How Can Anyone Believe in God?

[snex]

No.
The concept of the idea does exist. Try again. Existence has never implied truth or falsehood.

then your definition was wrong. i gave you something that can be used as a predicate. therefore, UNDER YOUR DEFINITION, it must exist. yet above you assert that it doesnt. you contradict yourself.

When you make an reductio ad absurdum, you take my definition as a premise. In other words, you assume that it is the correct definition. When you defend your argument against any other argument, you either attack the premises or the conclusion. I cannot attack the premise, therefore I must attack your conclusions. Both of you have latched onto the word incoherent and have thrown it around. Stop.

your definition has been shown to be incoherent. you said that anything that can be used as a predicate exists. i presented you with something that can be used as a predicate, and YOU YOURSELF said it doesnt exist. you contradicted yourself and therefore your definition is incoherent.

got any more? ill be happy to show why they are incoherent as well.

 

[yossarian22]

then your definition was wrong. i gave you something that can be used as a predicate. therefore, UNDER YOUR DEFINITION, it must exist. yet above you assert that it doesnt. you contradict yourself.

Did you read the post at all?
Or did you just not get it

You said "I have object X that is a predicate and excludes and includes property Y" (paraphrased)

Great. You have shown that the concept of X exists. That is it. I do not deny that the concept of object X exists. It clearly does. I can think about it. Hell, we are talking about it now.

your definition has been shown to be incoherent. you said that anything that can be used as a predicate exists.

True. But you have not used object X itself as a predicate. You have used the concept of object X as a predicate. Until you stop referring to object X through a proxy, you have no case. But you can't refer to X without a proxy. Hence, X does not exist, but the concept of X does.

Try again.

 

[snex]

Did you read the post at all?
Or did you just not get it

You said "I have object X that is a predicate and excludes and includes property Y" (paraphrased)

Great. You have shown that the concept of X exists. That is it. I do not deny that the concept of object X exists. It clearly does. I can think about it. Hell, we are talking about it now.


True. But you have not used object X itself as a predicate. You have used the concept of object X as a predicate. Until you stop referring to object X through a proxy, you have no case. But you can't refer to X without a proxy. Hence, X does not exist, but the concept of X does.

Try again.

you arent making sense. your definition has nothing to do with differentiating between concepts and physical objects. under your definition, all objects that can be used as predicates exist, PERIOD. there is nothing in there about "concepts of objects." you are just trying to evade the blatant contradiction in your definition.

 

[yossarian22]

you arent making sense. your definition has nothing to do with differentiating between concepts and physical objects. under your definition, all objects that can be used as predicates exist, PERIOD.

Uh, duh
A shame that there is a very real difference between the concept of a car and a Corvette.

 

[snex]

Uh, duh
A shame that there is a very real difference between the concept of a car and a Corvette.

which does nothing to address the point. under your definition, contradictions EXIST. not just concepts of contradictions, contradictions themselves. my object X is not a concept. it is an object.

 

[yossarian22]

which does nothing to address the point. under your definition, contradictions EXIST.

Again, no **** sherlock.

If contradictions as a concept did not exist, what are we talking about? That is all you have shown. You need to show that there actually is an object X that is both blue and not blue (or any other descriptor). You have just shown that the concept exists because you are forced to refer X via proxy.

 

[snex]

i dont need to show that the object exists. the fact that i can discuss it means it exists UNDER YOUR DEFINITION. no further showing is necessary. thats why your definition is hooey.

 

[AltF4]

Yes, Yossarian. Unless you're going to backtrack on what you've said previously, I don't see how this isn't either a blatant contradiction or a flagrant abuse of terminology.


You said anything which can be used as a predicate exists. Snex says he has an object X. Not the concept of an object, the object itself, which happens to also have property Y.

That object MUST then exist under your definition. NOT just the concept of it. But if property Y is : "does not exist", then we have a clear contradiction. Object X neither exists nor doesn't exist.


The only way out is for you to claim (as you have been doing) that it's not the object which exists, but the "idea of the object" which exists. Which brings me to my point:

Your definition serves only to confuse the topic. You try desperately to bring any conversation which you are in to meaningless semantic bickering. We are all trying to have a conversation about what it means to exist, in the context of asking the question "does god exist". And you come in here with some BS definition which you explain poorly and winds up degenerating into merely asserting that the CONCEPT exists.

Well, congratulations on missing the entire purpose of the conversation. No **** the concept of god exists. That's not what anyone but you is talking about. Clearly when we're asking the question "does god exist" we're using a definition of existence that is very different than the existence that "ideas" have.

 

[Kur]

You try desperately to bring any conversation which you are in to meaningless semantic bickering.

Quoted for truth.

 

[~L~]

I do not see this going much farther...But I'll add what I have to say anyway.

"In the beggining,God created the Heavens and the earth."
God is in control. God is all loving,BUT God is also all Holy. All Just. And all Perfect. God gave Adam the choice to obey God or sin against him. God and Adam talked almost similar to how we talk even. "He walked with God"

Adam must have known what the consequences would be on posterity should he fail in his simple duty to God.

The reason somewhat good people burn in Hell is because "somewhat" isn't good enough. God without Christ to protect us is an "all consuming fire". Anyone less than absolutly perfect(as Adam was perfect) would simply cease to exist.

Thanks be to God that God the Son came down and took unto himself a human body and soul,lived perfectly,died and rose again for sinners. He is our only mediator.

Even the perfect angels hide their faces in his presence.(as hinted at in Exodus during the building of the Tabernacle)

After the first sin,all creation was cursed,and is to remain cursed until the ressurection. Bad things happen because it's a sinfull world,full of sinfull people doing sinfull things.

Bad things happen to people who sin grievously,because God is punishing them.

Bad things happen to Christians when God is testing their faith or preparing them for some larger duty. They are also punished for their sins.

Evolution is NOT science. It never was and never will be. Show me 3 evidences of evolution.
Evolutionary science Must have progressed far enough to give me AT LEAST 3.

Or a missing link? Or fossil of a missing link? Thousands upon thousands of species of animals,living and dying on a planet that according to evolutionists is billions and billions of years old. BUT, there is no missing links. Not billions,nor thousands. No,not even ONE.

Science is observation,hypothesizing,and then experimentation. You can't observe something that happens so slowly that it doesn't seem to be happening at all. Every experiment so far to create life from non life has failed. What does that leave? "The guess".

Creation or Evolution.
Either way,it's simply belief. Do you believe there is a God who created everything and every one and is watching every single thing you do? Waiting for you to come to him?

Or do you believe that somehow,a very very long time ago,there was a gigantic explosion? We don't know where the energy for that explosion came from,nor do we know how said explosion caused an expansion of space and created matter,energy,time,and physics.

And then after a very long while,particles went from dust to the universe we see today.
We some how ended up close enough to the sun to not freeze,but far enough away to avoid incineration. We think(tho evolutionists have never have proved it) molecules came together to form a protein. And then Proteins came together to make a cell. All the way up through to monkeys and us.

Which sounds more believable to you? I know which one does to me.

This is a reply to the original post.
Thank you for reading.

 

[Deleted member]

*rolls eyes*

A message to the die-hards in this thread that have been with it since its creation:

If this thread is going to be revived, I motion that you stick to the previous tangent that we were currently on before tackling L's really easy target.

 

[GhostAnime]

you say there isn't a single evidence of evolution? that's probably because you don't want to learn any.

Science is observation,hypothesizing,and then experimentation. You can't observe something that happens so slowly that it doesn't seem to be happening at all.

but you can look at fossils. you can look at the embryology. it's pretty much more than a guess. you'll never see pluto orbit the sun but we know it will.

Every experiment so far to create life from non life has failed.

this has nothing to do with evolution.

Or do you believe that somehow,a very very long time ago,there was a gigantic explosion? We don't know where the energy for that explosion came from,nor do we know how said explosion caused an expansion of space and created matter,energy,time,and physics

you should probably learn more about the big bang before criticizing it.

 

[AltF4]

Sweet god, ~L~. Lose that dark green font. I can't read a thing you write. I'm not going to strain my eyes for that!

 

[RDK]

My God, how do these people get let into the Debate Hall?

Or do you believe that somehow,a very very long time ago,there was a gigantic explosion? We don't know where the energy for that explosion came from,nor do we know how said explosion caused an expansion of space and created matter,energy,time,and physics.

Whether or not evolutin exists (which it does) has nothing to do with the Big Bang whatsoever. That's a completely different subject, and you're meshing the two together as if evolution depends on the Big Bang, which is a common Christian mistake.

And then after a very long while,particles went from dust to the universe we see today.
We some how ended up close enough to the sun to not freeze,but far enough away to avoid incineration.

See the Anthropic Principle. Our Earth, being able to support life, would have never been observable to be able to do so if it hadn't been able to support life. That's why it seems so unique.

We think(tho evolutionists have never have proved it) molecules came together to form a protein. And then Proteins came together to make a cell. All the way up through to monkeys and us.

Please do more research besides looking through Answers in Genesis.

Which sounds more believable to you? I know which one does to me.

As do I.

 

[lonejedi]

I haven't really said anything lately in this debate, because it's almost a meaningless argument, people have their beliefs, and it's hard for someone who is a Christian to debate something like this because most of what they are using as a source is the Bible, and of course athiests aren't going to accept that as a credible source. But the title of this thread is How can anyone believe in God? I'll tell you why I believe, I could careless if you think Im an ignorant loser who clings to something because his mommy says so. I've made the decision to believe not because my parents taught me this, but because I want to, so anyway on to why I believe.

When I was born, my mom had complications in birth. She was having intense bleeding, and they had to take me out real fast so I wasn't harmed during the birth. The bleeding kept happening, and happening. It didn't look good at all. My dad began to pray, pray for my mom, healing in her body. He prayed for hours, not wanting to lose his wife. It ends up my mom recovers, and everything is fine. But one of the nurses later told my mom she thought she was going to die.

I've seen other miracles in my life, healings in my life in front of me. You didn't see it, you weren't there. You can try to convince me all that you want that it didn't happen, that it was just people trying to fool me into believing what I believe. But I know what I saw.

You can believe what you want to, no ones forcing you to, but when people go around bashing what I believe in, and then whining when people try to share their beliefs with them, I see that as being just as ignorant. It's a free country, if someone tries to witness to you, you have the right to say you're not interested, but just because someone was doing something they believed was right, doesn't give you the right to bash them and call them stupid, ignorant, and dumb.

 

[~L~]

I'm leaving for awhile

I wrote my point far too late at night. I wrote it in haste which is foolish in a place such as this.

As far as fossils go Ghost Anime,there is not one recorded instance of a fossil being discovered in the transistion phase that wasn't proven to be a hoax.

I drop my argument for now. The next time I post in this debate hall,it will be accurate,and include the neccessary information to support it.

 

[derek.haines]

When I was born, my mom had complications in birth. She was having intense bleeding, and they had to take me out real fast so I wasn't harmed during the birth. The bleeding kept happening, and happening. It didn't look good at all. My dad began to pray, pray for my mom, healing in her body. He prayed for hours, not wanting to lose his wife. It ends up my mom recovers, and everything is fine. But one of the nurses later told my mom she thought she was going to die.

I've seen other miracles in my life, healings in my life in front of me. You didn't see it, you weren't there. You can try to convince me all that you want that it didn't happen, that it was just people trying to fool me into believing what I believe. But I know what I saw.

I'm not going to disagree with you there, actually. I'm what alot of people would classify as a "hardcore atheist", but even I'm not snooty enough to think that we know of the machinations that drive our living world. There are simply things out there that we do not understand, nor will we likely ever. I do, however, disagree with the idea that a single all-powerful Morgan Freeman-like being randomly appeared and decided to create all of existence. As it so happens, I also disagree with the Big Bang Theory, because it also requires the suspension of belief that where once there was nothing there suddenly existed something.

So, to present my answer to the question of "How Can Anyone Believe in God?"... Well, it's easy to do so. It doesn't require any difficult explanations, merely belief. It explains all of existence with a single all-consuming concept, and therein lie the origins of religion as we know it. Religions originally came into being in an effort to explain what they could not otherwise. Why does the Sun rise? "The Gods." What makes the tides? "The Gods." It's an easy fix, and one that the uneducated peoples of the early world would have easily accepted. We've come far from those times, however, and we can explain why those things happen, which has essentially killed off our need for religion as it has classically existed.

 

[AltF4]

Lonejedi:

I do, in fact, respect others' beliefs far more when they are not simply due to them being the same as their parents'. So if that is true, then kudos.

But really, the issue I've always had with miracle healing is that it invariably only occurs in a situation where other, more logical, explanations can be applied. It is always a case of internal bleeding, or internal cancer, never something blatantly obvious. Without even trying to discredit your experiences...

I've mentioned this before, but why does god hate amputees? People pray for healing all the time. And some (such as yourself) say that god will sometimes answer their prayers and heal the ailing person. Why then has an amputee never once ever gotten a missing limb back from god? Surely millions of people have lost limbs and virtually all of them will pray for the limbs to return. Yet not one ever has.

Why does god hate amputees?

As it so happens, I also disagree with the Big Bang Theory, because it also requires the suspension of belief that where once there was nothing there suddenly existed something.

jeez, this is like the 4th time I've seen this misconception posted in the last week. This is not true. Your high school teacher lied to you. The universe never just popped into existence mysteriously, that is not how the big bang actually works.

 

[RDK]

As far as fossils go Ghost Anime,there is not one recorded instance of a fossil being discovered in the transistion phase that wasn't proven to be a hoax.

Anyone want to take this one?

 

[derek.haines]

jeez, this is like the 4th time I've seen this misconception posted in the last week. This is not true. Your high school teacher lied to you. The universe never just popped into existence mysteriously, that is not how the big bang actually works.

I'm well aware of how it "works", I just don't buy it. There simply had to have existed a time in the history of the universe where there was nothing. Then, there was something--be it raw elements, dark matter, or even the laws of physics. To believe otherwise is to be presenting the idea that something just sort of existed without any sort of genesis--which is unfeasible. I'm not claiming to be a Big Bang physicist here, but this is an actual, identified scientific problem with the theory, it's not just me and my "high school teacher."

It's off topic, but you've succeeded in making me seek to explain myself so there's no misconceptions. I fully realize that random dust did not condense into an infinitely small point and explode. The nature of the theory says that "Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past" That's fine, but the keyword for me is 'finite'. For however long the pre-universe existed in this period, it only did exist for a time. I'm looking at the infinite nature of the universe, stretching back beyond that 'finite time in the past'. The fact of the matter is that spontaneously the seemingly empty expanse of nothing that was our pre-universe began doing things. Now, I understand that there are a great number of people much smarter than myself studying this matter, but I'm not alone in the absolute question of "why?".

 

[GhostAnime]

As far as fossils go Ghost Anime,there is not one recorded instance of a fossil being discovered in the transistion phase that wasn't proven to be a hoax.

.. what on earth are you talking about? what hoax?

 

[AltF4]

derek.haines:

Well, then obviously you don't understand. What you just explained is not the whole story. I grow weary of explaining this in depth at every turn, allow me to dig up an old quote of myself giving an explanation...

EDIT: Here we go.

That's fair. You can pretty much just google "Hawking no boundary" but here are some good ones.

Stephen Hawking's Website
Quotation number three from here. (Funny story)
Audio recording of a lecture by Hawking on the subject
The full thing with as much jargon as you can handle. (Start on page 223)

and "A Brief History of Time" (The Book)

 

[GhostAnime]

why does everybody link big bang to the 'beginning of the universe'? the big bang doesn't say that 'the universe began after an explosion'. it's similar to evolution on how things have progressed; not how they started.

 

[AltF4]

Umm, no I'm pretty sure the big bang deals with the origin of the universe, lol. If not, what else is it about?

 

[Crimson King]

Having all of no physics knowledge, doesn't the Big Bang Theory basically go on the idea that universe expands until it hits it's peak then contracts to a highly dense bundle and expand again? If that's the case, for all we know, the universe could have done this numerous times over. That's what's fun about science: we don't know, and when we learn, it's awesome. With religion, there is no discovery or exploration.

 

[derek.haines]

AltF4Warrior:

Those Hawking links were quite good, thank you. And your concise definition of the No Boundary Theory was quite informative, even if it doesn't explain my issue in the least bit. You did fine in explaining why there is no "edge" of the Universe, but not in explaining the speculative physics that governed leading up to the Big Bang. And here's why, straight out of Hawking's mouth:

"Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them."

It's really just easier for the acceptance of the Big Bang as a theory if one does not contemplate what took place before it, because we'll just never know. As a scientist this is fine because it makes the job a great deal easier, but for me as a person I do think about this. And there is no "right" answer so you can stop trying to prove me wrong. I understand the theory, I just enjoy thinking beyond it into that purely hypothetical space that few can wrap their brain around properly. It's for this reason that the science behind the Big Bang ignores the "before time", because it risks getting my philosophy in your science.

 

[AltF4]

That's one possible outcome, CK.

There are basically three things that can happen.

1) The universe has enough matter in it that the gravitational force will eventually pull everything back together just as you described.

2) The universe is too light and will keep on expanding indefinitely. Eventually all the stars will burn out, and the matter in the universe will keep on floating away from each other. It will just keep getting colder and colder until the entire universe is just bits of faint dust particles unfathomably far away from each other at temperatures barely in excess of absolute zero.

3) The amount of matter in the universe is just right! The universe will expand to a certain size and stay right there forever.


The funny part is: we can measure all of this, and the estimated amount of matter in the universe happens to be remarkably close to the "just right" number. So it's still too close to call in terms of what the eventual fate of the universe may be.

And EVEN STRANGER yet, is the relatively recent discovery that not only are galaxies all moving away from each other currently (universe is expanding) but it's accelerating! There appears to be some odd kind of force, pushing galaxies apart. No coherent explanation yet exists for this "dark force". (Astronomers apparently are big Star Wars geeks) So what we think we know about this subject may very well turn upside down in the near future.

Exciting!


derek.haines:

Yes, yes! Hawking is quite right! You see, if there were time before the big bang, there would be no way of knowing it. No information about previous events can have passed through the singularity. We have no information about if there was time before the big bang: thus we ignore it and cut the subject out of discussion entirely!

Doesn't this sound familiar! This is exactly what I was talking about in the falling tree thread. I think the problem you're having is assuming that there must have been time before the big bang. Yet this is not true. Don't be quick to assume that your intuition is correct, and then reject any science that seems to contradict what you already think you know.

 

[The Dinkoman]

People believe in God because that is what they were taught, when they were young, its what they believe in. To be told wrong about their culture, doesnt make them change. They cannot change what they already know. They can think it but they cannot change it. Its how the brain functions, it functions on what its learned and what it knows. What I'm getting at is don't try and change someone let that someone change himself/herself. I believe in miracles, you can tell me wrong on that but I will not change it, because it is what I learned and know.

 

[derek.haines]

Don't be quick to assume that your intuition is correct, and then reject any science that seems to contradict what you already think you know.

lol, I'm really not trying to assume anything, and most certainly I'm not assuming that MY intuition is correct. As I said, it's really all philosophy. It has no current scientific bearing, and so it's excised from scientific debate, but that's not to say that it's irrelevant. I most certainly think that it's worth discussing, just not within the context of pure science and mathematics.

I do apologize if it seemed as though I was "rejecting" anything. I'm actually a believer in the Big Bang (In hindsight, "disagree" was a bad term for it. Question is better.), I just tend to think about that portion of the theory that Hawking was (rightly) willing to ignore. If we spent all of our time attempting to mathematically calculate a period of time that did not apply the very laws of physics, we would never get anywhere.

 

[GhostAnime]

Umm, no I'm pretty sure the big bang deals with the origin of the universe, lol. If not, what else is it about?

what do you mean 'what else'? the only thing the big bang actually states is how the universe has progressed.

more at talkorigins.net

 

[derek.haines]

what do you mean 'what else'? the only thing the big bang actually states is how the universe has progressed.

more at talkorigins.net

To go beyond the Big Bang is to get into that philosophical space that we just got through discussing. Like Stephen Hawking said, we have no way of knowing what happened before, so it's scientifically irrelevant as the matter currently stands. It's just best to assume that the Big Bang constitutes the beginning of time.

 

[AltF4]

The best I can gather, GhostAnime, is that you're trying to drive in some inane wordy technicality. According to a lot of the research being done right now, there WAS no moment of creation. So I guess you could say in some respect that the big bang is not the topic of the origin of the universe since there wasn't one.

Is that what you're getting at? Because if so it's a stupid detail and a matter of semantics that you could have just come out and said. Instead of just insisting that the big bang doesn't concern the origin of the universe, which is at best misleading.

 

[cF=)]

Having all of no physics knowledge, doesn't the Big Bang Theory basically go on the idea that universe expands until it hits it's peak then contracts to a highly dense bundle and expand again? If that's the case, for all we know, the universe could have done this numerous times over. That's what's fun about science: we don't know, and when we learn, it's awesome. With religion, there is no discovery or exploration.

According to Einstein's general theory of relativity and the great space telescope Hubble, our universe is indeed expanding. Still, it's a mistake to include the Big Crunch theory in this scenario because it's far from being as believed by scientists compared to the Big Bang theory.

 

[Stroupes]

Ironically, I think some people believe in God because they don't want to go to Hell.
That's kind of the way I am, I half-way believe, and half-way don't.
I have a very logic-based mind, and I just can't see how any of the Bible can be credible, because I've never heard of any proof of the events of it happening.
Moreover, I do believe in God, but sometimes, I have to attribute that belief of fearing going to Hell.
To end, I don't think people should believe in God just because they fear going to Hell, OR because they think it's a ticket to Heaven.
If you believe in God, you should believe in GOD; you shouldn't concern yourself, right away, about going to either place.

 

[derek.haines]

I sincerely doubt that many people regard the Bible literally anymore, rather they just extract the message therein that becomes the foundation of Christianity.

 

[Kur]

I sincerely doubt that many people regard the Bible literally anymore, rather they just extract the message therein that becomes the foundation of Christianity.

And that is where you are wrong. A great many people take the bible as literally as they can. A great deal more take the Koran as a literal truth.

Something like 30% of Americans think the events in the old testament are an accurate history of the earth. That there really was a Noah who really did build an ark with two of every animal and all that.

 

[GhostAnime]

Like Stephen Hawking said, we have no way of knowing what happened before, so it's scientifically irrelevant as the matter currently stands. It's just best to assume that the Big Bang constitutes the beginning of time.

well, assuming this is fine but you must remember that it is still an assumption.

The best I can gather, GhostAnime, is that you're trying to drive in some inane wordy technicality.

no, i'm really not.

oh, and i'm curious about the studies you have on there being no creation point (purely out of curiosity though; i'm not really arguing for creation here).

but like i said, the big bang is a lot like evolution; it isn't meant to explain the beginning but rather the progression.

 

[Sudsy86_]

The best I can gather, GhostAnime, is that you're trying to drive in some inane wordy technicality. According to a lot of the research being done right now, there WAS no moment of creation.

What research can encompass that which isn't completely physical, Alt?

Wouldn't a creation timetable look something like : super-natural occurence ( motives taking action); then physical existence ( result)?

I'd love to see how scientists can validly explain how they could know this one way or the other.

 

[Byronman]

People believe in God because that is what they were taught, when they were young, its what they believe in. To be told wrong about their culture, doesnt make them change. They cannot change what they already know. They can think it but they cannot change it. Its how the brain functions, it functions on what its learned and what it knows. What I'm getting at is don't try and change someone let that someone change himself/herself. I believe in miracles, you can tell me wrong on that but I will not change it, because it is what I learned and know.

But just because that is what they are taught does not make them wrong (if that is what you were implying I'm sorry if it wasn't). I also believe that people can change. As they mature they should be able to make their own decisions about what they believe and what they think is real. I started to have doubts about my religion (and I hated going to church) as I got older but they are now long forgotten. I now practice my religion more than the average American Christian who just goes to church once or twice a year on Easter and Christmas.

I'd love to see how scientists can validly explain how they could know this one way or the other.

That would be interesting. How does one figure out how the Universe was created without being there.

 

[Johnthegalactic]

i have a question that I want answered!

Where matter came from, how did it come into existence?
Oh and, someone will reply like this of course, because they won't be able to come up with an answer, and are desperate.
"How did your God come into existence."

So please, explain where matter came from without God, please try.
I am saying this, all this matter around us, once it did not exist, and how did it come into existence?
Was it spontaneous, did it just come out of nowhere somehow, just like how the newspapers do in the morning.
Or did some powerful being bring it into existence?