How Can Anyone Believe in God?

[Falco&Victory]

ummm..... humans coming from mush isn't disorderly.....

the single cells that we allegedly evolved from we're highly developed, taking hundreds of years to adapt to their environment in order to survive. Over time they evolved by joining together to create multi-celled systems....

not mush lol

but the cells did come from charges traveling through compressed gases, as has been done in labs

but who the hell calls life orderly? Look what we've done to the planet! The word 'disorder' is too lose to interpretation, which is why i find that 2nd law to be bologna

 

[Erimir]

Maybe if I can work up the energy, I'll post a whole long spiel about the Problem of Evil, which is basically what the OP is presenting... But I've done it so many times, it gets hard to do it again. I guess I could copy some of my old posts from elsewhere... Anywho:

God knows everything, correct; he knew that we'd all sin, but he wanted to give us a choice. That's why there's the punishment of Hell, or the reward of Heaven.

Let me see here... which is the most free choice, of the following:

Do as I say, or... don't.

Do as I say and I'll give you a hundred dollars, or... don't, and I will shoot you in the head.

You can make some sort of argument in favor of heaven and hell, but saying that it gives us a free choice is not one of them. It's obvious that you have more freedom when there is not the threat of hell. Otherwise you might as well call slavery freedom, because it's really the same thing. Do as the master says, and you'll be whipped. Or even possibly killed. Sure, the slave is "free" to disobey, and choose the punishment. But he's still in slavery.

Is there a doubt about this? God created us free, yes FREE because if we weren't free then this topic would be "why God pushes us to do this and this not".

Well, this is a very... naïve... argument for why we have free will. Which inspired me to post in the topic on free will. Why don't you go over to that thread and explain why you think we have it in more detail?

Yeah, RDK, exactly what I was getting at with the Russell's Teapot example.

The best thing about the teapot example (Dawkins is also fond of it, btw) is that there actually is a teapot cult!

story on the BBC about the teapot cult

Not quite like what Russell described, but... still amusing.

I don't find theists as or nearly as ignorant. Sure, some blind faith you find in theists might be staggeringly ignorant, but somehow it feels different. You may think this is a double standard.

Why, yes, when you give a textbook example of a double standard, I do in fact think that it is a double standard.

I also find it extremely arrogant of atheists to assume that we are the be all and end all.

1. Whereas it is not arrogant to assume that we were created specially by God, to be his most important and treasured creations, on a little world he created just for us, and that he sent his only son to die just for us.

Not arrogant at all.

2. Do atheists assume we are the end all, be all? For one, the notion that in contrast to what I said directly above, we are merely a lifeform that was lucky enough to arise and evolve to have the level of intelligence we have, on a tiny little planet on the edge of a galaxy filled with billions of stars which is in itself just one of many galaxies, and that all we are is but a mere speck of dust compared to even a portion of this universe, and all of human history is but a flash of time in the billions of years of the Earth's existence... well, that doesn't sound like a particularly arrogant view of our place in the universe.

Not to mention that while we are the most intelligent species we know of, it doesn't mean that we are the be all or end all of anything. The notion that we are superior than other animals is shared by most religions, but it is a subjective view in any case. Certainly it can't be cause for an accusation of arrogance on atheists' part. But there could be better things out there than us. And certainly there's no reason to think that we have reached the end of evolution, and we are the best thing there is and ever could be.

Although, on the other hand, that would be a natural conclusion to come to for a Christian, if you don't look at God or the "spiritual realm". We were created in the image of God. This universe is for us. So why wouldn't we be the best things in it?

Atheists limit themselves.

Well, as I see it, we limit ourselves to things we have reasons to believe to be true. Not that horrible of a limitation if you ask me. It's like saying if I never eat Swanson TV dinners, I'm limiting myself. I guess that's supposed to be a bad thing, if I'm limiting myself to food that actually tastes good?

Just describing it from my perspective.

And at the same time, note we are not limited by religious dogma. Thank go...odness for that.

Which reminds me - you also limit yourself. A Christian is limiting himself. Just because there are infinite possibilities with theistic belief means nothing. A Christian is not believing in those infinite possibilities, he's disbelieving an infinity of possibilities, and believing in one. The only difference is that one possibility. And atheism is just another possibility. It doesn't seem all that much more limiting to me, especially given, as I said, we don't have dogma limiting us.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Some examples of entropy decreasing in closed systems. Crystaline structures, as useful energy decreases order increases. Tornado/whirlpool/hurricane/etc., as useful energy decreases order increases.

 

[Deleted member]

1. Whereas it is not arrogant to assume that we were created specially by God, to be his most important and treasured creations, on a little world he created just for us, and that he sent his only son to die just for us.

I don't believe that we're the most important and treasured creations - perhaps you should direct this towards someone who does. That's Christianity. I'm agnostic - but I learn towards more theism. I may have grown up in a Christian household, but I don't identify with it.

Not arrogant at all.

I know, right?

...we are merely a lifeform that was lucky enough to arise and evolve to have the level of intelligence we have, on a tiny little planet on the edge of a galaxy filled with billions of stars which is in itself just one of many galaxies, and that all we are is but a mere speck of dust compared to even a portion of this universe, and all of human history is but a flash of time in the billions of years of the Earth's existence...

You realize that an assertion like this is just as "fact-filled" as someone who says the Bible is canon, right?

You'll never know if this is true or not, just like the following:

"We are merely a life form that was lucky enough to receive the gift of life from God Almighty. Then God said: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and the cattle, and over all the wild animals and all the creatures that crawl on the ground."

Your argument is like a picky-eater telling the gourmet that he's close-minded because he's not experiencing being picky. The fact is, theists are ultimately more open-minded.

Not to mention that while we are the most intelligent species we know of, it doesn't mean that we are the be all or end all of anything. The notion that we are superior than other animals is shared by most religions, but it is a subjective view in any case. Certainly it can't be cause for an accusation of arrogance on atheists' part. But there could be better things out there than us. And certainly there's no reason to think that we have reached the end of evolution, and we are the best thing there is and ever could be.

You realize this sounds notoriously like an agnostic argument, right? If you're saying you don't know if you're the be all or end all, that means you don't know if there's a higher power.

Well, as I see it, we limit ourselves to things we have reasons to believe to be true. Not that horrible of a limitation if you ask me. It's like saying if I never eat Swanson TV dinners, I'm limiting myself. I guess that's supposed to be a bad thing, if I'm limiting myself to food that actually tastes good?

But see, that's the thing - there aren't any reasons to believe (or not believe, in your case).
Picky eater much?

Which reminds me - you also limit yourself. A Christian is limiting himself. Just because there are infinite possibilities with theistic belief means nothing. A Christian is not believing in those infinite possibilities, he's disbelieving an infinity of possibilities, and believing in one. The only difference is that one possibility. And atheism is just another possibility. It doesn't seem all that much more limiting to me, especially given, as I said, we don't have dogma limiting us.

I'm no Christian, theists are believers in a personal God, which could take any form. I didn't use the C word in my last post.

Gamer4Fire, I'm glad to see that you wised up to your claim that atheism isn't a theory, what with you not saying anything at all.

Maybe you were thinking of agnosticism?

 

[Erimir]

I don't believe that we're the most important and treasured creations - perhaps you should direct this towards someone who does. That's Christianity. I'm agnostic - but I learn towards more theism. I may have grown up in a Christian household, but I don't identify with it.

You said theists. Not theists who have beliefs like mine. Christians and Muslims are theists. You said that atheists were more arrogant than theists. But now Christians and Muslims don't count, apparently.

And in any case, I don't see how there's any difference in "arrogance" between whether we were created by a God, or arose through naturalistic processes.

You realize that an assertion like this is just as "fact-filled" as someone who says the Bible is canon, right?

Uhhh, no, I don't. That paragraph was filled with facts.

Unless you contest the age or size of the universe, the age of the Earth, the length of the history of human civilization. There is scientific evidence for all of those being the way I described them. Are you a evolution, geology, astronomy and archeology skeptic in addition to a theist?

It is subjective how you choose to view those facts with regards to our importance (saying we are a speck or a flash of time). But my point was that atheism has no inherent relation with an arrogant view of our place in the universe.

Your argument is like a picky-eater telling the gourmet that he's close-minded because he's not experiencing being picky. The fact is, theists are ultimately more open-minded.

I was not discussing open-minded-ness, but rather arrogance. But I really see no basis for your assertion anyway.

Being unconvinced of theistic claims does not make one close-minded. It's refusing to even consider them that does. And I think that dogmatic theists win the prize on that one. To say that I'm close-minded for being unconvinced of the claims of any theists is to say that I am wrong and there's no conceivable way that I could come to my conclusions by an intellectually honest manner. To be open-minded, one does not have to accept the arguments of others as true. I do not refuse to read the literature of theists. I do not try to demonize them rather than argue their points.

Also remember not to keep your mind so open that it falls out. Not being gullible is not equivalent to being close-minded.

You realize this sounds notoriously like an agnostic argument, right? If you're saying you don't know if you're the be all or end all, that means you don't know if there's a higher power.

No, I don't see the similarity, unless you are referring to agnosticism regarding intelligent life on other planets.

There simply is no reason to say we are the pinnacle of evolution. For one, evolution is not "guided" int his way towards some ultimate "goal". For another, it would be silly to say you could not imagine a way in which the human species could be exceeded by another species or later descendants.

When I say this, I'm not referring to any supernatural force. It has nothing to with gods, only to do with the fact that saying we are the end all and be all of the universe is a stupid thing to say. It makes more sense for a theist, if you ask me. Because they're more likely to believe that we were the creation of a cosmic power, and thus we would be the "goal" of evolution, as opposed to a product of natural forces and nothing more. We're the be all and end all of the universe, but God is above us (but separate from the universe).

But see, that's the thing - there aren't any reasons to believe (or not believe, in your case).

Exactly, there are no reasons to believe in theism, so I don't.

There is no reason necessary to not believe in something that there is no evidence for. You don't need to show me any evidence to justify the fact that you do not believe in unicorns. You need only say that there is no evidence for them. If you were to argue that it is impossible that unicorns exist, well, you'd have a much harder time, even if you were limiting yourself to arguing that they couldn't exist or ever have existed on Earth.

Do you think that because I'm an atheist, I think that all conceptions of God (which are wildly varying and so not all of them are all that similar to each other) are impossible? No, I just don't believe in them, because I see no reason to. This is called weak atheism (some people consider agnosticism and weak atheism to be the same thing).

What part of "I see no reason to believe in X, so I don't" doesn't make sense? I saw no reason to go to the store, so I didn't. What need do I have to justify my (lack of) action beyond that?

I will tell you that I actually do believe that the Abrahamic religions are false, and I believe that an omnimax god could not exist. Since I claim they're false, those are claims that require justification. That is strong atheism. I am a strong atheist when it comes to Abrahamic Gods and omnimax gods. If I simply didn't believe in them, it would not require justification, since in that case I simply am not believing that they're true.

I distinguish this from agnosticism, which is the claim that there is no way to know whether any gods (or a particular conception of god) exist. This is not the same. I also avoid using that term, since people seem to assume it means you are undecided.

I'm no Christian, theists are believers in a personal God, which could take any form. I didn't use the C word in my last post.

Nonetheless, I neither see how atheism is more limiting, nor how if it were, this is somehow a bad thing.

But even so, you were speaking of theists in general. If you meant to exclude Christians and Muslims from your generalizations about theists, you should have said so. Because you said that atheism is more limiting than theism (unqualified). Now it seems that you're changing it to a claim that you (and other unaffiliated theists without clear conceptions of god) are less limited than atheists, since I pointed out that Christianity and Islam and such are limiting.

You are also cutting yourself off from deism, pantheism, atheism and polytheism. Do you even give a ****? Why would you? You're going with what you think is more true, not with what has the "most possibilities". If you're going for the latter, well... I'll hold my tongue.

Gamer4Fire, I'm glad to see that you wised up to your claim that atheism isn't a theory, what with you not saying anything at all.

Weak atheism could not possibly be considered a theory.

Strong atheism could be.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Gamer4Fire, I'm glad to see that you wised up to your claim that atheism isn't a theory, what with you not saying anything at all.

the·o·ry (thē'ə-rē, thîr'ē)
n. pl. the·o·ries

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

What statements/principles from facts that were repeatedly tested and are practically usable to predict natural phenomena that make up the "theory" of atheism?

 

[Indigo4]

I've been gone for a few days, so I'm still catching up with some older posts. Please bear with me. >>

cF=), I'm not rejecting the hard work scientists go through to study the big bang or evolution. I have great respect for anyone who is willing to go against social norms and study something that, at the birth of such theories, was quite controversial in order to give humankind a better understanding of their world around them. However, we must remember that the true reason that science exists is not to prove something, but to nullify the incorrect.

So, to be fair, I have some questons that perhaps you can clarify. 1) If everything was compressed in something roughly the size of a dime, then what outside forces acted as a catalyst in order to cause the explosion? and 2) Where did this compressed universe come from? You see, although I could be wrong in the end, religion provides more answers. If you believe God is all powerful, then he can be the Alpha and the Omega, and the creator of all things. While we can not prove if this is true, again, I mention the internal desire for humans to worship. This is what I find to be the most profound argument for a God, Like a whisper in our ear. If you believe in God, then summoning the animals to the ark is believable.

As for being narrow-minded, I'm probably one of the least narrow-minded people out there. You see, I don't discredit science. I strongly believe Faith and Science can co-exist. I don't believe what I do because it's what I was "Raised as," or because I'm afraid of hell or being rejected. I have faith because the thought a creator being makes sense. As I mentioned before, there are signs everywhere you look of intelligent design. But I'm not going to discredit evolution. I simply believe in adaptation. I think there have been creatures here for a long time...a looooong time. And even people-like beings here before us. There is no way this Earth is only 6000 years old. What is a day to God? Some say 1000 years, but God is eternal. Paradox much? O_o Personal opinion? I think God created everything there is, and sort of let it just go. It's possible he caused the big bang, or just made it all appear as is. But back to what I said before. Think of the universe as a "Petri dish", and God as the "head scientist". I think he interacts with his creations, but does not challenge our free will. He cares about us because we are his creations, but he isn't going to be putting his finger in here every three seconds, changing something. He made all the wonderful things for us to discover, but also not to forget him! I'm going to stop here. You get the gist. ;x
Point: God created universe, and simply let it unfold without physical interaction. Although he interacts, it is through the spirit.

Moving on. Order from Chaos. While I don't deny this could happen, ie the Crazy monkey effect or the Butteryfly effect (Creepy Banana_Dragon, we were taling about that today in class! O_o), the probability is low. Extremly low. The chances of intelligent design by a creator are more probably. Someone once said, and i wish I could remember what they were talking about (I think it was something with the lottery), but that winning it had the same probability as going to the store, buying 32 oranges, spilling the bag they were in, and having them all line in in 8 rows of 4, perfectly aligned. This is possible, but the chances are...SO low. So like I said, intelligent design being behind it all seems more probable. Matter needs to come from somewhere, but an all powerful God could have always been there.

Now if you'll excuse me, there are some cement balls I need to take care of. ;x

 

[Erimir]

So, to be fair, I have some questons that perhaps you can clarify. 1) If everything was compressed in something roughly the size of a dime, then what outside forces acted as a catalyst in order to cause the explosion? and 2) Where did this compressed universe come from? You see, although I could be wrong in the end, religion provides more answers.

Are you're saying you prefer more answers even if they're inaccurate?

Why not just accept that you don't know? Accepting the limitations of our knowledge is just something a lot of people can't bear to do, I guess.

And please don't forget that religion raises (imo) just as many if not more questions than it answers.

While we can not prove if this is true, again, I mention the internal desire for humans to worship. This is what I find to be the most profound argument for a God, Like a whisper in our ear.

I have no such internal desire. Just because you (and many of your co-religionists, I suppose) have it, doesn't make it a universal human characteristic.

While I don't deny this could happen, ie the Crazy monkey effect or the Butteryfly effect (Creepy Banana_Dragon, we were taling about that today in class! O_o), the probability is low. Extremly low. The chances of intelligent design by a creator are more probably. Someone once said, and i wish I could remember what they were talking about (I think it was something with the lottery), but that winning it had the same probability as going to the store, buying 32 oranges, spilling the bag they were in, and having them all line in in 8 rows of 4, perfectly aligned. This is possible, but the chances are...SO low. So like I said, intelligent design being behind it all seems more probable. Matter needs to come from somewhere, but an all powerful God could have always been there.

I don't really see any basis by which you could evaluate the probability of the Big Bang and values of physical constants being as they are and so forth occurring as they did.

Evaluating the roll of a 6 sided die is one thing. Trying to say the probability of a certain number coming up when you don't even know how many dice there are and how many sides are on them is quite another.

There are other criticisms of intelligent design, but it's late...

 

[AltF4]

So, to be fair, I have some questons that perhaps you can clarify. 1) If everything was compressed in something roughly the size of a dime, then what outside forces acted as a catalyst in order to cause the explosion? and 2) Where did this compressed universe come from? You see, although I could be wrong in the end, religion provides more answers.

...

Moving on. Order from Chaos. While I don't deny this could happen, ie the Crazy monkey effect or the Butteryfly effect (Creepy Banana_Dragon, we were taling about that today in class! O_o), the probability is low. Extremly low. The chances of intelligent design by a creator are more probably.

Big Bang question #1) Answered by Hawking's "No Boundary" boundary condition. The error in your thinking is that you assume that the universe was created by an outside force. This assumption is incorrect, it is possible that time is curved in such a way that time had no beginning but extends finitely into the past. It's kind of complicated, but google it for more info, or ask again if you really want me to explain.

Big Bang Question #2) Essentially asking the same question as #1: where did all this stuff come from? But the question presupposes that it had to have come from somewhere outside the universe, which is untrue.

There are lots of contradictions that come about when you consider singularities. (Like the big bang and black holes) Scientists used to really sweat when it came to the big bang, because everything works out just fine until you reach the actual bang: the moment of creation. But as it turns out, there doesn't have to be a bang. No actual moment of creation. We sort of avoid all the issues because the singularity didn't necessarily exist after all.


Order from chaos: The error in your thinking here is that you assume the entire universe is more ordered now than at the big bang, which is untrue. Assuming the Earth is highly ordered (something that can be argued anyway) that just means there has to be something in the universe that is highly unordered to equal it out. And guess what: the vast majority of the universe is highly unordered.

 

[cF=)]

1) If everything was compressed in something roughly the size of a dime, then what outside forces acted as a catalyst in order to cause the explosion?

As far as I know, the Big Bang was not an explosion, but rather a quick expansion of the size of the universe. This said, it's hard to explain what caused the Big Bang because everything's still relying onto string theory, which is currently in development.

The problem we had when considering general relativity right was singularity, an infinite mass in a non-defined (because infinitly small) spot. Look up the brane cosmology models if you want more explanations, [black holes and the big bang] are over my knowledge because as you would expect, in science we study before making claims and I haven't yet reached the point in theoretical physics where I can speak of all this fluently.

But I'm not going to discredit evolution. I simply believe in adaptation.

Boy must your definition of evolution be old if you still think adaptation and evolution aren't synonyms. Darwin's evolution was wrong if you still think that's what we use in science.

The main issue was the "missing link", and the fact that if humans evolved from primates, why would there still be apes on Earth? This is why we changed our definition to what you said: adaptation.

[Humans] were in a different environment, the strongest and most resistant male (the one with the right conditions for his surrounding) had children, which resulted in his genetics being transfered to the next generation, and then repeat the process thousands and thousands of time until now.

the chances are...SO low.

Hey guys, it's impossible because I said so.

Matter needs to come from somewhere

As AltF4 posted right when I made this answer, your logic is wrong, but string theory man, look it up, you'd love the answers it gives!

This assumption is incorrect, it is possible that time is curved in such a way that time had no beginning but extends finitely into the past.

Do you mean like that?

 

[AltF4]

Hah! Funny comic. But not really a loop. More like this: (this is something I posted previously in another thread)

One of the very first things that you think about when you hear the bing bang theory is: "Well, that's all fine and good. But what happened before the big bang? And what caused it to bang?" These are important questions, because the answer is not at all obvious.

The Big Bang says that everything in the universe began with one huge explosion. Our progress thus far in physics has been extremely successful in describing the universe in the moments after the big bang. But when you talk about the actual moment of creation, things break down. At that moment, energy seemingly popped out of nowhere. At that moment, all kinds of stuff happened that we can't explain.

The problem is with what is called the "boundary condition". That is, if someone asks you: "What is the boundary of time?" they are asking: "Did time continue infinitely before us? Or did it begin at some point?" The solution to these problems was developed by Stephen Hawking. He proposed the "No Boundary" boundary condition.

Let's not think of time for a moment and think of space. Is space infinite? If it is not infinite, then does it have a wall? What would happen if you ran into the edge of space? These are all problems that have to do with the boundary condition of space.

As it turns out, space can be curved. It is possible that space is curved in such a way that there is no boundary to space. Think of it like the surface of earth. The Earth is curved such that it has no boundary. Ie: You cannot walk off the edge of the earth.

But space and time are not separate. They are one entity called spacetime. It is possible that time is curved in such a way that there was no moment of creation. Think of the graph of the line 1/x. The curvature of time continues toward the moment of creation and approaches it, but never reaches. Thus we have no boundary, and no contradictions that come from them.

Make any sense? Remember: your ability to rationalize the science is not relevant. What matters is that the math works out. Many very odd things happen in science that defy common sense. (ALL of Quantum Mechanics) But as long as it works on paper, it works.

 

[Sandy]

If you believe that there must have been a God or deity of some kind to create the universe (Or multiverse), then that deity must have existed somehow before the universe existed, right? But that's impossible since there would be nowhere to exist IN. And how did the deity in question get there? It appeared from nowhere for no reason?

On the other hand, if there wasn't a deity, that means the universe simply appeared from nowhere for no reason.

EITHER WAY something appeared from nowhere for no reason, or somehow existed forever in some kind of weird paradox.

In either case, the same problem arises, namely where did the universe, or a god, come from?

Now, my point is this. Why bother believing in a God if the same problem still arises as if you do NOT believe in one? Either way you're still believing that something suddenly started existing, and was created from nothing somehow. It doesn't matter if it's the universe or a god. Either is impossible by the laws of physics as we know them.

So basically, the existance of a God would explain nothing. It is NOT an explanation for how everything came to be. So why do people think it is? You can't just say a God is eternal since you may as well claim the universe is eternal. Once again, no difference, neither makes any more sense than the other. So why bother with deities?

 

[AltF4]

EITHER WAY something appeared from nowhere for no reason, or somehow existed forever in some kind of weird paradox.

Not true. Did you read my post right above yours SandTiger?

 

[Deleted member]

Not true, but certainly not false. Even you can see that.

 

[Deleted member]

****in swf lag. I'll edit this post to cover some shiat from last page.

 

[AltF4]

Not true but not false? I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

 

[KAFOR]

I understand what you are saying, but there is definitely a God. The reason for the creation of humanity was for God's pleasure and entertainment, and for God's yearning to have a relationship with us. Every single human being born into this earth, starts out believing that there is some type of god. If you do not believe me, how do you explain when a human enters a sudden harmful physical or mental confrontation, the most likely words to come out of their mouth are "Oh my God" or "Jesus!", even if they call themselves "Christian" or not? It seems to slip out almost all of the time.

It is when a human ages and starts to go through life experiences and become more educated of the world around them, that they tend to develop their own beliefs and philosophies and reject in the unseen God. A child that is born and spends most of his/her life in the Christian church and home, reading the Holy Bible, and believing and trusting that Jesus, God's son, died on the cross for their sins, that they will grow and continue respect Him, leading to a PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP with God. God wants his creations to YEARN for a relationship with the Almighty, but we tend to turn from that oppurtunity to satisfy our own greedy wishes and desires. God loves every single one of us, and he has MUCH mercy on mankind, explaining the reason why he hasn't destroyed us yet.

Also think about the universe for a second, how high and far does it go? Does it end at a wall? If it does, then what is on the other side of that wall, and how far does that go? Human minds cannot even begin to derive a worthy answer to these questions. That is how you know that there is a God. The universe didn't just create itself. Something that big? Why have we not destroyed ourselves yet? Why hasn't our beloved planet Earth been hit by outside influences yet? God has his hand over this Earth that is why.

 

[Erimir]

Every single human being born into this earth, starts out believing that there is some type of god. If you do not believe me, how do you explain when a human enters a sudden harmful physical or mental confrontation, the most likely words to come out of their mouth are "Oh my God" or "Jesus!", even if they call themselves "Christian" or not? It seems to slip out almost all of the time.

For the same reason that they're also likely to say "f**k" or "s**t" Here's a hint: it isn't because of any spiritual significance of feces or sexual intercourse that we're likely to say those things.

They are expletives - exclamations. You say them because you've learned to say them. In other countries they say different things. Atheists in our society are surrounded by Christians, hence they pick up saying that. Some people are from families where you don't use "curse words", so you'll say "shoot" and "frickin" (and perhaps "gosh" and "jeez" instead of "god" and "Jesus"). In earlier times, when "taking the Lord's name in vain" was considered a worse thing to do, people would not have said those things. And atheists would also not have done so, because they would not have picked up the habit.

It is purely a linguistic matter, and has nothing to do with belief.

Also think about the universe for a second, how high and far does it go? Does it end at a wall? If it does, then what is on the other side of that wall, and how far does that go? Human minds cannot even begin to derive a worthy answer to these questions. That is how you know that there is a God.

We can't understand the edge of the universe, therefore there's a god?

That's a new one.

The universe didn't just create itself. Something that big? Why have we not destroyed ourselves yet? Why hasn't our beloved planet Earth been hit by outside influences yet? God has his hand over this Earth that is why.

Yeah, ok.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

I understand what you are saying, but there is definitely a God. The reason for the creation of humanity was for God's pleasure and entertainment, and for God's yearning to have a relationship with us. Every single human being born into this earth, starts out believing that there is some type of god. If you do not believe me, how do you explain when a human enters a sudden harmful physical or mental confrontation, the most likely words to come out of their mouth are "Oh my God" or "Jesus!", even if they call themselves "Christian" or not? It seems to slip out almost all of the time.

It is when a human ages and starts to go through life experiences and become more educated of the world around them, that they tend to develop their own beliefs and philosophies and reject in the unseen God. A child that is born and spends most of his/her life in the Christian church and home, reading the Holy Bible, and believing and trusting that Jesus, God's son, died on the cross for their sins, that they will grow and continue respect Him, leading to a PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP with God. God wants his creations to YEARN for a relationship with the Almighty, but we tend to turn from that oppurtunity to satisfy our own greedy wishes and desires. God loves every single one of us, and he has MUCH mercy on mankind, explaining the reason why he hasn't destroyed us yet.

Also think about the universe for a second, how high and far does it go? Does it end at a wall? If it does, then what is on the other side of that wall, and how far does that go? Human minds cannot even begin to derive a worthy answer to these questions. That is how you know that there is a God. The universe didn't just create itself. Something that big? Why have we not destroyed ourselves yet? Why hasn't our beloved planet Earth been hit by outside influences yet? God has his hand over this Earth that is why.

Hello and welcome to the Smashbords.com Debate Hall. I see that you are trying to rationalize your belief in a supreme being due to your lack of understanding of 1)Evolutionary Theory 2)Human Anthropology 3)Genetics 4)Sociology 5)the Old Testament 6)Astronomy 7)Cosmology 8)Statistics. If you would please refrain from using your limited opinion as a form of fact for debate we will be more than happy to answer any questions you may have in these fields to clarify why your particular faith is incorrect.

Thank you.

 

[Banana_Dragon]

@KAFOR:

Again, answers without questions...

First of all, welcome and I do hold respect for everyone's opinion but I would be curious to hear about actual thought you put behind it.

"We can't grasp the universe, but it exists. We also can't grasp God, hence he exists!"
That's the same kind of logic as "Grass is green, frogs are green, so frogs are made of grass!"
There is no necessary correlation (sp? My engrish sucks ) between those things.

Nothing creates itself, that much is true. But things can simply 'be' without creation. Concepts such as 'energy' (pretty much proven by the law of conservation of energy) or even better, 'information', are fine examples of this.

People seem to have a hard time leaving questions simply 'open' or 'unanswered' (as I explained before, because people like to know everything or at least think they do) and God provides a possible answer. But it's not that because it's a possible answer that it's therefore a true answer.
Again, if God really would exist, why didn't the spread of Christianity start at more than one place?

 

[Teebs]

You know, these are the kind of questions that you just have to ask yourself basically. No one can ask anyone else if they believe in God because that is something you have to know for yourself.

@ BD:
Christianity started in one place, which was Israel. It began to spread throughout to places like southern Europe, or hence, the Roman empire for back then. And over the years, it spread all over the world. This is basically coming from the Bible, as my source.

I do understand your logics, however.

 

[AltF4]

Ahh KAFOR... I recall you from the religion debate in the pool hall. Unfortunately for you, this is the Debate Hall as others have noted.

I understand that this has become a long thread and we don't expect you to read through the whole thing. But if you read only a couple posts above yours, you'd see that I already countered your argument for god out of spacial boundary conditions.

BlueBlade: Are you saying that Christianity spread before Jesus? How so? It began with him.

 

[Teebs]

I corrected myself. Sorry about that. I woke-up not that long ago before that. So, no.

 

[KAFOR]

Hello and welcome to the Smashbords.com Debate Hall. I see that you are trying to rationalize your belief in a supreme being due to your lack of understanding of 1)Evolutionary Theory 2)Human Anthropology 3)Genetics 4)Sociology 5)the Old Testament 6)Astronomy 7)Cosmology 8)Statistics. If you would please refrain from using your limited opinion as a form of fact for debate we will be more than happy to answer any questions you may have in these fields to clarify why your particular faith is incorrect.

Thank you.

I lack no understanding in that series of subjects. Do not slander me.
Evolutionary Theory means nothing. Why have we stopped "evolving" after 300 years?

@KAFOR:

Again, answers without questions...

First of all, welcome and I do hold respect for everyone's opinion but I would be curious to hear about actual thought you put behind it.

"We can't grasp the universe, but it exists. We also can't grasp God, hence he exists!"
That's the same kind of logic as "Grass is green, frogs are green, so frogs are made of grass!"
There is no necessary correlation (sp? My engrish sucks ) between those things.


Again, if God really would exist, why didn't the spread of Christianity start at more than one place?

Yes he does exist, and you can grasp Him. Try reading through the Book of Psalms, John and Revelations why your at it. Books in the King James bible. Revelations alone can explain many questions. If you read the Bible, you will find that the Jews were His "chosen people". They decided to forsake him and stray away from His teachings and guidance, but that didn't change the fact that they were his "chosen people". So he then turned to the Gentiles, who are every other person who is not a Jew, to spread Christianity.

We cannot grasp the universe. How do you explain its dimensions? Alt4 explained it alike the curvature of the Earth, there still must certainly be "something" on the other side, alike the Earth's inside and outer side. How can you give me a logical answer to that my friend? What is on that outer side of the universe? Whatever it is, what created it? What traveled zillions and zillions of miles to create whatever is over there? What cannot be logically rationalized, compromised or explained by human tongue and mind must certainly be a result of a supernatural being or force.

Ahh KAFOR... I recall you from the religion debate in the pool hall. Unfortunately for you, this is the Debate Hall as others have noted.

I understand that this has become a long thread and we don't expect you to read through the whole thing. But if you read only a couple posts above yours, you'd see that I already countered your argument for god out of spacial boundary conditions.

I've come to understand that this is indeed the Debate Hall, thank you. Yes, the "Big Bang Theory" is illogical. Something just exploded, a matter of energy? From what? There has to be some spiritual being behind this. And you said something about the universe being curved alike the Earth. Taking what you said, we dwell on the inside of the Universe, correct? What is on the outer side? There must be two sides alike the Earth?

 

[AltF4]

...no. Apparently you didn't quite get the point of that post. Perhaps I didn't explain it well enough. Let me try again.

There are lots of contradictions that occur when you consider the boundary conditions of space and time. They are obvious problems like "What happened before time?" and "Where did all this stuff come from?"

So when scientists tell you the entire universe started with the Big Bang, an obvious question is "Well, doesn't that mean that conservation of matter and energy were broken at the very instant of the big bang?"

Note that there are many other problems and contradictions that come about from the moment of creation, but they all occur at time = 0. The very moment of creation. All moments after the big bang can be explained by physics (or at least we're on our way to explaining them thoroughly)

The answer to this problem is that there was no big bang! No actual moment of creation. Time can be curved in such a way that it extends finitely into the past but with infinite extent.

It kind of works like this: Imagine watching a video tape of the entire history of the universe in reverse. On rewind, as it were. What you would see is that the closer and closer you got to the actual moment of the Big Bang, the slower the tape would go. And no matter how long you watched, you would never see the moment of creation. You would inch closer and closer but it would never come. Because it never happened.

Since there was no moment of creation, there is no contradictions that come from it. Conservation of matter is never broken because there is no moment in time in which it was broken!

 

[snex]

people believe in gods because they are not taught proper methods of discovering knowledge. simple as that.

schools do not properly teach the scientific method or logic, they never have, and as long as theists are in the majority, they never will.

when you come to understand that true knowledge can only come from first admitting that YOU DO NOT KNOW, and THEN attempting to discover; rather than picking a random answer (or the answer you grew up with) and hunting for confirmatory evidence for it; that is when you will realize that all claims about gods, including statements about their existence, are unfounded.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

I lack no understanding in that series of subjects. Do not slander me.
Evolutionary Theory means nothing. Why have we stopped "evolving" after 300 years?

Hello again.

It is quite obvious that you know nothing about anything. You are fail and I pity your ignorance. You continue to spout stupidity in your idiocy and do not ask questions to find the path away from fail.

If you would like to know why your post was the epitome of foolishness, it is because you state that you know all; which is an impossibility. Then you gush forth falsehoods as if they were the true way.

To know the path away from fail, ask us questions of those subjects and do not discriminate simply because you do not understand.

May you find the path away from blindness.

 

[Sandy]

I think we humans don't have the knowledge or understanding to fully comprehend the origins of the universe and of all existence. No matter where we pin down the first moments to be, someone will always ask "what hapened before then?" and it screws up everything. We have to adapt our knowledge of time and how it flows before we can understand where and how we came to be.

Even if you remove religion from the equation, and go back and back to the building blocks of life, then back further to where THOSE originated, all the way to the beginning of the universe, they have to have come from somewhere, to have been put into creation, by SOMETHING, so even from a scientific point of view, something CREATED infinite. So its logical to assume that that something is from outside infinite, which would mean that that something doesnt work the same as us, by the same rules created for us. Depending on your point of view, you could say we are blessed with a definitive end to things, rather than slowly stagnating. Can you not hypothesise though, that even the universe, in all its endless infinite space, is not the ultimate is not the definitive end but simply the end for us, a beginning and an end, a circle. our very own fish bowl . Science is the quest for knowledge; for answers, and how you GET to those answers is as important as the answers themselfs. Religion; or faith, gives answers, but asks in return for belief - doesn't show it's working . It's personal choice what you wish to believe, whether that be methodical thinking or sheer faith. it's dangerous to go either way to the extreme ends though.

 

[AltF4]

SandTiger: That's just simply not true. It is not true that the universe must have been created at some point. Have I not made that point clear? Not sarcastically: Have I? If not, I can elaborate further. I'm trying to avoid using physics jargon but still make it understandable.

 

[Crimson King]

Hello again.

It is quite obvious that you know nothing about anything. You are fail and I pity your ignorance. You continue to spout stupidity in your idiocy and do not ask questions to find the path away from fail.

If you would like to know why your post was the epitome of foolishness, it is because you state that you know all; which is an impossibility. Then you gush forth falsehoods as if they were the true way.

To know the path away from fail, ask us questions of those subjects and do not discriminate simply because you do not understand.

May you find the path away from blindness.

Stop being an *******. Seriously. If you disagree, use evidence, don't just call him dumb and say he's wrong. It makes you look like a prick.

 

[Deleted member]

SandTiger: That's just simply not true. It is not true that the universe must have been created at some point. Have I not made that point clear? Not sarcastically: Have I? If not, I can elaborate further. I'm trying to avoid using physics jargon but still make it understandable.

Stop spreading this, seriously. I don't get it.

It may simply be not true, but that doesn't mean it is false. Stop saying that the universe could not have been created at some point. You're acting like KAFOR.

 

[Banana_Dragon]

What is reading the Bible going to teach me?
In case one would assume I do not know anything about the Bible, I have read parts of it, not the entire Bible, but yes, I have read some pages of it and it didn't 'explain' anything to me.

What it did was give me contradictory 'possibilities' of how things 'could' have come to be.

'Something' can't come from 'nothing', that much is true. But this is where 'finity' and 'infinity' come in.
When something has a beginning, it has an end, and vice versa, if something has an end then it has a beginning.
Likewise, when something has no end, it can't have a beginning. Given an infinite amount of time, all things that have ever began will have come to an end as well.

Energy, as proven by the law of the conservation of energy (as I stated before) can only change form. It can't be created, it can't be destroyed.
And matter, which is what we are made of, is just an extremely high amount of energy in a very concentrated 'package' (The experiments at CERN in Switzerland show matter and anti-matter spontaneously forming at extreme temperatures, made out of the available energy)

See where I'm getting at? Everything we're made of is energy, whether it's matter, the electricity going through our nervous system and brains or the body heat that is contained inside us. And energy is just there, never created, never destroyed.
This pretty much makes a 'creator' or 'outside force' unnecessary.

"Is there a finite amount of energy then? If so, why exactly that amount of energy and what is the reasoning behind it?"

Well, as far as most are concerned there's an infinite amount of space and time.
Space and time allow for movement and change. Which perfectly allows for different amounts of energy in all it's different forms to be distributed throughout space and time.

Think of it this way:
Suppose the universe is an infinitely big sandwich.
Now suppose there's an infinite amount of butter on this sandwich and in some places the butter is smeared a lot thicker than on other places.
Now if you start smearing the butter you will be able to move different amounts of butter to different places on the sandwich, but never increasing or decreasing the amount of butter on the sandwich.

Point is, if the very things we and the rest of the universe are made of are infinite, then it defeats all purpose for there to be a creator.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

KAFOR - What evidence do you have that Homo Sapien has stopped evolving within the last three hundred years and how does that show that the Evolutionary Theory means nothing? Incredible claims require incredible evidence.

 

[AltF4]

Stop spreading this, seriously. I don't get it.

It may simply be not true, but that doesn't mean it is false. Stop saying that the universe could not have been created at some point. You're acting like KAFOR.

Stop saying something that is true? And in what way does that make me like KAFOR. (Though it does make me lol inside at the insinuation that being called "like KAFOR" is an insult)

People keep on trying to make the argument that god must exist because the universe had to have been created at some point, and he's the one who did it. And I'm responding by saying that argument is invalid.

If you don't think my counter argument is valid, then explain why it is not.

 

[Deleted member]

Because you don't know if it is true or not. So saying that it isn't true makes it sound like what you are saying is absolute truth.

For the last time, no one knows how the universe was created. But now you are saying that it doesn't? It's ridiculous.

You're acting like KAFOR because you're stating things that you don't know to be true. I won't call you out on things you refer to on a smaller scale - for example, the existence of time - but I will call you out on stating that the universe was not created, or that it didn't happen.

Either you got a lot of asplainin' to do Lucy, or just stop the KAFOR act.

I suggest you go with the latter, as you will undoubtedly continue acting like KAFOR if you try and do so.

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/in-no-time/article_view?b_start:int=0

You know, looking back, I'm surprised at all the flak I got for looking skeptically at time. Do a google search for "does time exist".

 

[Banana_Dragon]

@DeLoRtEd1:

Well, can you give a reason as to why the universe 'has' to have been created at some point?

The answer 'well, because it exists' is pretty much invalid because energy exists as well and that is never created (I really feel like I'm on replay).

I provided you with an argument as to why maybe the universe was never created at all about three posts earlier. I believe this to be a solid argument but if you can find holes in it, by all means point them out, I'm open minded and here to learn.

 

[AltF4]

As I suspected, Del. You fundamentally misunderstand what I'm saying.

I never said, absolutely and without doubt, that the universe behaves the way I described. What I have been saying is a counter argument to an existing argument for god. You'll notice that I always phrase the statement as "It is possible that: ___".

It is not relevant whether or not time is actually curved in the way described. The fact that it could be disproves the argument that I'm trying to disprove.



As for your group of people who seem to think that time doesn't exist: They're wrong. Time is real. You can bend it, stretch it and even tear it. That's what all of relativity is about. (Ya know, that Einstein guy)

 

[Deleted member]

Never have I said that the universe has to have been created, I'm merely stating that it's ridiculous to assert that it wasn't.

 

[Banana_Dragon]

Okay, then let me reformulate my question:

Why is it ridiculous to assert that it wasn't?
In the middle ages it was also ridiculous to assert that the earth wasn't flat. Because we perceive it to be flat.
Likewise, our senses only percieve things that are finite, we can't perceive infinity. But does that mean infinity can't exist?

So again, I ask, why is it ridiculous to assert that the universe has never been created?

 

[Erimir]

I lack no understanding in that series of subjects. Do not slander me.
Evolutionary Theory means nothing. Why have we stopped "evolving" after 300 years?

I don't know what the hell you're talking about with regards to us having "stopped evolving after 300 years" .

Human evolution has continued uninterrupted throughout human history. The human species continues to evolve at this moment.

And I was wondering if you had any thoughts on the "Oh my god!" thing, or do you agree with me that it is just a linguistic matter?

In the middle ages it was also ridiculous to assert that the earth wasn't flat. Because we perceive it to be flat.

Just to nitpick... The ancient Greeks, centuries before the Middle Ages, knew that the Earth was round. And in fact, there were ancient Greek mathematicians who had calculated the Earth's circumference with a fair degree of accuracy. And people did not forget it in any intervening period. It was common knowledge in the Middle Ages, from the records we have (although note that the records we have would only be from those who were literate, and thus, educated). The exception among more sophisticated civilizations would seem to be China. But in Europe, Christopher Columbus certainly did not prove the roundness of the Earth. They already knew it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_mythology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth