veracity of a claim.

Evidence vs. Proof - What's the Difference? | This vs. That​

So evidence and proof are not necessarily the same. Quality determines if they or not. Now, I offered the evidence that observation has established that codes are always the product of a mind as sufficient evidence that constitutes proof. You in return, declare it insufficient to prove it true without explaining why by offering counterevidence. Which makes your claim merely an unsubstantiated opinion which constitutes neither evidence nor proof. That, my friend, is fallacious reasoning.

​

 

[bobcat]

Please note that I am not claiming that it is God. I am claiming that it is a mind at work. Whether you want to consider it the mind God, as the Bible does, or anything, else is entirely up to you. Also, you are now shifting the goal post and bringing in the universe as merely simulation hypothesis.

Well, then it logically follows that the mind that coded DNA is the same mind responsible for your simulation and has chosen to make reality for us dependent on that simulation. Once more, wthey0u wish to consider the one responsible in for the simulation God or not is entirely u[ to you.

My sole claim is at a code does not code itself and is indicative of a mind at work. You on the other hand, are totally focused on disproving that the source of the code is the biblical God. which has absolutely nothing to do with whether the code is indicative of a mind or not. In short, you are creating a straw man and arguing against it.



No confusion whatsoever.

Evidence vs. Proof

What's the Difference?
Evidence and proof are two terms often used interchangeably, but they have distinct meanings in the context of supporting a claim or argument. Evidence refers to any information, data, or facts that can be used to support or refute a claim. It can be subjective or objective and may come in various forms such as witness testimonies, documents, or scientific research. On the other hand, proof is a higher standard of evidence that establishes the truth or validity of a claim beyond a reasonable doubt. It requires a more rigorous and conclusive body of evidence that leaves no room for doubt or alternative explanations. While evidence can be persuasive, proof is the ultimate goal in establishing the veracity of a claim.

Evidence vs. Proof - What's the Difference? | This vs. That​

So evidence and proof are not the same, of course. However, evidence is essential in establishing proof. Now, I offered the evidence that observation has established that codes are always the product of a mind as sufficient evidence that establishes proof. In stark contrast, you offer absolutely no counter evidence which disproves that claim at all. Which makes your claim merely an unsubstantiated opinion which is which constitutes neither evidence nor proof.

It is becoming clear that reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. I am not focused or intent on proving or disproving anything. I have stated clearly in this thread that I do not know how this universe and everything in it came to be, and I have not seen anything from anyone here who has established proof that they know either.

You have stated that codes (Information) are always the product of a mind, and implied that it is virtually impossible for them to occur by chance. That sounds to me like your opinion, and not fact. If that is the case, everyone is entitled to an opinion.

In order for it to be fact, you would have to know all science, all physics, all biology, all chemistry, not to mention the unquestionable outcome of all possible reactions involving all those elements. No offense, but I hope you will pardon me for being skeptical that we have been graced with the presence of one with such infinite knowledge..... unless, of course you are God, in which case I have many questions.

 

[MarkD]

Creationism at one time was a simple "God did it" explanation for all living things. And creationists brushed off evolution as a hoax. But the evidence supporting evolution keeps growing year by year, so as evolution became a known fact, some creationist, if not Ham, would have had to make a compromise with evolution.

The latest tactic grudgingly agrees that evolution exists, but says it couldn't work without a planning mind. Something must be directing it because it can't happen naturally. Saying God made it happen naturally, is too big of a compromise for Ham. So he comes up with reasoning too complicated for a logical mind to follow that describes the process of evolution the way he wants it.

There is also a greater benefit here. If he can make it sound like science, he might be able to convince the courts that he is actually talking science, and maybe they will require creationism to be taught in public school science classes.

The Christians I respect most (especially on science) are those who call themselves Evolutionary Creationists, I'm good online friends with several of them. From the website begun by Francis Collins called BioLogos where I found this under FAQ's:

The term “Evolutionary Creation” was probably first used in the early 1990s.1 Theistic Evolution (TE) is an older and more widely used term than EC, and many people use both terms interchangeably.2 However, we at BioLogos prefer EC over TE for at least three reasons.

First, we prefer EC because we are, essentially, creationists. We are not mere theists. We believe that God—by the authority of the Father, through the Son, in the power of the Holy Spirit—created all things. Our beliefs about God and creation come first. “Evolutionary” is simply an adjective that describes creation and marks our acceptance of evolutionary science as the best scientific explanation we have for the diversity and similarity of life.

Second, we do not talk about “theistic chemistry” or “theistic physics.” Neither should we speak about “theistic evolution.” We do not propose a special Christian version of scientific facts. Science provides powerful tools for investigating God’s creation. When we look at the insights science provides through the eyes of faith, we get an even fuller picture of reality. As Johannes Kepler wrote long ago, science, by discovering a deeper understanding of the world, is like thinking God’s thoughts after him.3

Third, many people have historically accused TEs of being deists. TE has at times been associated with the idea that God created the world and all the natural laws, but is no longer actively governing or involved in the cosmos. This is very different from how most ECs understand God’s involvement. In the BioLogos community we affirm the biblical miracles (most centrally the Resurrection), believe God answers prayer, and recognize that God works providentially through natural processes to accomplish his purposes. Natural processes and supernatural miracles both result in God’s handiwork.

Now while I like respect the way they have threaded the needle here I personally don't envy the task of making room for the virgin birth, resurrection and heaven/hell alongside a robust appreciation of science. I'm not wed to any of those cultural artifacts but then I'm not part of a living wisdom tradition with a long tradition, something I think I have been the beneficiary of even if I do not claim a seat in that tent.

There is also a forums on that site for discussing faith and science where all, even me, are welcome. . This is one thread I started there in 2018 which resulted in some good discussion.

 

[JustDave]

The Christians I respect most (especially on science) are those who call themselves Evolutionary Creationists, I'm good online friends with several of them. From the website begun by Francis Collins called BioLogos where I found this under FAQ's:

I spent quite a bit of time on the thread you started on that site. It's interesting that there are enough people there to create a website that holds to what is traditionally a fundamentalist concept, but still make allowances for science in Christianity. I can actually relate to this, while disagreeing with them at the same time.

I came from a fundamentalist (Baptist) extended family that shared a house with two separate flats. Grandparents upstairs, and my immediate family downstairs. My grandmother first laid out her religious truths when I was in the youngest of my formative years. And she didn't wait for me to learn how to think. I don't know how old I was, but I only have a few memories that are old enough for me not to have yet developed a sense of time and my place in it. I remember her telling me about the most important thing in life, and I remember it vividly because it was an absolute horror story, and the first time I ever heard about God and his grand plans.

My father and uncle had been indoctrinated years earlier and I attribute much of my father's misery and depression to her teachings, although much of his problems may have been due to chemical imbalance, so I'll just say Grandmother didn't help. My mother was not a fundamentalist, and must have put her foot down and told my father that her children were not going to be raised that way, so in the downstairs flat we settled on the less horrifying Lutheran Church. But Grandmother's first introduction to the "true" god was now well ingrained deep in my psyche. My mother must have had words with my grandmother about taking responsibility for my religious upbringing, but all I really know is there was some bad blood between them, which was never discussed in detail.

So around the age of 5, I started to question religion. Some of it made no sense, and the situation was not helped by absurd Bible stories, but I managed to hang on to a faith over the years by making up a new Christianity and continually modifying it, much like the YEC people in your forum do. I considered myself a Christian, but not a Lutheran, Baptist, or even Bible Christian. I was never able to reconcile Bible Christianity with the reality around me. In my early 50s, I had a dramatic insight. I was an atheist, and probably had been for years, while trying to pass as a believer, because atheist is an ugly sounding description to me.

It's not that Bible Christianity, Christianity, Mormon, my modified versions, or Buddhist religions were absolutely wrong. It was just that I could find no compelling evidence to believe in any of them.

Your guys don't seem too bad, actually. And for what it's worth, my two closest friends where I have settled in the last 15 years are a married fundamentalist couple.

 

[Radrook]

It is becoming clear that reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. I am not focused or intent on proving or disproving anything. I have stated clearly in this thread that I do not know how this universe and everything in it came to be, and I have not seen anything from anyone here who has established proof that they know either.

You have stated that codes (Information) are always the product of a mind, and implied that it is virtually impossible for them to occur by chance. That sounds to me like your opinion, and not fact. If that is the case, everyone is entitled to an opinion.

In order for it to be fact, you would have to know all science, all physics, all biology, all chemistry, not to mention the unquestionable outcome of all possible reactions involving all those elements. No offense, but I hope you will pardon me for being skeptical that we have been graced with the presence of one with such infinite knowledge..... unless, of course you are God, in which case I have many questions.

First, if reading comprehension were not my strong point, then I would not have easily passed my English college entrance exam at the doctoral level, and aced all my English college course and been invited to tutor. So I am understanding you you perfectly.

Second:

It is not merely my personal opinion as you are assuming without investigating the issue. It is a consensus reached by information science
So our premise that one needs to be God or some type of a deity in order to know if it is possible for codes to assemble themselves or not, is a false premise since obviously Information science experts didn't need to be God or a god to know, did they?

Disagree? Well, then please provide me with an expert testimony claiming that codes can assemble themselves without any human assistance. Can you do that?

Third: Contrary to your idea, information science always traces codes back to an organizing mind.

The Evidence is compelling

Finally, what you believe is entirely up to you. So let's just agree that we disagree.​

 

[Radrook]

This forum presupposes christian faith (please do correct me if this is in error! thank you).

Do you know of any forum that discusses science and faith independent of the type of faith?

Thank you @MarkD!

This forum is neutral.

BTW not all Desists are Christians.

For example, we have Muslims, Jews and Hindus.

 

[JustDave]

This forum presupposes christian faith (please do correct me if this is in error! thank you).

Do you know of any forum that discusses science and faith independent of the type of faith?

Thank you @MarkD!

Reconciling science and religious faith has been a philosophical goal for years. I don't think it's made serious inroads toward the goal, but people seem compelled to do it. Or maybe these kinds of forums Mark points to are a beginning.

 

[Radrook]

Lawrence Krause and his supposed ‘nothing’ is an example of a scientist misusing his reputation earned in cosmology to opine on religious matters for which he clearly has no sympathy. His performance on atheist debates has shown him to be a person of low character in spite of his accomplishments in cosmology.

Edited to add that his low character as I see it does not stem from his atheism but from his willingness to distort the truth as he knows it in order mislead others and to deny what he doesn’t understand.

Unfortunately, that is not unusual behavior:
The Piltdown Man: The Greatest Scientific Fraud of the 20th Century | OpenMind

 

[bobcat]

First, if reading comprehension were not my strong point, then I would not have easily passed my English college entrance exam at the doctoral level, and aced all my English college course and been invited to tutor. So I am understanding you you perfectly.

Second:

It is not merely my personal opinion as you are assuming without investigating the issue. It is a consensus reached by information science
So our premise that one needs to be God or some type of a deity in order to know if it is possible for codes to assemble themselves or not, is a false premise since obviously Information science experts didn't need to be God or a god to know, did they?

Disagree? Well, then please provide me with an expert testimony claiming that codes can assemble themselves without any human assistance. Can you do that?

Third: Contrary to your idea, information science always traces codes back to an organizing mind.

The Evidence is compelling

Finally, what you believe is entirely up to you. So let's just agree that we disagree.​

If you were understanding me perfectly, you would grasp the simple concept that I'm not trying to prove anything, as I clearly stated, so it's a mystery as to why you are still requesting me to provide you with proof.

BTW, compelling and factual are different concepts.
At one time, it was compelling that the sun rose and set because it came up in one spot, and went down in a different one. Science is constantly revealing things we didn't know before.

We don't disagree on how it happened, as I have no conclusion. We merely disagree that one can't know facts until every possible explanation has been tested and proved false.

 

[MarkD]

This forum presupposes christian faith (please do correct me if this is in error! thank you).

Do you know of any forum that discusses science and faith independent of the type of faith?

Thank you @MarkD!

Afraid not but there are religious forums not centered on Christianity but open to it. No emphasis on science though.

 

[MarkD]

Grateful @MarkD! Much thanks!

Can you tell me about your journey vis-à-vis religion and/or science? I studied philosophy as an undergrad but have regarded myself as a de facto atheist up until about a year ago

 

[Radrook]

Huh? Discussion of God aside, DNA Did Not magically assemble itself. Those DNA codes you spoke of are a product of evolution. Living creatures might have benefited from one eye, but depth perception and a broader view supplied by two eyes, eyes that changed by chance, not a coder, over a course of centuries, was a far superior form of vision which added to the success and survival of those possessing it, thus replacing their less successful predecessors. The DNA of more successful creatures is of course passed along to their progeny In a slow evolutionary process. DNA cannot magically assemble itself, it is a product of genetic happenstance which over the course of centuries sees more successful creatures gradually replace those that are inferior In some respect.

BTW If you are interested in learning more about evolution, here is an interesting source …
Human evolution | History, Stages, Timeline, Tree, Chart, & Facts

It isn't my incomprehension of your evolution Idea that makes me disagree. Instead, one reason is that your premise is seriously flawed. Why? Because you are assuming that abiogenesis actually took place, yet have absolutely no evidence to support that claim. Why? Well, because It has never been directly observed in nature, Neither has it ever been observed under controlled laboratory conditions no can they force it to happen under those controlled condition.

In short, your idea lacks a foundation and is only believed on pure faith. Its similar to saying that you believe in evolution because of Abracadabra!

Furthermore, and very significantly, your assumption goes completely contrary to what information scientists have discovered. That coded information is always the product of a mind. You are unknowingly disagreeing with your own scientists who admit that they have absolutely no idea where all the information coded into DNA actually came from. Which is in itself strange since information scientists clearly tell them that coded in or always is traceable to a mind. Such an irrational reluctant reaction to the obvious makes one wonder whether theophobia is involved.

Is Abiogenesis Plausible?
​

If we go by the way that atheist scientist speak about it, we would assume that abiogenesis, life arising from non-life, is a very common, observable phenomenon. After all, why would they be so sure if it wasn't? But there is the kicker, we see biogenesis occurring on earth everywhere. It happens in the soil, in the depths of the deepest seas, in the driest of deserts, in the darkest of caves.

It's always the same-life arises from life. However, Abiogenesis, which means life arising from non-life material, can't observed happening anywhere, no matter how favorable to life conditions might be. In fact, not only is abiogenesis not observable anywhere, but it can't even be forced to happen under controlled conditions in a laboratory. Instead, despite all their furious efforts to prove their idea is true, all they ever produce is lifeless material which they claim would eventually organize itself into living things. In other words, they are assuming the unobservable and the unprovable.

Despite their lack of evidence, they confidently claim that abiogenesis must be happening everywhere in the universe and must be setting into motion an evolution that results in all sorts of diverse creatures. They even formulate estimates of how many civilizations exist in our galaxy based on this foundationless certainty that this unobservable and unprovable process, must certainly be taking place wherever there is water present. But is it indeed that easy for things to organize themselves into living organisms via a mindless, and purposeless process totally dependent on chance?

The following video demonstrates the mathematical absurdity of such an idea.
Origin: Probability of a Single Protein Forming by Chance

 

[Radrook]

If you were understanding me perfectly, you would grasp the simple concept that I'm not trying to prove anything, as I clearly stated, so it's a mystery as to why you are still requesting me to provide you with proof.

BTW, compelling and factual are different concepts.
At one time, it was compelling that the sun rose and set because it came up in one spot, and went down in a different one. Science is constantly revealing things we didn't know before.

We don't disagree on how it happened, as I have no conclusion. We merely disagree that one can't know facts until every possible explanation has been tested and proved false.

True, compelling need not be sufficient to justify classifying something as factual. True, we disagree that every single thing perceived must be considered as unexplainable until it has been tested. That would make our daily lives very difficult.

 

[MarkD]

I'd love to but I don't know how to do it privately?

I just sent you a private message you can use.

 

[papa tiger]

I looked, I saw, I relate to, I wish I was wiser. I thank the Lord for letting me do the things I needed to do.

I don't jump to conclusions; I expect things to happen. Maybe its Farmer intuition?
There always seems to be roadblocks. Is the nature of stuff?

 

[papa tiger]

Do I believe in God? To me that is not the right question.

I have some doubt about the existence of a divine being, even more doubt about my own existence after my death.

I do believe that humans are creatures of faith. I equate faith with trust. As we grow and develop our faith is shaped by our trust relationships and as adults we do not all place out faith in the same things. Some of us place our faith in science, others in money and power, but everyone has faith in something or someone. When that faith results in a feeling of betrayal, the consequences are likely to be anger and bitterness.

In my late teens I began to doubt the existence of the god that was presented to me at Sunday school. I was fascinated by stories about Greek and Roman gods and came to the conclusion that stories about gods were all just stories, ancient myths, because humanity needed them. My faith moved away from the god of the christians and settled on science. I became a scientific atheist. I did not become antagonistic towards people of faith and avoided arguing with them.

I became an angry feminist. I felt injustice towards women and girls very keenly. As I learned more about the world, I saw injustice everywhere and felt helpless to do anything about it. The problems were too numerous and too big for me to solve.

I married young, became a mother at the age of twenty and dedicated myself to raising my children to be responsible adults and was successful in that endeavour but during my daughter's teens I had a suspicion I had hold her by one hand and the devil held on to the other, and we were in a tug of war for her soul. I knew I must not let go, no matter how wayward she might appear to be.

My faith in science proved inadequate when my father died suddenly and when my sister delivered a still born son. I needed to pray but could not. I was experiencing a crisis of faith and it is a very unsettling feeling.

Some years later I opened myself to the possibility of faith in something that was unlike anything that can be defined by equations, that cannot be proven, nor defined rationally. After an experience that I have talked about before I chose to place my faith in something that is both infinite and eternal, and therefore unknowable.

So, what do I believe? I believe in love, forgiveness, hope and justice. We cannot fully understand what these words mean but I know and feel their presence in my life. So it is with God.

Most likely as Monkey / Apes evolved over many 1000's of centuries they realized something weird was going on most all the time.

sun ups, Sundowns changed, moon phases changed and praying for good over bad things happened. Ice could freeze them and melting

could drown them. Wind ships could sail some and tides changing could aground them. It takes a pretty clever Deity / God to figure out all

the workings of the stuff.



Cause many Billions of Trillions of different options with the Big Bangs could have created just one like us are. It would seem very unlikely though. Most likely many such as us are out there somewhere. A smart Guy or group (Gods) could stir up the soup. Maybe? Belief is what's the option for most. Territories, Countries, Options of Cultures as they choose? Tar and feathered, Witch Burning, Religious hate, Shunning ! Whatever!

Just looking at the change that is occurring constantly in nature, bugs, diseases may prove change is occurring constantly.



Standing in the road, blocking, Jailing those entering, shooting those who want to leave more standing around scratching and itching.

One may choose to agree that most everything is contained in some sort of a Box / Bag / Sac / Box Car / Container / Wagon at one time or another? Everything connected or corralled, heading toward or away toward something!

Studying the Universe, the Calamities happening constantly mostly shows haphazard has a grand plan to screw stuff up. We are mostly here for maybe near a Century, why screw that up?

 

[David777]

Another one of these mr ed god threads that members hijacked into other topics without (IMO) actually answering the OP's topic.

OP>>>"Why do we believe in God"

So which question are members addressing?

• Why do humans adults generally believe in God?
• Why do children believe in God?
• Why do some scientists believe in God?
• Why do some scientists not believe in God?
• Why does the OP believe in God?
• Why does [insert member name] believe in God?
• Why does [insert member name] not believe in God?

And which "God" are we talking about?

• The Gods Mesopotamian primitives in earliest civilizations conjured up 5000 years ago?
• Osiris of ancient Egypt?
• Aztec polytheistic Gods?
• Greek and Roman theology Gods? Zeus of course!
• Brahma?
• The ancient Chinese supreme deity, Shangdi?
• The Israelite Christian God?
• Allah the god of Islam?
• Casper, the Friendly Ghost?

Since this is a talking horse thread, we know where his past lies, thus which one.

Most Christian children believe whatever because they are taught so while being brought up within religious families and communities following specific denominations. So that for the largest numbers of people, answers the OP's question. This is the same reason people believed thousands of years ago. But doesn't address why the parent adults may still believe. Nor does it answer why people increasingly doubt whatever beliefs or stop believing. In ancient days, adults continued to officially believe lest they end up skewered up on long sharp poles outlet orifice to inlet orifice or working in their overlord's copper mines.

As I sometimes relate as a metaphor, "In this worldly existence, I'm like a tiny wooden twig floating along bobbing up and down, in and out, of the muddy surface in the vast Mississippi River during spring flood."

And in like manner a child is raised as a believer until they reach an age where behaviors they desire may grate against acceptable cultural and religious behaviors.

• So Billy now wants to have relations with most of the females in his high school classes while Mommy says he will be allowed just one wife.
• Damon wants to daily fantasize relations with and self pleasure himself over myriad porn females.
• Mason the capitalist, wants to go to [insert name of socialist country] and bomb them.

As for some of the above questions, this person will avoid stepping into the pig sty but may engage others in future threads on more focused posed related questions. Like why ancient intelligent entities likely inhabit the universe, may have visited, are possibly addressed in the Bible, and why they avoid interacting with we modern technology era Earth monkeys.

 

[ElCastor]

It isn't my incomprehension of your evolution Idea that makes me disagree. Instead, one reason is that your premise is seriously flawed. Why? Because you are assuming that abiogenesis actually took place, yet have absolutely no evidence to support that claim. Why? Well, because It has never been directly observed in nature

Never been observed? Well here is one that I inherited from my father. I can wiggle my right ear, and so could he. A valuable trait instilled by some unknown universal intellect? Neither valuable, or in my unalterable opinion, not the product of some DNA “coder” lurking in the depths of the Universe. Another example of a far more useful inherited evolutionary trait is the remarkable intelligence of Ashkenazi Jews, which can be explained without reference to some mysterious coder.

 

[bobcat]

True, compelling need not be sufficient to justify classifying something as factual. True, we disagree that every single thing perceived must be considered as unexplainable until it has been tested. That would make our daily lives very difficult.

Once again, I never said that everything perceived must be considered unexplainable until it has been tested.
I think you are hearing what you want to hear.
I said that nothing should be accepted as fact until other possibilities have been explored or tested.
There is nothing wrong with working theories to make life easier, but one must keep an open mind that it may be incorrect, in which case, one's belief needs to be updated. That's how science works.
If you agree with that, then enough said. Peace.