Why do we believe in God

[MarkD]

My information came from conversations from a fellow who as I recall, self-identified as the president of the American Pantheist Society, but it was years ago. As I said, he did admit that some pantheists believe the universe had sentient qualities, which he personally did not. But I am not heavily invested in a specific description. If Christians cannot agree on the characteristics of their god, it would not be surprising that there are differences in the Pantheist Society as well. And of course, there are likely to be "rogue" offshoots in Pantheism, just as their are in other religions.

Here is what the Universal Pantheist Society has to say. The site goes into much more depth, and allows for nuance of opinion within the society:

What is Pantheism? - Universal Pantheist Society
"Pantheism derives from the realization that the cosmos, taken or conceived of as a whole, is synonymous with God - ... In this sense, Pantheism is simple: The Cosmos is divine, and the Earth sacred."

I know nothing of any pantheist society, have never attended any kind of meeting nor read anything authoritative on the subject. It isn't that kind of thing, at least not for me. if there is a pantheist creed I wouldn't know or be interested.

I initially missed this part I bolded:

Pantheists believe that there is the universe, and there is a god apart from the universe

I'm not sure how much agreement there is among any of the pan-ists but I for one do not think there is something called "a God" in addition to the universe. I just don't think a complete list of every object, organism or other phenomenon exhausts what is meant by God. God is more the source of what comes into being, but not 'himself' a being IMO. God can be thought of as a "someone" but that is not the high praise many seem to think, just a part of our conceit as human beings.

 

[Radrook]

YJHe link worls when I click i

"Oops, there was an error".



Or the idea that because something is "natural", it won't do us any harm.



Bingo! Hence, not believing in God is just as valid. Still, the Bible isn't God. They're two different things. I see the words - written by man - and don't make the leap that it was somehow inspired by a God. As such, the Bible can be a good read, but that doesn't mean it's been sent/influenced by a God.

Thanks for the interest in my response. The link works when I click it despite the "oops!" statement. But since it doesn't work for you, here is what I posted.

My Responses to Atheist Objections -Comment You know what's impossible to me? That there is a God, a man, somewhere out there. You can't see him. He didn't come from anywhere, he's always been. He created EVERYTHING from.......... what? Nothing I guess. Response First, I am not claiming that the creator is a man. Numbers 23:19 ► God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill? New Living Translation God is not a man, so he does not lie. He is not human, so he does not change his mind. Has he ever spoken and failed to act? Has he ever promised and not carried it through. Second, God is described as using a tool, his holy spirit in order to create. A force is not nothing. Third, scientists believe in the existence of different dimensions from our own and in the possibility life existing living in those other dimensions. So Heaven can be classified as a different dimension from ours. Objection: He then set in motion all the natural laws we know today, and he decided that what we really needed was the ability to do wrong. Response You are against freedom of choice? Those laws came into existence when he caused the Big Bang. Objection: In fact, he's going to assume we're wrong and need to repent, or we won't go to some place called "heaven" (or whatever state of being we end up as) when we are no more. Don't get me started on the rib - which if true, is basically a millimeter away from abiogenesis, because we've never been able to grow a person from a rib. What part of that sounds logical? Response I see nothing ridiculous the using of DNA from a rib to create a human female nor in the existence another dimension called heaven. Statement: Life has yet to be proven to come from abiogenesis. Yet. Not knowing today doesn't make it impossible. Response Strawman It isn't merely not knowing that is the reason for calling abiogenesis impossible. So you are using a straw man argument. Statement There was a time when we didn't have cars to drive around in, they must have sounded quite impossible for quite some time - until they were manufactured. Response: False analogy There is absolutely no similarity between making a car and the arising of life by itself which requires that water have thinking ability and magically code DNA. Comment We simply have to go with the best explanation based on available evidence. Response That is exactly what you are not doing since there is absolutely no available evidence for abiogenesis. Neither is it the best explanation. So you are wrong on two counts. Comment Magic, which the biblical take suggests (call it miracles if you prefer) isn't going to fly, I'm afraid. I really don't know how I could ever close that gap. Response Strawman fallacy since nobody is appealing to magic. Neither is there anything magical in a powerful entity using his knowledge and power, which he calls holy spirit, to manipulate the very matter that it created. It simply constitutes the application of power towards a purpose. Nothing more. Your refusal to address the DNA issue directly speaks volumes. Psalm 104:30 ► When you send your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the ground. Ironically, you fail to see how ridiculously magical your claim that fish morphed into people actually is. Even worse, is your claim that the essential information required to assemble brains, nervous systems, skeletal systems circulatory systems etc. magically arose via your billions of extremely happy, unlikely accidents. Objection: Not to mention, the idea that "life suddenly emerging spontaneously from water after water came up with information and then decided coding it in DNA form" is completely wrong. No-one is suggesting there was a puddle of water, and suddenly life walked out of it. There were millions of different interactions over billions of years, step by step, bit by bit, that led us here. Not a single great event. Not a sudden moment. Just an interaction of infitesimal changes. We just need to understand what they were. Response: Of course not. I was using hyperbole. In any case, your appeal to time involving billions of happy accidents in order to produce DNA code is tantamount to claiming that a tornado would eventually assemble a Boing 747. Or that billions of monkeys banging on typewriters would eventually assemble the encyclopedia Britannica. Obviously, the application of such continuous, mindless force will repeatedly destroy whatever organization temporarily arises immediately. So you are cunningly ignoring the mathematical improbabilities inherent in your proposed situation. Comment That said, if you can believe that an invisible God can suddenly create, oh I don't know, a talking snake - then I guess all bets are off. I mean, I'm not aware of a single snake that can talk today - where's the evidence to support it? Response Again, my argument on God's existence is based on the DNA code found in living things. Your snake and invisibility arguments are totally irrelevant to it. In any case, let me partially address your objections. Invisibility? So a creator is unbelievable because of invisibility? Please note that the vast majority of the universe is invisible and its existence is acknowledged despite its invisibility. So your premise false. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_premise Furthermore, I never claimed that the creator needs to be the Biblically described God. So once again you are using Straw man. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man As for the talking snake and your mockery because of its talking ability? Well, anyone familiar with the Bible knows that it is described as being used as a puppet by a spirit creature. Please take time to read and research before accusing. www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_705.cfm Comment: I think the answer for most Christians is - you need faith. Response: What the majority of nominal Christians choose to think, or don't choose to think, is totally irrelevant to what DNA indicates. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum Also, neither does the Bible say that believing in a creator demands blind faith. Instead, it clearly and repeatedly tells its readers that creation itself offers irrefutable evidence of a creator. Romans 1:20 ► For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Comment: In the world I inhabit I believe we simply need time for all the good work to be done by people smarter than myself. Response Please note that there are thousands of people in insane assylums who also live in their own private worlds. As to all atheist scientists being good people? Well, I fail to see evident to support that claim. Also, there are millions of believers in a creator who are infinitely more educated and far smarter than you and yet believe in a creator. That is unless you are disqualify them as being smart because they disagree with you. Which of course doesn't nullify their educational credentials one iota but merely indicates irrational bias. Comment Slowly we are adding to our knowledge-base, learning new things, getting ever closer to the events that created us. Response In relation to the origin of life and the universe? Nope! Why? Well, because your knowledge base is seriously flawed. Consequently, what "you" are doing is reinforcing an erroneous unsubstantiated ideas via proposing an unproven and unprovable impossibility. Good people you say? Well your premise that, education guarantee moral excellence is flawed. Hitler's doctor Mengele is an example. Also and more relevant, there are plenty of examples of the very people you seem to feel are morally infallible brazenly and unashamedly attempting to hoodwink gullible people via perpetrating pro-evolutionist hoaxes in order to support their atheistic ideas. www.popularmechanics.com/science/archaeology/g3051/fake-fossils/ Rhetorical Question: An interesting question for the non-believers would be: What would it take to make you believe? For believers, what would it take to end your belief in a God? I think the former would have an easier time answering, but I could be wrong. Response That is a no-brainer. Fanatically-motivated non-believers tend to ignore the evidence and choose to believe any silly idea that people whom they consider honest offer. In stark contrast, believers who have a solid foundation in logic and observation, will remain believers due to the compellingly convincing manifestation of a creative planning mind at work. Last Edit: 7 hours ago by Radrook Admin Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

• Reply

Quick Reply​

My Responses to Atheist Objections​ -Comment You know what's impossible to me? That there is a God, a man, somewhere out there. You can't see him. He didn't come from anywhere, he's always been. He created EVERYTHING from.......... what? Nothing I guess. Response First, I am not claiming that the creator is a man. Numbers 23:19 ► God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill? New Living Translation God is not a man, so he does not lie. He is not human, so he does not change his mind. Has he ever spoken and failed to act? Has he ever promised and not carried it through. Second, God is described as using a tool, his holy spirit in order to create. A force is not nothing. Third, scientists believe in the existence of different dimensions from our own, and in the possibility of life existing living in those other dimensions. So Heaven can be classified as a different dimension from ours. Objection: He then set in motion all the natural laws we know today, and he decided that what we really needed was the ability to do wrong. Response You are against freedom of choice? Those laws came into existence when he caused the Big Bang. Objection: In fact, he's going to assume we're wrong and need to repent, or we won't go to some place called "heaven" (or whatever state of being we end up as) when we are no more. Don't get me started on the rib - which if true, is basically a millimeter away from abiogenesis, because we've never been able to grow a person from a rib. What part of that sounds logical? Response I see nothing ridiculous in using of DNA from a rib to create a human female, nor in the existence another dimension called heaven. Statement: Life has yet to be proven to come from abiogenesis. Yet. Not knowing today doesn't make it impossible. Response Straw man fallacy It isn't merely not knowing that is the reason for calling abiogenesis impossible. So you are using a straw-man argument again. Statement There was a time when we didn't have cars to drive around in, they must have sounded quite impossible for quite some time - until they were manufactured. Response: False analogy There is absolutely no similarity between making a car and the arising of life by itself which requires that water have thinking ability and magically code DNA. Comment We simply have to go with the best explanation based on available evidence. Response That is exactly what you are not doing since there is absolutely no available evidence for abiogenesis. Neither is abiogenesis the best explanation. So you are wrong on two counts. Comment Magic, which the biblical take suggests (call it miracles if you prefer) isn't going to fly, I'm afraid. I really don't know how I could ever close that gap. Response Straw man fallacy since I am not appealing to magic. Neither is there anything magical in a powerful entity using his knowledge and power, which he calls holy spirit, to manipulate the very matter that it created. It simply constitutes the application of power towards a purpose. Nothing more. Furthermore Your stubborn refusal to address the DNA issue directly speaks volumes. Psalm 104:30 ► When you send your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the ground. Ironically, you fail to see how ridiculously magical your claim that fish morphed into people actually is. Even worse, is your claim that the essential information required to assemble brains, nervous systems, skeletal systems, circulatory systems etc. magically arose via your billions of extremely happy, unlikely accidents. Objection: Not to mention, the idea that "life suddenly emerging spontaneously from water after water came up with information and then decided coding it in DNA form" is completely wrong. No-one is suggesting there was a puddle of water, and suddenly life walked out of it. There were millions of different interactions over billions of years, step by step, bit by bit, that led us here. Not a single great event. Not a sudden moment. Just an interaction of infitesimal changes. We just need to understand what they were. Response: . I was using hyperbole. In any case, your appeal to time involving billions of happy accidents in order to produce DNA code, is tantamount to claiming that a tornado would eventually assemble a Boing 747. Or that billions of monkeys banging on typewriters would eventually assemble the encyclopedia Britannica. Obviously, the application of such continuous, mindless chaotic forces would repeatedly and immediately destroy whatever organization temporarily arose. So you are cunningly ignoring the mathematical improbabilities inherent in your proposed situation. Comment That said, if you can believe that an invisible God can suddenly create, oh I don't know, a talking snake - then I guess all bets are off. I mean, I'm not aware of a single snake that can talk today - where's the evidence to support it? Response Again, my argument on God's existence is based on the DNA code found in living things. So your snake and invisibility arguments are totally irrelevant to it. In any case, let me partially address your objections. Invisibility? So a creator is unbelievable because of invisibility? Please note that the vast majority of the universe is invisible, yet its existence is acknowledged despite its invisibility. So your premise is false. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_premise Furthermore, I never claimed that the creator needs to be the biblically-described God. So once again you are using Straw man. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man As for the talking snake, and your mockery because of its talking ability? Well, anyone familiar with the Bible knows that it is described as being used as a puppet by a spirit creature. Please take time to read and research before accusing. www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_705.cfm Comment: I think the answer for most Christians is - you need faith. Response: What the majority of nominal Christians choose to think, or don't choose to think, is totally irrelevant to what DNA indicates. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum Also, neither does the Bible say that believing in a creator demands blind faith. Instead, it clearly and repeatedly tells its readers that creation itself offers irrefutable evidence of a creator. Romans 1:20 ► For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Comment: In the world I inhabit I believe we simply need time for all the good work to be done by people smarter than myself. Response Please note that there are thousands of people in insane assylums who also live in their own private worlds. As to all atheist scientists being good people? Well, I fail to see evident to support that claim. Also, there are millions of believers in a creator who are infinitely more educated and far smarter than you and yet believe in a creator. That is unless you are disqualify them as being smart because they disagree with you. Which of course doesn't nullify their educational credentials one iota but merely indicates irrational bias. Comment Slowly we are adding to our knowledge-base, learning new things, getting ever closer to the events that created us. Response In relation to the origin of life and the universe? Nope! Why? Well, because your knowledge base is seriously flawed. Consequently, what "you" are doing is reinforcing an erroneous unsubstantiated ideas via proposing an unproven and unprovable impossibility. Good people you say? Well your premise that, education guarantee moral excellence is flawed. Hitler's doctor Mengele is an example. Also and more relevant, there are plenty of examples of the very people you seem to feel are morally infallible brazenly and unashamedly attempting to hoodwink gullible people via perpetrating pro-evolutionist hoaxes in order to support their atheistic ideas. www.popularmechanics.com/science/archaeology/g3051/fake-fossils/ Rhetorical Question: An interesting question for the non-believers would be: What would it take to make you believe? For believers, what would it take to end your belief in a God? I think the former would have an easier time answering, but I could be wrong. Response That is a no-brainer. Fanatically-motivated non-believers tend to ignore the evidence and choose to believe any silly idea that people whom they consider honest offer. In stark contrast, believers who have a solid foundation in logic and observation, will remain believers due to the compellingly convincing manifestation of a creative planning mind at work.​

 

[Warrigal]

I think some of us are overthinking the imponderable mysteries.

I favour looking inward and committing myself to following the Golden Rule to the best of my ability.

 

[Radrook]

I think some of us are overthinking the imponderable mysteries.

I favour looking inward and committing myself to following the Golden Rule to the best of my ability.

Why isn't a coded message from outer space an imponderable mystery in relation to the nature of its origin?

 

[Warrigal]

Why isn't a coded message from outer space an imponderable mystery in relation to the nature of its origin?

I haven't the foggiest and am unable to even attempt an answer this question.

 

[Capt Lightning]

I believe that someone once said something to the effect 'life is like a period of light between two periods of darkness, so why should the darkness after I die worry me more than the darkness before I was born?'

 

[VaughanJB]

YJHe link worls when I click i

Thanks for the interest in my response. The link works when I click it despite the "oops!" statement. But since it doesn't work for you, here is what I posted.

My Responses to Atheist Objections -Comment You know what's impossible to me? That there is a God, a man, somewhere out there. You can't see him. He didn't come from anywhere, he's always been. He created EVERYTHING from.......... what? Nothing I guess. Response First, I am not claiming that the creator is a man. Numbers 23:19 ► God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill? New Living Translation God is not a man, so he does not lie. He is not human, so he does not change his mind. Has he ever spoken and failed to act? Has he ever promised and not carried it through. Second, God is described as using a tool, his holy spirit in order to create. A force is not nothing. Third, scientists believe in the existence of different dimensions from our own and in the possibility life existing living in those other dimensions. So Heaven can be classified as a different dimension from ours. Objection: He then set in motion all the natural laws we know today, and he decided that what we really needed was the ability to do wrong. Response You are against freedom of choice? Those laws came into existence when he caused the Big Bang. Objection: In fact, he's going to assume we're wrong and need to repent, or we won't go to some place called "heaven" (or whatever state of being we end up as) when we are no more. Don't get me started on the rib - which if true, is basically a millimeter away from abiogenesis, because we've never been able to grow a person from a rib. What part of that sounds logical? Response I see nothing ridiculous the using of DNA from a rib to create a human female nor in the existence another dimension called heaven. Statement: Life has yet to be proven to come from abiogenesis. Yet. Not knowing today doesn't make it impossible. Response Strawman It isn't merely not knowing that is the reason for calling abiogenesis impossible. So you are using a straw man argument. Statement There was a time when we didn't have cars to drive around in, they must have sounded quite impossible for quite some time - until they were manufactured. Response: False analogy There is absolutely no similarity between making a car and the arising of life by itself which requires that water have thinking ability and magically code DNA. Comment We simply have to go with the best explanation based on available evidence. Response That is exactly what you are not doing since there is absolutely no available evidence for abiogenesis. Neither is it the best explanation. So you are wrong on two counts. Comment Magic, which the biblical take suggests (call it miracles if you prefer) isn't going to fly, I'm afraid. I really don't know how I could ever close that gap. Response Strawman fallacy since nobody is appealing to magic. Neither is there anything magical in a powerful entity using his knowledge and power, which he calls holy spirit, to manipulate the very matter that it created. It simply constitutes the application of power towards a purpose. Nothing more. Your refusal to address the DNA issue directly speaks volumes. Psalm 104:30 ► When you send your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the ground. Ironically, you fail to see how ridiculously magical your claim that fish morphed into people actually is. Even worse, is your claim that the essential information required to assemble brains, nervous systems, skeletal systems circulatory systems etc. magically arose via your billions of extremely happy, unlikely accidents. Objection: Not to mention, the idea that "life suddenly emerging spontaneously from water after water came up with information and then decided coding it in DNA form" is completely wrong. No-one is suggesting there was a puddle of water, and suddenly life walked out of it. There were millions of different interactions over billions of years, step by step, bit by bit, that led us here. Not a single great event. Not a sudden moment. Just an interaction of infitesimal changes. We just need to understand what they were. Response: Of course not. I was using hyperbole. In any case, your appeal to time involving billions of happy accidents in order to produce DNA code is tantamount to claiming that a tornado would eventually assemble a Boing 747. Or that billions of monkeys banging on typewriters would eventually assemble the encyclopedia Britannica. Obviously, the application of such continuous, mindless force will repeatedly destroy whatever organization temporarily arises immediately. So you are cunningly ignoring the mathematical improbabilities inherent in your proposed situation. Comment That said, if you can believe that an invisible God can suddenly create, oh I don't know, a talking snake - then I guess all bets are off. I mean, I'm not aware of a single snake that can talk today - where's the evidence to support it? Response Again, my argument on God's existence is based on the DNA code found in living things. Your snake and invisibility arguments are totally irrelevant to it. In any case, let me partially address your objections. Invisibility? So a creator is unbelievable because of invisibility? Please note that the vast majority of the universe is invisible and its existence is acknowledged despite its invisibility. So your premise false. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_premise Furthermore, I never claimed that the creator needs to be the Biblically described God. So once again you are using Straw man. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man As for the talking snake and your mockery because of its talking ability? Well, anyone familiar with the Bible knows that it is described as being used as a puppet by a spirit creature. Please take time to read and research before accusing. www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_705.cfm Comment: I think the answer for most Christians is - you need faith. Response: What the majority of nominal Christians choose to think, or don't choose to think, is totally irrelevant to what DNA indicates. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum Also, neither does the Bible say that believing in a creator demands blind faith. Instead, it clearly and repeatedly tells its readers that creation itself offers irrefutable evidence of a creator. Romans 1:20 ► For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Comment: In the world I inhabit I believe we simply need time for all the good work to be done by people smarter than myself. Response Please note that there are thousands of people in insane assylums who also live in their own private worlds. As to all atheist scientists being good people? Well, I fail to see evident to support that claim. Also, there are millions of believers in a creator who are infinitely more educated and far smarter than you and yet believe in a creator. That is unless you are disqualify them as being smart because they disagree with you. Which of course doesn't nullify their educational credentials one iota but merely indicates irrational bias. Comment Slowly we are adding to our knowledge-base, learning new things, getting ever closer to the events that created us. Response In relation to the origin of life and the universe? Nope! Why? Well, because your knowledge base is seriously flawed. Consequently, what "you" are doing is reinforcing an erroneous unsubstantiated ideas via proposing an unproven and unprovable impossibility. Good people you say? Well your premise that, education guarantee moral excellence is flawed. Hitler's doctor Mengele is an example. Also and more relevant, there are plenty of examples of the very people you seem to feel are morally infallible brazenly and unashamedly attempting to hoodwink gullible people via perpetrating pro-evolutionist hoaxes in order to support their atheistic ideas. www.popularmechanics.com/science/archaeology/g3051/fake-fossils/ Rhetorical Question: An interesting question for the non-believers would be: What would it take to make you believe? For believers, what would it take to end your belief in a God? I think the former would have an easier time answering, but I could be wrong. Response That is a no-brainer. Fanatically-motivated non-believers tend to ignore the evidence and choose to believe any silly idea that people whom they consider honest offer. In stark contrast, believers who have a solid foundation in logic and observation, will remain believers due to the compellingly convincing manifestation of a creative planning mind at work. Last Edit: 7 hours ago by Radrook Admin Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

• Reply

Quick Reply​

There's a whole lot there, and while it might be fun to respond point by point, the reality is I'm too verbose as it is, and it'll drive the other forum members mad if I do.

So, replying in general terms - you seem to be describing an alien of some kind, or at least what we consider an alien to be. If there is a God, with the abilities assigned to him, he'd certainly not be one of us, that's for sure (although we were created in his image). He could be an inter-dimensional being as well. Still, I'm not sure this truly describes the God of the Bible, does it? And what of Jesus Christ who walked among us? Aside from his abilities, why should we be worshiping him? Why does he never come back to see us? I'm here if he ever wants to visit.

You state, "he caused the Big Bang". Okay. So the most common complaint about the big bang is asking - what was there before the big bang? How could the universe come from nothing? And so on. Doesn't your suggestion simply reframe these imponderables? And why does it need a God at all? I don't think you can answer such a question by adding another layer of complete mystery, this comes across as though we're simply stretching to invent a God.

And how is the spirit a tool? What is the spirit? How does the spirit manifest in everything we know today?

As for smart people, I said it would take people smarter than I am. I think that's fair - reading the hard science is often way above my pay grade, I'm afraid. There are also full-blown scientists who believe in a God. In fact, think of any mix of peoples, and they're out there!

I think a lot of people are introduced to Christianity when they are young, and at their most vulnerable, and impressionable. This is a form of indoctrination, and it's an extremely difficult thing to shake in later life. I also think that terrible things happen in life and on Earth, and we all want to know why that is.

A God belief, the excuse of Free Will (honestly, free will as a concept from God is a huge flaw and none too wise a decision), sin, and so on - is a way of coping with ups and downs of life. And finally, we are just about all curious - if not terrified - of the finality of death. Death is inevitable. A Christian belief (among others) gives us solace, hopes and dreams, in a moment of finality.

Hey, I'd rather not die and become nothing. I accept it'll happen, because one has no other choice but do so, but I'm not thrilled by the prospect. I think it would be nice to meet up with some old friends in an afterlife, or to be with all the dogs I've had as pets (if dogs aren't allowed in heaven then I'll actively begin to not want to go there!) Heaven is a nice story (though as an adult, the whole "father" thing irks me.) If a belief in Heaven brings comfort, and quietens a broken heart, then I can certainly see why some choose to believe.

 

[VaughanJB]

All very logical, but logic doesn't warm the heart nor soften the pain of human beings.

 

[VaughanJB]

All very logical, but logic doesn't warm the heart nor soften the pain of human beings.


This question I can answer from a personal perspective because I have inhabited both camps.

As a non believer I always declared that I would not believe in ghosts until I was confronted by one personally. I refused to fear anything supernatural until I experienced it personally.

To my utter astonishment I did have this experience of that which we call God (the Hebrews refused to speak the name) in the most unlikely setting. It was not in a lofty cathedral, nor atop a mountain gazing at the setting sun.

Thank you for your story. I cannot, and will not, deny your belief system. I just think sometimes we can make of an experience what we will. I could go through precisely what you did, and feel differently. But my way, and I believe the way of most atheists (which I'm not!) isn't one of cold logic. There are many discoveries in science that aren't logical. Sometimes we're able to fill the gaps and make logical conclusions, but other times not. It's not logic that's the issue, it's evidence.

The Bible is a well written set of books. It covers a lot of the human experience, if not all of it. But we know it was written by man (many men). This alone suggests it's possible for man to have written what we see there. It was man. Must we call its inspiration, a God?

That said, there are fundamental things that I think are brushed away. Why is there sin? Free will. How convenient. That brushes away any argument that it's pretty crazy to create a species after your own image, to create a world and a universe, and allow things to go terribly wrong for its inhabitants. Why is there disease? Oh, that wasn't part of God's original design. Well, why not? Just so we could choose to do everything he wouldn't want us too? If I were creating my own world, I'd save people from making bad decisions by simply not including them..... But for the purposes of story telling, it's sure convenient to add "free will" and use it as an excuse for a multitude of sins.

Then there idea that nothing came before God, he's simply always been. Not only that, he's everywhere, all the time. Omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent. He also has knowledge of the future and our actions. Again, I just think a good God wouldn't allow bad choices that causes someone to fall into damnation. If God knows something is going to happen, but does nothing to stop it, that strikes me as being cruel and mean. If you knew your child was going to die today because of a choice they make, and you have the power to change it, would you? I think probably yes.

But a God that has always been, who created a Universe from..... nothing... answers nothing. I think it's simply a method of avoiding answering these fundamental questions, it's obfuscation. So how can one go about answering such questions? Well, for one, I ask for evidence. We don't have all the answers regarding the origins of the universe, and in fact it may be unknowable - but we should strive to answer the big questions rather than write them away, hiding behind yet another mystery.

Let's be clear - the human brain is a wondrous thing. I live in what I perceive to be reality. I dream of amazing events and worlds. At the same time, our minds aren't perfect. We have animal brains, and they're designed to live on the plains hunting and gathering. Somehow we've elevated our brains to be able understand incredibly complex things, but our animal ancestral brains will, eventually, become a hindrance. Hell, we still struggle to clearly define consciousness!

Computers count better than we do. Cars move us more quickly than our legs can carry us. Planes let us fly! AI tech will out think us, draw associations we'd not be able to, and help us design an even newer world. Man is slowly out-running the brain. The pace of change technologically is outrunning the physical possibilities of evolution. We simply evolve too slowly. It's both frightening and, in a way, amazing - isn't it?

 

[Mr. Ed]

I don’t believe in sin. People do bad things that are not classified as sinful.The Old Testament is full of killing, muder and deceitfulness because it was determined to be god’s plan. It seems people use god as an excuse to carry their own plans, the KKK comes to mind and what about extreme religious groups that claim as their motivation for killing minorities because they don’t look white.

 

[VaughanJB]

I don’t believe in sin. People do bad things that are not classified as sinful.The Old Testament is full of killing, muder and deceitfulness because it was determined to be god’s plan. It seems people use god as an excuse to carry their own plans, the KKK comes to mind and what about extreme religious groups that claim as their motivation for killing minorities because they don’t look white.

Pretty sure I've posted this before, but you brought it to mind again. Must dig out the album for a play......

Oh, my name, it ain't nothin', my age, it means less
The country I come from is called the Midwest
I's taught and brought up there, the laws to abide
And that the land that I live in has God on its side

Oh, the history books tell it, they tell it so well
The cavalries charged, the Indians fell
The cavalries charged, the Indians died
Oh, the country was young with God on its side

The Spanish-American War had its day
And the Civil War too was soon laid away
And the names of the heroes I was made to memorize
With guns in their hands and God on their side

The First World War, boys, it came and it went
The reason for fightin' I never did get
But I learned to accept it, accept it with pride
For you don't count the dead when God's on your side

The Second World War came to an end
We forgave the Germans, and then we were friends
Though they murdered six million, in the ovens they fried
The Germans now too have God on their side

I learned to hate the Russians all through my whole life
If another war comes, it's them we must fight
To hate them and fear them, to run and to hide
And accept it all bravely with God on my side

But now we've got weapons of chemical dust
If fire them we're forced to, then fire them we must
One push of the button and they shot the world wide
And you never ask questions when God's on your side

Through many dark hour I been thinkin' about this
That Jesus Christ was betrayed by a kiss
But I can't think for you, you'll have to decide
Whether Judas Iscariot had God on his side

So now as I'm leavin', I'm weary as hell
The confusion I'm feelin' ain't no tongue can tell
The words fill my head, and they fall to the floor
That if God's on our side, he'll stop the next war

 

[Pepper]

I have this album, mint condition!

 

[Timewise 60+]

I play Christian music every day for hours in my house yet I still think that we simply cease to exist at death. If Heaven and Hell really existed, it would have to house trillions of people who died since 3,000 BC!

Only their soles, they don't take up much room at all...!

 

[Timewise 60+]

Why all the debate!
We either believe in some form of afterlife and/or some higher power or you don't believe that anything happens to us after death.

You may or may not know...depending...

 

[Radrook]

Response

Extra Terrestrial?

Yes, you are right, technically, I am describing an extraterrestrial. Also, please note that the biblical God is described as not of this Earth. So are those creatures described as his angels. So by strict definition, they are all indeed extraterrestrials albeit not from some planet.

John 8:23
Then He told them, "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.

Reason for Belief:

I and many others, don't believe in a creator merely because it brings us comfort, or because we desperately need an explanation for the terrible things that occur. We believe in creator because the creation, especially DNA code, indicates that a creator exists, and we consider other explanations seriously flawed, and therefore totally unsatisfactory,

Spirit?

The spirit is a tool because it meets the required definition of a tool: Something used as a means to an end. Since the spirit is very clearly described in that way, then whatever it might be, it is clearly being used as a tool to accomplish many things. In short, from a biblical perspective, the creator isn't just magically speaking things into existence, there is a projection and manipulation of power involved.

Examples:

Psalm 104:30 ►
When you send your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the ground.

Genesis 1:2 ►
Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Matthew 12:28 ►
But if it is by the Spirit of God that I drive out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

2 Cor
3 clearly you are an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, ....

Judges 14:6 ►
The Spirit of the LORD came powerfully upon him so that he tore the lion apart with his bare hands as he might have torn a young goat. But he told neither his father nor his mother what he had done.

Acts 1:8 ►
But you will receive power when the holy spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tool

Free Will:

About free will, well, that is indeed a very complex matter. If the creator denies it, then he is accused of being a despot. If he grants it, then he is accused of being stupid for allowing it. If he allows it, but chooses to favor those who behave themselves decently, then he is accused of not really allowing free will. Please note that nobody criticizes governments for preventing citizens to go berserk and do as they please. Instead, law and order is recognized as a necessity in preventing the strong from abusing the weak or those deemed weaker. It is only when the creator is involved that complaining begins. So there is a glaring double standard at work here.

Main Issue:

Once more. Why is one criterion used when evaluating any coded message or info received by SETI from outer space, and another for the DNA code, when both are clearly coded information? Such an obvious evasive tactic is referred to as inconsistency of policy and is considered an evasion in order to avoid a conclusions that are deemed unacceptable for unjustifiable reasons.

I keep requesting an explanation but everyone keeps changing the subject.

 

[Radrook]

I haven't the foggiest and am unable to even attempt an answer this question.

You actually fail to see an inconsistency of policy in this?

 

[MarkD]

Computers count better than we do. Cars move us more quickly than our legs can carry us. Planes let us fly! AI tech will out think us, draw associations we'd not be able to, and help us design an even newer world. Man is slowly out-running the brain. The pace of change technologically is outrunning the physical possibilities of evolution. We simply evolve too slowly. It's both frightening and, in a way, amazing - isn't it?

I had a lot of sympathy with points made up to here, but this just seems like the epitome of the hubristic modern mindset. Science will unlock all questions - a matter of faith which seems reasonable because there are so many who agree. It is hard to see what is wrong with it from within it. Good luck.

 

[JustDave]

All very logical, but logic doesn't warm the heart nor soften the pain of human beings.

I can understand that theists would believe it cannot soften pain or warm the heart, because they see logic as cold. But I have known many theists with hardened hearts who suffer more than most. I see logic not as cold, but perhaps more like impersonal, It's like having a friend you trust who isn't afraid to tell you when you're having an absurd thought because you have no compelling evidence to believe what you're thinking.

 

[Stoppelmann]

One reason that I believe in God is because the DNA code and molecular machines indicates a planning mind at work.

Water produced codes and decoders? | Varietygalore
DNA IS INDEED A CODE | Varietygalore

Find it funny? Well, please note that people claiming that they came from a fish who emerged from a rock is far more hilarious to me.​

I find this quite interesting, although the god of the Bible does not appeal to me as the answer to questions that arise. I find the Bible interesting, but no more than other scriptures, and I see Jesus aligned with much of what I hear from Advaita Vedanta, which is much older. I suspect that religion per se is the result of syncretism over millennia, with meanings lost as cultures evolve or expire. The problem with the Abrahamic religion is exclusivism, which caused so much strife in the world, whereas Vedanta is fairly open-minded.

 

[Radrook]

Wonder where they got the strange idea that God creates from nothing despite the Bible repeatedly telling them that God uses his power or spirit to create and to manipulate things.

Job 33:4
“The Spirit of God has made me,
And the breath of the Almighty gives me life.

Psalm 104:30
You send forth Your Spirit, they are created;
And You renew the face of the ground.

Micah 3:8
On the other hand I am filled with power—
With the Spirit of the Lord—

I find this quite interesting, although the god of the Bible does not appeal to me as the answer to questions that arise. I find the Bible interesting, but no more than other scriptures, and I see Jesus aligned with much of what I hear from Advaita Vedanta, which is much older. I suspect that religion per se is the result of syncretism over millennia, with meanings lost as cultures evolve or expire. The problem with the Abrahamic religion is exclusivism, which caused so much strife in the world, whereas Vedanta is fairly open-minded.

Yes there certainly are differences between the biblical message and those found in other sacred writings. There are also similarities. True, there are sacred writings that predate the Biblical account in its written form. As for the exclusiveness required of Israel and Christians being a problem, yes, you are right,. The exclusives expected from Israel did pose a problem since the pagans wanted them to join in their immorality. Same with Christianity. It requires that Christians not be part of a sinful world. In fact, Jesus told us that the world would react that way to the exclusiveness required.

John 15: 18
17. This is My command to you: Love one another. 18. If the world hates you, understand that it hated Me first. 19. If you were of the world, it would love you as its own. Instead, the world hates you, because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world.…

 

[Stoppelmann]

Yes there certainly are differences between the biblical message and those found in other sacred writings. There are also similarities. True, there are sacred writings that predate the Biblical account in its written form. As for the exclusiveness required of Israel and Christians being a problem, yes, you are right,. The exclusives expected from Israel did pose a problem since the pagans wanted them to join in their immorality. Same with Christianity. It requires that Christians not be part of a sinful world. In fact, Jesus told us that the world would react that way to the exclusiveness required.

John 15: 18
17. This is My command to you: Love one another. 18. If the world hates you, understand that it hated Me first. 19. If you were of the world, it would love you as its own. Instead, the world hates you, because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world.…

My friend, if Jesus said this, the "world" didn't know Jesus, let alone hate him. And for him to address a group of Jews in a corner of the world that is so far away from so many other people, his choice was very limited.

I consider the command to love one another the main cornerstone of his teaching, but he also said to love your neighbours and even your enemies. Exclusivity is the opposite of loving, which is inclusive by nature. People who practised this love were often the victims of an exclusive church, and condemnation of "non-believers" is not ours to do. “Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord.” (Rom. 12:19)

 

[Radrook]

My friend, if Jesus said this, the "world" didn't know Jesus, let alone hate him. And for him to address a group of Jews in a corner of the world that is so far away from so many other people, his choice was very limited.

I consider the command to love one another the main cornerstone of his teaching, but he also said to love your neighbours and even your enemies. Exclusivity is the opposite of loving, which is inclusive by nature. People who practised this love were often the victims of an exclusive church, and condemnation of "non-believers" is not ours to do. “Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord.” (Rom. 12:19)

Jesus was using the word "world" in reference to those who were not his followers and who were in opposition to him. These manifested typically unchristian attitudes that as the son of God, Jesus knew that the rest of the world shared.

​

John 8:44 ►

​

You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

So those opposes he encountered could rightfully be spoken of as representing the world and its attitude.

Also, please note that Jesus knew that the Roman empire was vast and that beyond it there were other regions. In fact, that was common knowledge. That's why he told them to go preach, so that the rest of the world could know about him. So Jesus was definitely not speaking in the literal sense that you seem to be claiming that he did.

Matthew 28:19-20​

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

I agree that we should not set ourselves up as judges of others and that that God alone is the one who is qualified for that. However, exposing false beliefs and practices is part of obeying the above quoted commandment to teach.

 

[VaughanJB]

I had a lot of sympathy with points made up to here, but this just seems like the epitome of the hubristic modern mindset. Science will unlock all questions - a matter of faith which seems reasonable because there are so many who agree. It is hard to see what is wrong with it from within it. Good luck.

Hubristic? A strange choice of words, imo. I pointed out examples where we have extended mans capabilities beyond those we were born with. I pointed out computers can already do things faster than we can. I pointed out that the way AI is developing, we're handing over the keys to the developmental kingdom to machines. I take no pride in it, it's just what I see in our world.

I met a neighbor just a couple days ago, and she was telling me about her son-in-law who needed a kidney transplant. He's just the surgery to give him a new kidney, and she mighty impressed that his surgery had been done by machine. For me, it's not hubris, it's a denial of what is occurring all around us. There's a thread on the board here about an automated "Marshall" at a US shopping mall. The capabilities of that machine go way beyond what an actual cop could do.

Still, that's not to claim science will "unlock all questions". I mean, all questions? No. I've stated, we may never be able to prove the big bang, for example. It might be beyond the realm of science to do that. Do you have a particular aversion to technology and it's relentless progress?

Finally, you suggest that faith seem reasonable "because there are so many who agree." That is completely wrong to me. A single person being mistaken, and a 100 people being mistaken, they'd all be mistaken. Given we, in the US and UK, live in a secular society, it actually is any wonder atheists feel they can stand up and proclaim their lack of faith.

Wonder where they got the strange idea that God creates from nothing despite the Bible repeatedly telling them that God uses his power or spirit to create and to manipulate things.

What things did he manipulate? And have you yet proven that "spirit" is even a thing? Also, if you can believe a God created something from his "spirit", then why is it a stretch to suggest the big bang came from nothing?

 

[VaughanJB]

It requires that Christians not be part of a sinful world. In fact, Jesus told us that the world would react that way to the exclusiveness required.

But that's how God made us, apparently. He made us to be part of a sinful world. He allowed Adam's original sin to be laid into our souls. That was God's choice. It was his doing. He could have made things differently, but we circle back to "free will", as though there is any virtue in having the ability of messing up.

If God knows all - and he can see all that will happen both now and into the future - what is free will anyway? Doesn't that suggest, since God knows these things, that they are per-ordained? If God see's me buying an ice cream tomorrow, and I buy an ice cream, how was that free will? Aren't I simply doing what God knew I'd do? Does God himself have free will?

 

[spectratg]

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Arthur C. Clarke