Why do we believe in God

[Olivia]

That's okay. Dig in your heels. Fight, argue, disagree. But go to God in prayer with your fight. Argue with him, disagree with him.
Moses, Abraham, Job, Jonah to name a few argued with God.

God invites us into a dialogue with Him, even when we are struggling with our faith. He desires a genuine and honest relationship with us, where we bring our questions and concerns to Him.

Through the examples of Moses, Abraham, Job, Jonah, Jacob, Elijah, Gideon, and Jeremiah, You can learn that it is possible to maintain a steadfast faith, even when facing challenging circumstances.

I am not going to try and convince you of anything.

REALLY want to know! Go to him. No cell phone, no internet. Just close your eyes and speak.

If I am wrong then I am a fool but I don't believe that to be the case.
bob

Wrong about what? I've posted in several previous posts that l am a believer and do talk to God. I really appreciate that you responded. You are definitely not a fool.

 

[Warrigal]

It is easy to tie yourself into knots trying to pick apart topics such as these.

I am perfectly happy to entertain the idea that Jesus was simply a man, and not part of a triune godhead. If I see him as a first century travelling prophet with a message that was the antithesis of the culture of Rome, a man who hated the way the Jewish religion discriminated against the blind and the lame, and who was compassionate towards the outcasts, it does not change my desire to follow the path that he preached.

I am a woman who has found "the peace that surpasses all understanding" and I am not at all fussed about my eventual demise. Heaven and Hell have no meaning for me, but life on this planet is a gift that should not be taken for granted.

 

[Mr. Ed]

Ok, are you ready? I don't sin. I don't need forgiveness because I am not guilty. God and I are one and the same therefore I am not a sinner because god or whatever gave me freedom from the guilt associated with sin has no effect on me.

I hesitate using the god because everyone has their opinion of god, except for what or whom I reference as god. I don't believe in Jesus, the Bible or sin because you need faith in order to believe. Curious is faith, first you must have faith to believe there is such a thing as sin.Then you have to have faith in Jesus to be rid of sin. The problem here is who truly rids themselves of sin when faith caused sin in your life to begin with?

They say once saved always saved? Then why do we go to church after being saved? Yes there are worship services, hymnals and praise music which are designed to trigger emotions either pro or con with me these songs conflict my beliefs, however, I go to church for my wife, not my soul...I am satisfied and content in that field of emotions.

Freedom is living with no internal interference. It is having complete faith in yourself, to know yourself so well that your very existence depends on the choices you make without fear or hesitant you are aware of the consequences and you wouldn't have it any other way. Like an animal , you act instinctively for your survival in the jungle of the life you created for yourself. where else can you thrive and grow to be who you are except on your own terms?

 

[Olivia]

It's kind of scary because what you've written could have been written by someone who l don't believe you are.

 

[Radrook]

The change in characteristics of a species over many generations relies on the process of natural selection. Evolution consists of changes in heritable traits of a population of organisms as successive generations replace one another. Those biological functions, physical traits, and mental wiring (particularly in human beings) that confer a greater chance of survival are more likely to be passed on to subsequent generations.

Please don't assume ignorance. I know how evolution is supposed to function. I only ask because I want to know why you you choose to imagine that a belief in a creator enhanced survival until believers became a majority. As if atheists would have been the majority otherwise.

Also, your proposition poses a false dilemma, since mankind could have easily concluded a creator from the observation of intelligent design in nature just as King David the Apostle Paul, The Apostle John, Job, Jeremiah, Nehemiah, and many others saw evidence of a creator in nature.

Ps 139:
13. For You formed my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother’s womb. 14I praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Marvelous are Your works, and I know this very well.

Romans 1:20-22
For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job+12:7-10&version=ESV

Job 12:7-10 ESV
“But ask the beasts, and they will teach you; the birds of the heavens, and they will tell you; or the bushes of the earth, and they will teach you; and the fish of the sea will declare to you. Who among all these does not know that the hand of the Lord has done this? In his hand is the life of every living thing and the breath of all mankind.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+19:1&version=ESV

Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.

Psalm 104:24​

O Lord, how manifold are your works! In wisdom have you made them all; the earth is full of your creatures.

So why then should we conclude that mankind needed any natural selection to reach a conclusion which to them seemed so glaringly obvious?

 

[Stoppelmann]

All of these "what if's" are not just theoretical thought experiments. It is a function of the ego to shelter itself from things that put ourselves in the light of reality, where we have to deal with odious task of admitting we don't see things that make us uncomfortable.

This is the root cause of hypocrisy, where we believe we are models of integrity and ethics, while we lie, satisfy our greed, and fornicate with our neighbor's partner.

Psychotherapy deals with this very issue of uncovering flawed thinking that causes personal turmoil. It's what logic and science does as it attempts to explain rationally how things are, even if we would rather it be otherwise.

Rather than assume an egoistical motivation for my "what ifs", you could assume a different cosmological framework that is very much in line with the older non-dual traditions, in which all of life is an expression of the lifeforce that underlies the universe. In Genesis, the act of God breathing the "living soul" or "nephesh" into Adam signifies the divine imparting life and consciousness to humanity. It marks a connection between humans and the divine, with nephesh often interpreted as the soul or life force.

In contrast, the Vedanta philosophy, particularly from the Upanishads, speaks of Brahman as the ultimate, formless, and infinite reality that is the source of everything. Atman, the individual soul, is the manifestation of Brahman within all beings. Where Genesis emphasises God creating humanity and breathing life into it, the Vedantas present a view that our essence is already divine, with Atman being a limited expression of Brahman, the universal soul.

Bringing hypocrisy into the argument as you do, you distort my words with graphic examples of bad behaviour, which have nothing to do with what I said. Respecting the "divine spark" in each life form may be the very thing that is missing in humanity, which has tended to exploit and utilise nature rather than see itself as integrally part of it and called to use our imagination and recreative abilities to tend to it. The behaviours you describe are a sign that this is true.

Your implied solution for my "flawed thinking" and "personal turmoil" contradicts the deep peace that meditation can assist and the connection with nature that my garden and the surrounding woodlands so wonderfully permit. What is missing is the respect of my fellow human beings for what I genuinely enjoy and learn from, for the interconnectedness of life, even for the soil beneath our feet, teeming with life, which for many is just dirt. Expanding your mind to see this incredible manifestation could help you better than psychotherapy. Try it and see!

 

[Stoppelmann]

The sophistic idea that morality is subjective, and that all behavior is morally OK was ethically discarded long ago as being morally unacceptable.

I assume from your words that you believe I’m using arguments that may seem clever but are actually fallacious or deceptive. It would be helpful if you could point out specifically where you think my argument relies on sophistry. My intention isn't to use cleverness for its own sake but to explore these ideas based on reason and logic.

I'm trying to explore a more inclusive understanding of the divine and human behaviour, recognising the rich traditions across the world's religions. It's important to me to question rigid interpretations that exclude others or dismiss their spiritual experiences.

My point about false beliefs isn't about endorsing relativism but acknowledging that many traditions, including Christianity, emphasise love, compassion, and humility. The danger, as I see it, lies in condemning others based on narrow interpretations when, in fact, the divine is ultimately mysterious and beyond full comprehension.

“Instead, modern ethics is based on our common humanity and the duties that such a humanity places on our behavior.”

I agree that our common humanity plays a significant role in modern ethics, but I would add that the ethics we adopt are also deeply influenced by the societies and groups we grow up in. Different cultures have unique ways of expressing and prioritising values, yet there seems to be a shared understanding across many traditions that compassion, humility, and love are foundational virtues.

While common humanity may give us a starting point for ethical behaviour, it is the societal context that often determines how these values are applied. Traditions and religious teachings, like those found in Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, and many others, all emphasize the importance of compassion and love, yet the way these values are practised can vary greatly. I believe that recognizing both our shared humanity and the influence of societal context can give us a fuller picture of what modern ethics entails.

"Please note that I am not striving to evangelize. The main stance I am taking is that the existence of a creator is evident in nature via the DNA code. All these other religious doctrinal issues, such as the hypocrisy of those claiming Christianity, whether the original biblical languages have been translated accurately or not, whether the Bible leaves God's personality unknown, whether that personality is indeed knowable, how Christianity stacks up in comparison to other religions, or whether the Bible is the creator's inspired message to mankind, although they are indeed worthy of discussion, are totally irrelevant to this logical conclusion."

I understand that you're focusing on the argument that the existence of a creator is evident through the complexities of nature, like the DNA code. I actually said that I find this aspect interesting. I can also see how, from a logical standpoint, you might consider that a decisive point, regardless of the doctrinal debates across different religious traditions.

However, for me, these religious and ethical questions remain important because they shape how we understand not just the existence of a creator, but how we relate to that creator and to each other. DNA might suggest design, but it doesn't provide us with a framework for how to live in harmony with one another, which is why compassion, humility, and love—values common across many traditions—are so vital in our ethical systems.

While the scientific evidence for a creator can be compelling, the spiritual and moral questions about how we interact with the divine and with humanity are deeply intertwined with how we live out our belief in that creator. I find that exploring these different perspectives and traditions helps us deepen our understanding of not just the existence of God, but the nature of God, and the nature of our responsibilities as human beings.

 

[Lavinia]

It is easy to tie yourself into knots trying to pick apart topics such as these.

I am perfectly happy to entertain the idea that Jesus was simply a man, and not part of a triune godhead. If I see him as a first century travelling prophet with a message that was the antithesis of the culture of Rome, a man who hated the way the Jewish religion discriminated against the blind and the lame, and who was compassionate towards the outcasts, it does not change my desire to follow the path that he preached.

I am a woman who has found "the peace that surpasses all understanding" and I am not at all fussed about my eventual demise. Heaven and Hell have no meaning for me, but life on this planet is a gift that should not be taken for granted.

You don't need to have a belief in a God in order to accept the teaching of Jesus. After all, he was simply reminding the people of the laws given to Moses....the basis of a civilised society.

 

[VaughanJB]

What if we were submerged in the reality of God? What if we are part of the reality of God? What if, our brains were not just limited, but inhibitors, protecting our physical being from imploding when we see reality as it is? We hear of people taking psychoactive drugs, thereby preventing the inhibitory function, who are literally shocked at the world they see, but are incapable of living in that condition and would die if it lasted. That is the way I view the obscurity of God.

There are many theories about consciousness and what it might be, and they don't all relate to a God. It can be fun to speculate. The problem as it relates to a God is - why do you need a God in such a hypothesis? At least, the God of the Bible.

Yes, and if consciousness is what we are, albeit limited in a physical body and inhibited by our cerebral functions, rather than consciousness as a product of material processes, we might indeed find that our bodies are suited best to hunting and gathering, which may be the best physical way to live. But because we are consciousness in a physical form, that consciousness is curious and seeks to know things. We see it in children before they are conditioned, and wisdom traditions have strived to retain that childlike curiosity, albeit tempered by experience. I think that we are limited by what we think we know rather than what we do not know.

We do evolve, and I'd love to know what people are like in say, 1000 years. Just about everything will be different. Humans are very good at adapting, and a lot of technology is essentially simply new (better) ways of doing familiar things. I mean, the car was a great invention, but we already had the means to move about, just not as efficiently.

The big difference is AI. AI is going to enable natural human to technology communication. We already speak to plastic boxes (Alexa), stare transfixed to screens, and even get surgery by robot. What else will we give up? Look at how people are living their lives through Smartphone screens. They use the device to meet others, seek out help and advice, etc. We're gradually giving up self-automony. Just last evening I was walking my dog and two people rushed passed my on electric scooters. It immediately struck me, because back in my day, you'd walk everywhere as a kid. Today? Not so much.

AI is going to blur the line between us and machine. It may erase it. The likes of Alexa is ushering in the acceptance of robots to do our bidding. Is moving from Alexa to a more capable robot of some kind really a stretch? We have automatic vacuum cleaners, robot cops, cars being built without human hands. It's amazing. Especially since robots have no Gods.

Modern science has not yet figured out how to give us new bodies to exchange for the old ones when we grow old.

Trying to understand music is as mysterious to me as God is to others. I do not play any instruments, but music speaks to me in ways I don't understand. It can alter mood, change the way we think, give us insight, and plain pleasure.

And while we can't yet get new bodies (and yes, I seriously intended to us the word "yet") we can get new lungs, kidneys, faces, hands, and so on. We're on the road to figuring it out, even if it's not as simple as a quick swap. Seems to me that it's the brain and motor functions that are the main problem. We can remove someones brain, but we can't put it elsewhere and hook it all up as though it were new. We can change out hearts.

Still the ultimate answer to this might well not come from invasive surgery, but from changing the way we age. According to the Bible, the oldest person ever was Methuselah, who passed away aged 969! I wouldn't mind an extra 900 years!

Excellent questions! Since many consider the Bible as the book that accurately describes human history and its relationship with the creator, I will use it as a basis to evaluate the viability of some of the concepts..

About your first statement, if indeed the creator had planned on making mankind part of a sinful world, then we would have been flawed. Yet, biblically, his creation is described as perfect, and the creator himself is described as being blameless.

Instead, mankind itself is the one blamed for the fall into the degraded state that it finds itself in.

Yes, but this is simply more excuses to my feeble mind. Oh, so Adam and Eve had free will, and they ate an apple that was verboten, and ergo - we're all born of sin. That's right from the outset and suggests to me that either a mistake was made in our design and creation, or what's suggested is merely an excuse to lay blame for bad things on us, while our creator sits there saying, "hey, it wasn't me!" The Bible does this constantly, bad things happen, and it's "Oh, that part was down to them, not me." The great dictator in the sky shifting blame around.

Is there virtue in sinning or messing up?

Again the Bible tells us that the creator hates sin. So he himself doesn't hold that viewpoint.

There's plenty of sin coming from God's side in the old Testament. Plenty of death, murder, and horrors. It's not so much a matter of whether sin is good or bad, first we should define what sin is. If sin is described as anything against God's word, then it's easy to say "the creator hates sin". But, where is the nuance in sin?

Excellent questions! Since many consider the Bible as the book that accurately describes human history and its relationship with the creator, I will use it as a basis to evaluate the viability of some of the concepts..

About your first statement, if indeed the creator had planned on making mankind part of a sinful world, then we would have been flawed. Yet, biblically, his creation is described as perfect, and the creator himself is described as being blameless.

Instead, mankind itself is the one blamed for the fall into the degraded state that it finds itself in.



Is there virtue in sinning or messing up?

Again the Bible tells us that the creator hates sin. So he himself doesn't hold that viewpoint.



So saying that the creator preordained what he himself detests, doesn't make any sense.

Did the creator know that Adam and Eve were going to sin.

Well, there are two ways in which this problem can be answered.

1. The creator didn't know because he couldn't know.

In this case his knowing would require Adam and Eve displaying some inherent flaw indicating a potential to sin.

2. He chose not to know.

Does the creator himself have free will?

There is something that he is described as unable to do, that is to lie in reference to his promises and his oath.

God created Adam and Eve. God created the tree, and the apples upon the tree. God created the snake, and temptation. God dictated right from wrong, sin from righteousness. Good from bad. Why? The answer seems to be, free will. In the overall design, that sounds like a serious flaw. God must have known some would choose the darker path. So he provided the ability for them to do so. He knows all, so he'd of known what Eve was about to do. He'd of known it before he created the tree.

But in what you're suggesting, God doesn't know everything, either because he can't know, or if he chooses not to know. In these scenario's, I'm wondering what kind of game this version of God is playing. Is God unable to lie, or does he choose not to lie?

He's God..............................................

That's not an answer, it's evasion. It's akin to saying, "there is no God", "how do you know?", "Because I said there was no God." IMO.

I wasn't talking about the Christian faith or some other traditional religious faith. I was talking about those whose faith is in the ultimate triumph of science. I won't ask for evidence because I recognize it is simply held on faith and much of the modern world shares it with you. That so many think the same way adds to its feeling inconceivable that it isn't true. Science is useful for some things but will never tell us who we are, what our purpose is or how to live a good life. All of that is simply beyond the remit of science.

But I don't rush in to upset anyone's faith. If you feel that to be your path, good luck.

Firstly - I have stressed before in this thread - I am not attempting, in any way, to "upset anyone's faith". I am discussing various topics and aspects that interest me, and that is all. I am asking questions, and drawing conclusions on what I'm reading. If someone devoutly believes in God, then nothing I'm writing is intended to dissuade them. Perhaps they're simply more enlightened than me, more knowledgeable. I'm not saying there is no God, I'm saying I have not seen any evidence of God.

Of course, as the discussion goes on, I find an increasing number of questions, but be sure, there is no pleasure or gain on my part from getting people to question their faith, and in fact I'd be astonished if a forum post such as this had the power to change a mind, let alone that I would personally. We simply don't have all the answers, and neither do believers, imo.

I do appreciate that questioning these things might bother some, but I think it's just a natural discourse.

STILL, I'LL SAY THIS: IS SOMEONE, ANYONE, READING THIS THREAD DESIRES ME TO STOP IN MY LINE OF INQUIRY, THEN I ASK THAT THEY PM ME ASKING ME TO STOP. JUST THAT, SEND A MESSAGE SAYING, "IT BOTHERS ME, PLEASE STOP". IN RETURN, I WILL DO SO. I WILL DO SO WITHOUT NAMING WHO SENT THE MESSAGE AND WITHOUT REPLYING.

I don't think I can be fairer than that. I'm actually desperate not to upset people over this issue.

As for what science can and can't address - science is a very human activity. It's built upon our natural curiosity. We have big and fundamental questions, and there are indeed things we both don't know, and perhaps can't know. The question is, can we not know because things are truly unknowable, or because our feeble animal brains simply can't understand something? Whichever it is, science builds upon the findings of the past, it grows. Science is merely a process. The rest is someones brain curiously wondering.......

Obviously, spirit is power used in the service of the creator's will. You demand a detailed explanation or description of what it is in order to believe in it yet you don't demand it in relation to dark matter or dark energy.

Why do you assert this? What makes you think I'm not curious about Dark Matter or Dark Energy? We simply don't yet know what Dark Matter is. It appears to be a particle that interacts with our universe in only one way - gravitational pull. This is very strange, and we've not been able to replicate it in particle colliders or other experiments. Which is why there is considerable research into understanding it. So yes, I'd like a detailed description of Dark Matter - I just don't have it yet. It might not be known in my life time.

That said - I believe there is an explanation. I believe there is an answer. Our not understanding it is an inconvenient truth.

Instead you accept their existence based on what your scientists glibly tell you based on observe observations. This is the identical explanation provided in reference to spirit. Yet you choose one over the other? So once again, just as in the case of the DNA code, you are guilty of double standards or an inconsistency of policy. As for manipulation, he initiated the Big Bang. Does that qualify as manipulation?

Glibly? How is it glibly? Do you not think there are scientists who passionately want to understand Dark Matter? That don't dedicate a large part of their lives to find out? We know, for a fact, there is space between things, and that space seems to have an overall effect in our universe. This is easily observed. What we lack, is a full explanation.

As for spirit, what is it? Give me some details. The spirit, as generally thought, seems to be everything about us that's not physical. It's a construct aiming to define our inner selves, our consciousness. Fine. So how can we experiment to prove the hypothesis? It's that simple. I accept we have an "inner voice", for want of a better phrase, but I don't accept it's predicated on a God. Why does having a spirit, suggest the existence of a God?

as in the case of the DNA code, you are guilty of double standards or an inconsistency of policy. As for manipulation, he initiated the Big Bang. Does that qualify as manipulation?

What double standard? What inconsistency? DNA is chemical. What about it suggests a God? It's an evolutionary mechanism that prevailed. There may have once been other mechanisms, but they did not survive. Who knows? Parts of our physical being influences the physical beings we create (our children). It does this through replication. That simply makes sense. Sadly, DNA can be damaged, with horrendous effect. So I'd have a question for a God - why did you create a system (DNA) that is flawed? It's at the cellular level, so can't be about free will or sin, surely?

As for the big bang, frankly it's the believers who have the inconsistency. Again I state - we always see the "what was there before the big bang" argument, or the "how did something come from nothing" statement. Well, those questions hold true for both science and God. Where was God before the universe was created? What did he create the big bang from? If there was truly, and absolutely nothing - how could God have existed?

Psychotherapy deals with this very issue of uncovering flawed thinking that causes personal turmoil. It's what logic and science does as it attempts to explain rationally how things are, even if we would rather it be otherwise.

This is fascinating. I spent my whole working life working for corporations both big and small. But I worked for major international banks, oil companies, web hosting environments, and so on. I played the game and did my thing. I committed my life toward it. It was not simply something I did as a job, it was a belief in what I was doing. I worked for a large software company in senior management, and we demanded a minimum of 25% growth every year on a five year plan to sell.

Yet you'll find me on these forums complaining about big business, and railing against capitalist concepts. Isn't that hypocritical of me? Yes, and no. In the big picture, yes. But then again, I have learned. I now accept that some of the things I was involved in had no real value other than generating cash. That people were pushed beyond their limits to meet goals. It all made sense at the time, but at this time of my life I'm reflecting, examining my life - and I was pushed along by the moment and rallying cry of others. Life is sure tough!

 

[JustDave]

Your implied solution for my "flawed thinking" and "personal turmoil" contradicts the deep peace that meditation can assist and the connection with nature that my garden and the surrounding woodlands so wonderfully permit. What is missing is the respect of my fellow human beings for what I genuinely enjoy and learn from, for the interconnectedness of life, even for the soil beneath our feet, teeming with life, which for many is just dirt. Expanding your mind to see this incredible manifestation could help you better than psychotherapy. Try it and see!

I wasn't even talking about you, but you are taking it as a personal insult. However, on a personal level, I can't follow your reasoning well enough to understand what you are talking about. All I get is a sense that I have offended you.

 

[JustDave]

God, the Source, is ineffable!

But that doesn't stop people from describing him in detail.

 

[Mr. Ed]

As individuals everyone perceives things differently, so is it wrong to have a different perception of god? What is wrong is trying to convince somebody to fit in to another person’s mode of thinking. My point is what is your purpose for arguing? What do you hope to achieve with this discourse?

Suppose,hypotheticlly, your opponent concedes to you, what have you gained? More importantly, what has your opponent lost and do you feel superior to your opponent? Why?

 

[MarkD]

But that doesn't stop people from describing him in detail.

I wonder if that is because language evolved for practical purposes and just isn’t equipped for god talk but not everyone would recognize its limitations. Plus, as with QM, people want to be helpful by sharing their understanding and by trying to answer clarifying questions. While these concepts are slippery a lot of the verbiage results from the effort to wrestle with them anyway.

 

[JustDave]

I wonder if that is because language evolved for practical purposes and just isn’t equipped for god talk but not everyone would recognize its limitations. Plus, as with QM, people want to be helpful by sharing their understanding and by trying to answer clarifying questions. While these concepts are slippery a lot of the verbiage results from the effort to wrestle with them anyway.

This is a problem for theists to resolve if they want to convert non-believers.

 

[MarkD]

This is a problem for theists to resolve if they want to convert non-believers.

I’ve no interest in conversion. Very pro free will. You make your choices, you get what you get.

But it isn’t a problem to be solved. It just has to be understood for what it is by anyone interested in the questions.

 

[Radrook]

It is easy to tie yourself into knots trying to pick apart topics such as these.

I am perfectly happy to entertain the idea that Jesus was simply a man, and not part of a triune godhead. If I see him as a first century travelling prophet with a message that was the antithesis of the culture of Rome, a man who hated the way the Jewish religion discriminated against the blind and the lame, and who was compassionate towards the outcasts, it does not change my desire to follow the path that he preached.

I am a woman who has found "the peace that surpasses all understanding" and I am not at all fussed about my eventual demise. Heaven and Hell have no meaning for me, but life on this planet is a gift that should not be taken for granted.

Jesus didn't claim to be God almighty.

Mark 10:18
17As Jesus started on His way, a man ran up and knelt before Him. “Good Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 18 “Why do you call Me good?” Jesus replied. “No one is good except God alone.

 

[MarkD]

My point is what is your purpose for arguing? What do you hope to achieve with this discourse?

I don’t think of arguments as coercive intrinsically. I know I have no goal that entails getting others to share my view. I prefer a discussion where people openly share how things seem to them and why. One should hope to learn something that will enhance one’s own understanding but if only the other person gets such a gain that is still a good result.

 

[JustDave]

I’ve no interest in conversion. Very pro free will. You make your choices, you get what you get.

But it isn’t a problem to be solved. It just has to be understood for what it is by anyone interested in the questions.

I do not think you have an interest in conversion. It's just that those who do, need to understand that it is a problem for them to solve, or better yet, come to grips that it's not their target's problem to solve.

 

[Radrook]

As for the big bang, frankly it's the believers who have the inconsistency. Again I state - we always see the "what was there before the big bang" argument, or the "how did something come from nothing" statement. Well, those questions hold true for both science and God. Where was God before the universe was created? What did he create the big bang from? If there was truly, and absolutely nothing - how could God have existed?

Something was not created from nothing. Where did you derive that idea from? God has power and used that power to create. We are told that repeatedly and it is a very simple concept.

“Raise your eyes high up and see. Who has created these things? . . . Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one of them is missing.”—Isa. 40:26.

You seem to suffer from an inability to imagine power as existing apart from matter, and incapable of imagining what that power was. That's because you are bound to a material universe and know nothing apart from the material.

The creator was in a realm called heaven which is not part of the material realm he created. Strange! You believe in other dimensions-right? Well, just view heaven as another dimension. .


About Dark Matter and Dark Energy

You acknowledge the existence of dark energy and dark matter although they have not been detected directly- but only because of their effects. That is the same reason why we accept the existence of a creator, because of the effects that his existence has on matter. So why is your conclusion logical and acceptable, and our conclusion is not?

No, there was never truly nothing. If indeed there had truly been absolutely nothing, then things could not have come on to existence. That's why atheists have cunningly come up with their own definition for nothing which goes completely contrary to the dictionary definition.

Yes, for us humans who always observe a previous cause for what exists, we assume that anything in existence must be subject to that rule. However, logically, the very existence of the universe demands an uncaused cause. Why? Simple: Because otherwise nothingness would eternally prevail. Also, all available evidence indicates that the uncaused cause is intelligent and had both the power and the intelligence needed to create our universe.

power
pow·er ˈpau̇(-ə)r

(1)
: ability to act or produce an effect

No, we humans don't know the exact nature of that power nor, the exact manner in which the creator used that power. But that a power, or a mover, was necessary is obvious, and all available evidence indicates that power was used. That is undeniable, just as the existence of your dark energy and your dark matter is in undeniable despite your total inability to explain exactly what they are, or exactly how they work.

In short, there is absolutely no basis for criticizing the theistic conclusion as irrational while describing yours in reference to dark matter and energies rational since they both employ the same logic.

Neither does a stubborn refusal to reason constitute a rebuttal of any argument. Instead, it merely indicates a preference to deny the obvious in order to avoid a futile effort at refuting what is being deemed as irrefutable. Nothing more.

BTW Such a tactic is called invincible ignorance.

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

Invincible ignorance fallacy - Wikipedia

Also, DNA being a chemical does not disqualify it from being a code needing a coding mind. It is flawed you say? Well, that doesn't prove that it is not coded information, now does it? It might prove that the coder made mistakes. Or that the code has degraded over time due to the reasons that the Bible provides and which you reject. But it remains a code, and that is the issue that you keep evading for very obvious reasons.

 

[Mitch86]

I listen a lot to songs about Christ but am sure the only life changes which happen to us are BIRTH and DEATH none of which are controlled by any God whether He exists or not!

 

[VaughanJB]

Something was not created from nothing. Where did you derive that idea from? God has power and used that power to create. We are told that repeatedly and it is a very simple concept.

I never said *I* believed that - read my post again (it's only three miles long). Still, are you saying you have never heard someone use that reasoning before? It comes up a lot! As for the "concept", yes, that's very simple. It's also preposterous and does nothing to explain the phenomena. You're essentially saying, "God was able to create so he did," which does nothing to address the origin of matter. It's a non-answer, it's a brush off.

You seem to suffer from an inability to imagine power as existing apart from matter, and incapable of imagining what that power was. That's because you are bound to a material universe and know nothing apart from the material.

The creator was in a realm called heaven which is not part of the material realm he created. Strange! You believe in other dimensions-right? Well, just view heaven as another dimension. .

I have never seen evidence of it, therefore there is no reason to believe it. It's not that I'm incapable, I simply demand a level of evidence which appears to be beyond your God belief. Which, when you think about it, is the root of the problem. I suppose - just guessing - the whole creation thing is part of your blind faith?

You seem to suffer from an inability to imagine power as existing apart from matter, and incapable of imagining what that power was. That's because you are bound to a material universe and know nothing apart from the material.

The creator was in a realm called heaven which is not part of the material realm he created. Strange! You believe in other dimensions-right? Well, just view heaven as another dimension. .

I know the concept of other dimensions, but other than mathematical models I've yet to see evidence of other worlds in other dimensions.

You acknowledge the existence of dark energy and dark matter although they have not been detected directly- but only because of their effects. That is the same reason why we accept the existence of a creator, because of the effects that his existence has on matter. So why is your conclusion logical and acceptable, and our conclusion is not?

It's not the same thing at all. There is evidence that can be measured, and models that replicate, the existence of dark matter. We can measure its effects. We just don't yet know what it is (they're building ever better particle colliders to find out). This is not the same as simply saying, "there's a God because a book says so". We know dark matter is a thing, because it interacts directly with our universe, and therefore us. God, as far as I can see, does not.

No, there was never truly nothing. If indeed there had truly been absolutely nothing, then things could not have come on to existence. That's why atheists have cunningly come up with their own definition for nothing which goes completely contrary to the dictionary definition.

That is not how words and language works.

Further, have you ever discussed this with people in a scientific field? I've never yet read, watched, or spoken to a single one that believes something came from nothing. The "something can't come from nothing" argument, in my experience, is used by theists to dismiss the concept of the big bang. The actual answer, as I understand it today, is that we're never had the "nothing" to examine, study, and experiment with. We don't know its nature - therefore, there's a huge gap in our knowledge.

The universe is a big place. Even today with our satellites in space taking wonderful pictures, it's important to acknowledge, THEY can't see the entire universe. They can only see the visible universe, that is the part that is illuminated to us. But there's likely more to it than that. it's just that the light from them has yet to each us.

Yes, for us humans who always observe a previous cause for what exists, we assume that anything in existence must be subject to that rule. However, logically, the very existence of the universe demands an uncaused cause. Why? Simple: Because otherwise nothingness would eternally prevail. Also, all available evidence indicates that the uncaused cause is intelligent and had both the power and the intelligence needed to create our universe.

Not "cause" exactly, sometimes it's a simple interaction. But yes, everything has an origin. Even your God.

I do not believe you are thinking logically. Could you explain why "the very existence of the universe demands an uncaused cause". Why "uncaused"? I think use of the word "caused" is an issue here. If you mean origin, or interaction, then fine. But "cause" I find problematic. It insinuates more than we know, imo.

Also, all available evidence indicates that the uncaused cause is intelligent and had both the power and the intelligence needed to create our universe.

No. all available evidence does not indicate this. Intelligence is not required for the big bang to happen. For all we know, it was the interaction of...... something. I can't speculate, because we simple don't know. There are theories, many many theories, one of which is there being a God. If by power you mean energy - yes, that's required. Intelligence? No.

No, we humans don't know the exact nature of that power nor, the exact manner in which the creator used that power. But that a power, or a mover, was necessary is obvious, and all available evidence indicates that power was used. That is undeniable, just as the existence of your dark energy and your dark matter is in undeniable despite your total inability to explain exactly what they are, or exactly how they work.

No, it's not obvious. What "available evidence" are you talking about? Again, do you simply mean energy?

By the way, if I could describe what Dark Matter was, I'd get a Nobel Prize. No-one alive today can categorically say what it is. We must separate theory from fact. We must separate belief from evidential truths. We see the effect dark matter has - we just can't fully explain it yet. Something is there, something has a gravitational pull. That's very real evidence of something. Whereas you've neither offered measurable evidence for a God, let alone a God with powers great enough to create the universe. There is no such evidence, other than blind theory.

In short, there is absolutely no basis for criticizing the theistic conclusion as irrational while describing yours in reference to dark matter and energies rational since they both employ the same logic.

I'm not criticizing, I'm having a discussion expressing my opinion and replying to the posts of others. You again use the word "logic", but you don't use any yourself. As I'm explained multiple times, we have evidence of Dark Matter - whatever that turns out to be. It seems to be a new particle, but we simply don't know. Something is there - because we can measure its effect. How do I measure your God?

Neither does a stubborn refusal to reason constitute a rebuttal of any argument. Instead, it merely indicates a preference to deny the obvious in order to avoid a futile effort at refuting what is being deemed as irrefutable. Nothing more.

BTW Such a tactic is called invincible ignorance.

Stubborn refusal? I have asked for evidence. I've yet to be provided with any, I've yet to see any. I'm not going to start believing in a God because of "logic" I cannot fathom, and blind faith. Sorry, that's not how I interact with the world, nor think.

And let's not get into labeling. If you have a question, then ask it. If you don't understand, ask for clarification. That's how we learn.

BTW - what you're expressing here is known as a belief in "God of the Gaps".


I sense you're getting a little angsty with this post, and I hope it doesn't go in that direction as it's not helpful. I don't feel at all angsty about believers. I'm happy for them to believe, and if I find evidence of a God, I'll believe too! The trouble is, I have a lot of questions, and find no comfort in blind faith.

 

[Paco Dennis]

Why DO we believe in God? To go to Heaven?

 

[Mitch86]

Are they, birth and death, just random occurrences @Mitch86?

If they are then all events must be random. Eh?

All events are random. We are born, we win and lose in life and then we die. Everything is random.

 

[rbtvgo]

Wrong about what? I've posted in several previous posts that l am a believer and do talk to God. I really appreciate that you responded. You are definitely not a fool.

your doing fine. Argue fight, disagree. It's all okay. It's hard to believe that He speaks to us as individuals and answers are questions. With all the people that talk to him.....he finds us and answers are questions. Can't comphehend God but trust him with my life.

 

[Radrook]

I never said *I* believed that - read my post again (it's only three miles long). Still, are you saying you have never heard someone use that reasoning before? It comes up a lot! As for the "concept", yes, that's very simple. It's also preposterous and does nothing to explain the phenomena. You're essentially saying, "God was able to create so he did," which does nothing to address the origin of matter. It's a non-answer, it's a brush off.



I have never seen evidence of it, therefore there is no reason to believe it. It's not that I'm incapable, I simply demand a level of evidence which appears to be beyond your God belief. Which, when you think about it, is the root of the problem. I suppose - just guessing - the whole creation thing is part of your blind faith?



I know the concept of other dimensions, but other than mathematical models I've yet to see evidence of other worlds in other dimensions.



It's not the same thing at all. There is evidence that can be measured, and models that replicate, the existence of dark matter. We can measure its effects. We just don't yet know what it is (they're building ever better particle colliders to find out). This is not the same as simply saying, "there's a God because a book says so". We know dark matter is a thing, because it interacts directly with our universe, and therefore us. God, as far as I can see, does not.



That is not how words and language works.

Further, have you ever discussed this with people in a scientific field? I've never yet read, watched, or spoken to a single one that believes something came from nothing. The "something can't come from nothing" argument, in my experience, is used by theists to dismiss the concept of the big bang. The actual answer, as I understand it today, is that we're never had the "nothing" to examine, study, and experiment with. We don't know its nature - therefore, there's a huge gap in our knowledge.

The universe is a big place. Even today with our satellites in space taking wonderful pictures, it's important to acknowledge, THEY can't see the entire universe. They can only see the visible universe, that is the part that is illuminated to us. But there's likely more to it than that. it's just that the light from them has yet to each us.




Not "cause" exactly, sometimes it's a simple interaction. But yes, everything has an origin. Even your God.

I do not believe you are thinking logically. Could you explain why "the very existence of the universe demands an uncaused cause". Why "uncaused"? I think use of the word "caused" is an issue here. If you mean origin, or interaction, then fine. But "cause" I find problematic. It insinuates more than we know, imo.



No. all available evidence does not indicate this. Intelligence is not required for the big bang to happen. For all we know, it was the interaction of...... something. I can't speculate, because we simple don't know. There are theories, many many theories, one of which is there being a God. If by power you mean energy - yes, that's required. Intelligence? No.



No, it's not obvious. What "available evidence" are you talking about? Again, do you simply mean energy?

By the way, if I could describe what Dark Matter was, I'd get a Nobel Prize. No-one alive today can categorically say what it is. We must separate theory from fact. We must separate belief from evidential truths. We see the effect dark matter has - we just can't fully explain it yet. Something is there, something has a gravitational pull. That's very real evidence of something. Whereas you've neither offered measurable evidence for a God, let alone a God with powers great enough to create the universe. There is no such evidence, other than blind theory.



I'm not criticizing, I'm having a discussion expressing my opinion and replying to the posts of others. You again use the word "logic", but you don't use any yourself. As I'm explained multiple times, we have evidence of Dark Matter - whatever that turns out to be. It seems to be a new particle, but we simply don't know. Something is there - because we can measure its effect. How do I measure your God?



Stubborn refusal? I have asked for evidence. I've yet to be provided with any, I've yet to see any. I'm not going to start believing in a God because of "logic" I cannot fathom, and blind faith. Sorry, that's not how I interact with the world, nor think.

And let's not get into labeling. If you have a question, then ask it. If you don't understand, ask for clarification. That's how we learn.

BTW - what you're expressing here is known as a belief in "God of the Gaps".


I sense you're getting a little angsty with this post, and I hope it doesn't go in that direction as it's not helpful. I don't feel at all angsty about believers. I'm happy for them to believe, and if I find evidence of a God, I'll believe too! The trouble is, I have a lot of questions, and find no comfort in blind faith.

Well, since your response is to totally ignore counter arguments by declaring a total inability to see or to perceive the relevance of what I say, or else ignore the counterarguments altogether, and using straw man, via a constant misrepresentation of what I say, erroneous assumptions of what I believe, assumptions of ignorance about things that are common knowledge, as well as being inconsistent in your application of criteria, then there is really no logical point in continuing this discussion since that would constitute an exercise in futility. So lets just say that we disagree and leave it at that.

Examples of your creating straw men:

I never claimed to believe in a creator because a book says so.

I don't believe in a creator based on scientific gaps.

My belief in a creator isn't base on blind faith.

So you are definitely not describing me.

​