How Can Anyone Believe in God?

[EC_Joey]

Well, I'd like to hear your plea. Go ahead, I want to hear your theory on this.

This is in no way my theory. What you are asking for is Abiogenesis, the field of science that focuses on how life came to be on Earth from what you call "nothing". You can see the wikipedia entry here. I'll go over some of the main highlights.

The first major point is that the basic building blocks of life, such as amino acids and lipids, may have been present on Earth through certain random occurrences. See the Miller-Urey Experiment. The materials to form these substances were all there. The energy required to make these materials could have been provided from lightning bolts or ultraviolet radiation (the atmosphere was nothing like it is today, there was no ozone layer to protect the surface from intense UV rays).

There are many hypotheses elaborated on in that page on Abiogenesis, all attempting to explain how organic molecules formed. The only fuzzy part is where you go from simple organic molecules to a living cell. So far nobody has been able to replicate the feat, but there are people working on that. It's possible that it was simply an extremely lucky occurrence that the right molecules were in the right place at the right time.

The possibility is there, but the fact that we are living organisms ourselves suggests that something DID happen at that point in time, giving birth to the first single celled organisms.

This is my measly attempt at a small explanation. If you want a full explanation, do some research yourself and read some articles on the subject. I can't possibly tell you everything, especially since I'm not an expert on these matters.

 

[Aesir]

The fact that there is no evidence for god doesn't validate the decision to believe in him. Lack of evidence is not proof of existence. if there's no evidence to believe in something then logically why believe it? faith? Faith is the belief without evidence.

Furthermore the burden of proof is on the side that claims it exists, it's not our job to disprove you it's your job to prove it. If you told us a giant pink panda bear brushed your teeth this morning would it be our job to prove you wrong? of course not it's your job to prove you right. By making the claim that god exists the burden of proof rests on you.

 

[Chaco]

This is in no way my theory. What you are asking for is Abiogenesis, the field of science that focuses on how life came to be on Earth from what you call "nothing". You can see the wikipedia entry here. I'll go over some of the main highlights.

The first major point is that the basic building blocks of life, such as amino acids and lipids, may have been present on Earth through certain random occurrences. See the Miller-Urey Experiment. The materials to form these substances were all there. The energy required to make these materials could have been provided from lightning bolts or ultraviolet radiation (the atmosphere was nothing like it is today, there was no ozone layer to protect the surface from intense UV rays).

There are many hypotheses elaborated on in that page on Abiogenesis, all attempting to explain how organic molecules formed. The only fuzzy part is where you go from simple organic molecules to a living cell. So far nobody has been able to replicate the feat, but there are people working on that. It's possible that it was simply an extremely lucky occurrence that the right molecules were in the right place at the right time.

The possibility is there, but the fact that we are living organisms ourselves suggests that something DID happen at that point in time, giving birth to the first single celled organisms.

This is my measly attempt at a small explanation. If you want a full explanation, do some research yourself and read some articles on the subject. I can't possibly tell you everything, especially since I'm not an expert on these matters.

I researched this some while, you were away. I found similar answers, but the fact is it isn't proved. And, well, it would seem that we are at a stalemate.

And Variola, I thank you for you corteousy.

 

[AltF4]

Haha! I feel so... honored?

here's a really brief picture about what the early forming stages of the universe looked like.

The Earth was not formed as a cold rock, as you seem to imagine it. The early universe was a hot place. In fact, matter itself did not exist in the way we know it know until later on in the expansion. The universe consisted entirely of energy originally, and would would only later condense into matter. (It was that hot!)

After things expanded, it cooled down. (An increase in volume in a closed system decreases the temperature.) Along with the cooling, gravity would eventually tend to cluster bits of matter together. As a cluster gets more material, the gravitational force for it gets stronger, and will pull even more towards it. This chain reaction causes all the matter to cluster into galaxies, as opposed to being spread smoothly across space.

(NOTE: Galaxy formation is one of the major fields in astronomy being researched. So the exact details of this are likely to change in the foreseeable future.)

As a cluster of matter gets bigger and bigger it gets hotter and hotter. Now another thing to mention at this point is that matter up until this stage consisted virtually entirely of hydrogen. It is the lightest and most basic element. As these clusters of matter got bigger and reached a certain critical mass, the inside of the cluster would begin nuclear fusion. (Being pressed together with so much force that the nucleii of the atoms fuse together) This is how heavier elements other than hydrogen (all other matter) are born: the center of stars.

These stars would burn for billions and billions of years, until they burn out. The resulting explosion from the dieing star spews out all the material that used to be inside the star. The heavier elements will tend to again group together and make things like planets, while the majority of the hydrogen and other light elements wind up forming yet another star.

This is how our Earth was formed. It began as a blob of red hot magma, and would eventually cool down to temperatures suitable for what we call life.

Please visit this page on wikipedia to get a good feel for the kind of timeline Earth has had with respect to life. You should get a good idea for just how long it takes for evolution to take place.

Not long after Earth was formed (500 million years), basic constituents of what we usually call life began to form. These basic kinds of "life forms" persisted for the next 3 and a half billion years until the Cambrian Explosion. Only in the last 500 million years has Earth seen complex animal life.


Now the funny topic of "life" comes into play. The easy answer is this: The Anthropic Principle. Life DID come into existence on Earth, that much is obvious. So obviously abiogenesis is not impossible. And there is no reason to believe that it is impossible, just clearly improbable.

But really the reason someone (presumably such as yourself) may have trouble believing that life can spring up "out of nothing" as it were, is that you hold "life" to be special in some indescribable way. Why must this be so? A better place to discuss this will be my "What constitutes life?" thread. But essentially my response would be that life is not special or inherently different than non-living matter.

 

[snex]

alt, why indulge him with his trollery? this thread is "how can anyone believe in god?" not "bash modern science."

no compelling reasons to believe in god have been presented.

 

[Chaco]

The fact that there is no evidence for god doesn't validate the decision to believe in him. Lack of evidence is not proof of existence. if there's no evidence to believe in something then logically why believe it? faith? Faith is the belief without evidence.

Furthermore the burden of proof is on the side that claims it exists, it's not our job to disprove you it's your job to prove it. If you told us a giant pink panda bear brushed your teeth this morning would it be our job to prove you wrong? of course not it's your job to prove you right. By making the claim that god exists the burden of proof rests on you.

You claim evolution exists though. So basically you have a said "burden" to carry as well. I don't see mine as a burden. But you may see yours that way..

 

[Zero Beat]

Chaco, I suggest you start answering questions instead of these baseless attacks. Otherwise you might find yourself in the Boot Topic thanks to impatient people.

He's not telling you how the thread is ran, he is helping you(however indirect it may be) understand how a debate works, which he shouldn't have to in the first place.

Also, I asked you to answer something, and it was also left unanswered.

Explain the medicine behind Jesus' suposed miracles towards humankind's well being. Like healing eyesight or feeding so many people with fish.

 

[Chaco]

Chaco, I suggest you start answering questions instead of these baseless attacks. Otherwise you might find yourself in the Boot Topic thanks to impatient people.

He's not telling you how the thread is ran, he is helping you(however indirect it may be) understand how a debate works, which he shouldn't have to in the first place.

Also, I asked you to answer something, and it was also left unanswered.

Oh sorry, I didn't notice that. My apologies, wait for a few minutes and I will type you your answer.

 

[snex]

You claim evolution exists though. So basically you have a said "burden" to carry as well. I don't see mine as a burden. But you may see yours that way..

evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of gods.

gravity has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of gods.

maxwell's equations have absolutely nothing to do with the existence of gods.

 

[Chaco]

evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of gods.

gravity has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of gods.

maxwell's equations have absolutely nothing to do with the existence of gods.

Explain your reasoning here.

 

[AltF4]

alt, why indulge him with his trollery? this thread is "how can anyone believe in god?" not "bash modern science."

I was bored, okay?! Lol.


Besides, I doubt much bashing of modern science will ensue. Any issues brought up are either a result of a misunderstanding on the reader's part or (equally as likely) a poor explanation on my part. But certainly not the fault of the explanation. After all, if the science doesn't fit: we get rid of it!

 

[snex]

evolution is the change in allele frequency of a population over time. it is DEMONSTRATED by simply LOOKING.

gravity is the attractive force between two objects with mass. it is DEMONSTRATED by simply LOOKING.

maxwell's equations describe the behavior of charged particles in electric and magnetic fields. they are DEMONSTRATED by simply LOOKING.

all 3 of these fields of science explicitly spell out what observations you need to make to show them correct, and which observations you need to make to show them incorrect. when the observations are made, they lean on the "correct" side.

YOU are proposing that something called "god" exists. you therefore need to spell out what observations are needed to show you correct, and which observations are needed to show you are incorrect. you then need to show that the observations we all make lean on the "correct" side. telling us that if we cant demonstrate the observations of evolution, gravity, or maxwell's equations - your "god" answer wins by default is trying to cheat the process. "god" is not a privileged hypothesis that wins be default just because the other guys lose. ALL claims must stand on their own merits, NOT by simply taking pot-shots at other claims.

if evolution were disproven tomorrow, it would not make the observations required to make god's existence seem likely suddenly happen.

 

[Aesir]

You claim evolution exists though. So basically you have a said "burden" to carry as well. I don't see mine as a burden. But you may see yours that way..

I suggest you look up the works of Ken Miller, he's a Roman Catholic who is a proponent for the theory of evolution.

I don't see it as an burden because I can actually point to evidence.

evidence for common decent: Is the similar genomes between humans and the great ape's, humans 46, however they all have 48.

You might think this is a problem but it's not. Fact is one of the pairs became fused, we know this because of those awesome little markers at the end, which shows they got fused. Interestingly enough if we look at it that fused chromosome exists in primates as two separate chromosomes. Indicating a common decent.

(note this is a very condensed version of it, there's a video on youtube. http://youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk which explains it well.)

 

[Chaco]

Zero, the question you posed for me by myself to explain. So, I will get you your answer. But it will take some time, I have to speak to those wiser than myself on these matters. I hope you can wait for your answer.

The only thing I can tell you if these miracles are eyewitness accounts that are listed in the Bible. Biblical miracles are rare, just like today's miracles. But just because they were put in the bible were they considered to be happening frequently. And miracles do happen.

So, I hope you don't mind waiting for the answer you seek, not my stab at it.

 

[snex]

1) how do you know the claims listed in the bible were eyewitness accounts?
2) if you heard an "eyewitness" claim that he prayed to shiva (hindu god) and shiva healed his cancer, would you believe him? why or why not?

 

[Chaco]

1) how do you know the claims listed in the bible were eyewitness accounts?
2) if you heard an "eyewitness" claim that he prayed to shiva (hindu god) and shiva healed his cancer, would you believe him? why or why not?

No, I probably would not, that's why I am saying it is the only proof at this moment that I have. I mean, I'm trying to get you answers, it is quite beyond me. I have asked a friend of mine to help, he is not of this site, but is trying to come up with your answers.

Zero:

I have gotten an answer but it may not be what you are looking for, this is what Gabriel said,

"Lord Jesus' miracles were performed for two reasons- to give God glory and to prove God to nonbelievers. He let God's power work through Him, just as we can. The 'medicine' used for it was faith in God. He created the universe and our bodies, so He can also heal us. Faith is a very powerful medicine, that it is. It's been proven both psychologically and spiritually.


Is that kind of what their asking? "

 

[EC_Joey]

Chaco, I hope you don't put stock in those Televangelists that miraculously "heal" people if they give them donations. It's already been proven that they're all a bunch of frauds who live off of the suffering of others.

Faith or belief that one can get better can play a role in recovering from an ailment, but it still can't miraculously repair an optic nerve or summon fish out of nowhere.

 

[Chaco]

Chaco, I hope you don't put stock in those Televangelists that miraculously "heal" people if they give them donations. It's already been proven that they're all a bunch of frauds who live off of the suffering of others.

No, I don't. They are frauds, that are just seeking money, eh in other words gypsies?

And that is not what he is saying.

 

[snex]

No, I probably would not, that's why I am saying it is the only proof at this moment that I have. I mean, I'm trying to get you answers, it is quite beyond me. I have asked a friend of mine to help, he is not of this site, but is trying to come up with your answers.

since you yourself would not accept such a "proof" from even a LIVING person claiming to be an eyewitness, why do you think it will fly with us when you talk about somebody who wrote it in a book 2000 years ago?

what you have offered is not proof at all if not even you would accept it.

 

[Chaco]

since you yourself would not accept such a "proof" from even a LIVING person claiming to be an eyewitness, why do you think it will fly with us when you talk about somebody who wrote it in a book 2000 years ago?

what you have offered is not proof at all if not even you would accept it.

Keh, you didn't get what I was saying. I said that I know you will not accept this as proof therefore I have enlisted help.

 

[snex]

Keh, you didn't get what I was saying. I said that I know you will not accept this as proof therefore I have enlisted help.

the reason i wouldnt accept that "as proof" is because, as you yourself admitted, ITS NOT PROOF!

before posting anything you think is proof or evidence that your god exists in the future, take your post, replace all references to "god" with "shiva" and ask yourself: "if a hindu posted this, would it convert me to hinduism? why or why not?" if the answer is NO, then its not proof and dont bother posting it!

 

[Chaco]

Gabe's answer continued:

"...but one interesting thing I've heard from a mathematician is that it's pretty much mathematically impossible for the world to have come together and work as perfectly as it does without divine intervention.

It says in Ezekiel that if you speak the Word of God and people don't accept it, their blood is on their hands, not on yours. But as for hard, solid evidence, there have been many archaelogical discoveries that have supported it. Also, scientific researches of things like evolution actually proving the Bible.

The thing that is lacking with peole who don't believe is faith. Believing in something they can't see. Not just God, but things that they say "can't be proven," though it's proven everyday. "

And Snex, I was saying you wouldn't believe it, and Shiva, going FF on me?

 

[GhostAnime]

you know, inserting a magic man into the picture really doesn't help explain things that's apparently mathematically impossible. i mean, you can't even calculate that with the knowledge we have now.

 

[snex]

shiva is a hindu god, way older than either video games or christianity.

your friend's text contains no evidence. did you do like i said and replace all instances of "god" with "shiva?" if your friend were a hindu and gave you the exact same post about "shiva" would it convince you to convert to hinduism?

and sorry, but unnamed "mathematicians" with unknown qualifications carry no weight here. being an expert in math does not make you qualified to make proclamations about theories of physics or biology. if a biologist went around claiming that "1+1=2 is biologically impossible, therefore math is wrong" you would rightly call him a ****ing wacko. so why dont you do the same for your mathematician friend?

 

[AltF4]

Man, Chaco. I went to all the trouble of explaining the formation of the universe for you and it doesn't even warrant a response? Jeez!

Btw:

"but one interesting thing I've heard from a mathematician is that it's pretty much mathematically impossible for the world to have come together and work as perfectly as it does without divine intervention."

BS: See the Anthropic Principle.

 

[BFDD]

If you want to get into probabilities, the probability of god existing is less than the probability of a hurricane blowing over a junkyard and putting together a fully functional 747.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Gabe's answer continued:

"...but one interesting thing I've heard from a mathematician is that it's pretty much mathematically impossible for the world to have come together and work as perfectly as it does without divine intervention.

It says in Ezekiel that if you speak the Word of God and people don't accept it, their blood is on their hands, not on yours. But as for hard, solid evidence, there have been many archaelogical discoveries that have supported it. Also, scientific researches of things like evolution actually proving the Bible.

The thing that is lacking with peole who don't believe is faith. Believing in something they can't see. Not just God, but things that they say "can't be proven," though it's proven everyday. "

And Snex, I was saying you wouldn't believe it, and Shiva, going FF on me?

Umm... for the record, anyone can say 'I've spoken to a mathematician' or 'there have been discoveries that support it'. Watch.

I've spoken to a mathematician, and he tells me that it is mathematically impossible for a human male to have a package larger than mine. There have been many archeological discoveries that support this.

(Totally true, btw)

 

[Chaco]

Man, Chaco. I went to all the trouble of explaining the formation of the universe for you and it doesn't even warrant a response? Jeez!

Btw:

"but one interesting thing I've heard from a mathematician is that it's pretty much mathematically impossible for the world to have come together and work as perfectly as it does without divine intervention."

BS: See the Anthropic Principle.

I got caught up, Alt. I read it all though. And I've heard of this, but simple cells to full humans, eh...hard to believe, imho.

I will tell him, btw.

Well, that depends Snex, as Hinduism as a whole does not reflect my lifestyle. They are a different kind of people, and believe in different things, for all you know it could be like Allah, meaning the same thing. Altough, I'm sure you don't know about Hinduism in depth. Well you might...

 

[AltF4]

Over the course of 3 and a half billion years, yes, Chaco. A very small force over a long period of time can have profound effects. Have you ever seen the Grand Canyon?

But this isn't the evolution vs creationism thread. Bring any complaints about evolution there.

 

[Amide]

Alt, a break in the debate here, is it possible to believe in evolution and god? I'd like to think so, and a poll I found that 55% believe in evolution, while less than 10% don't believe in god. In conclusion, many people that are religious believe in evolution, like me. Is that in any way contradicting?

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

To say something is "mathematically impossible" doesn't say anything about REALITY anyway, only the ability of the MODEL in question to accurately describe reality. So when someone says it's "mathematically impossible" for the universe or humans to do blah blah blah, one's first reaction should be to scrutinize the model used to make such calculations.

All of which has of course NOTHING to do with the question of God in the first place; I don't see why we're even having the evolution discussion. Evolution's truth or falsity has no bearing on the existence of a god, unless the definition of the god is constrained to be incompatible with evolution. Remember "God" doesn't have to be the Abrahamic God.

Also, the assertion that evolution's (or whatever) inability to describe the universe implies that God exists is entirely an argument from ignorance. It's literally saying "well I can't imagine any other way it could have happened, so it MUST HAVE BEEN GOD." My, or your, or anyone else's inability to come up with a satisfactory theory besides a grand being is NOT evidence for that being.

And why should anyone accept that somehow God doesn't require his own explanation? I mean, what is preventing someone from saying "the laws of nature have always been" in the same way that a theist would assert "God has always been?" It's just declaring by fiat that this "God" character is exempt from logical arguments.

 

[Chaco]

I believe in both evolution and God, but not Human evolution. Well, not from Ape evolution. I believe that we have advanced yes, our ability to think and so forth has been advanced.

I'm going to say this their is no physical proof that God exists that would suit anyone, it's all in faith. religion is a marvelous thing it provides hope. But yes, that was out of ignorance. I was getting mad at Snex, but oh well. I'm over that now. The thing is, both sides her cannot prove more so than another. If you think the way I do, but still. You may not believe in him ,but it lies in faith and faith alone. It cannot be seen or touched. So this debate will continue on, and I shall stand where I stand now. It's all in faith, nothing more. Can we provide you with proof? Not if your faith doesn't lie where ours does. So, that's my argument here.

 

[Vro]

I believe in both evolution and God, but not Human evolution. Well, not from Ape evolution. I believe that we have advanced yes, our ability to think and so forth has been advanced.

What are you trying to say? From the looks of that statement, it doesn't seem that you understand Darwinian evolution, especially concerning human advancement. This is to say, unless you believe in intelligent design, which is not evolution.

 

[snex]

the human connection to chimps is in fact one of the most well-attested to in all of biology. there are 4 species of gibbons, and we dont even know how they are related to each other. the dino-bird debate has only just ended within the last 2 decades. the evolution of whales, the past 1 decade.

the human chimp lineage has more transitional fossils than any other i can think of, and due to our anthropocentrism, the human genome is the most studied outside of bacteria and viruses.

regarding faith: faith is not a method of arriving at truth. when you look at all the people who use faith, they all have contradictory "knowledge" from it and there is absolutely no way to see who is right or wrong. this alone should tell you that faith is absolutely worthless for amassing knowledge. the only known way to gain knowledge is science. if you have another method, then demonstrate it actually works before using it and expecting others to follow.

 

[Vro]

Knowledge and belief are different things. To believe in God thru faith alone is a strong statement. Sola Fide has been a prominent baseline for many believers. This is in no way saying that all those who believe in God disregard science, empirical data, experiments, etc. It is a statement above to say, "Even knowing all this, I place my faith in God." You can say those who believe despite knowledge are being dumb or ignorant. I somewhat admire them for determinism and strength.

 

[snex]

Knowledge and belief are different things. To believe in God thru faith alone is a strong statement. Sola Fide has been a prominent baseline for many believers. This is in no way saying that all those who believe in God disregard science, empirical data, experiments, etc. It is a statement above to say, "Even knowing all this, I place my faith in God." You can say those who believe despite knowledge are being dumb or ignorant. I somewhat admire them for determinism and strength.

do you respect people who have so much faith in their religion that they are willing to hijack airplanes and crash them into skyscrapers full of thousands of innocent people?

i cant see how you can respect one usage of faith but not this usage as well. its all faith.

 

[Vro]

do you respect people who have so much faith in their religion that they are willing to hijack airplanes and crash them into skyscrapers full of thousands of innocent people?

No. Belief and religion should never be extended over to others, especially without their consent. I support violence in no way, and those who are religious and do have a very flawed view, for in no major religion is it right to commit acts of major violence.

i cant see how you can respect one usage of faith but not this usage as well. its all faith.

Fire can cook meat, heat homes, provide entertainment, and has helped man progress. So has it also created death, destruction, weapons, and war. It's all fire.

 

[SSBbo]

you say that god wouldn't let horrible things happen on Earth. lol, wat?!
if earth was a heaven, heaven wouldn't have a reason to exist.
also, hell is a mindset, like buddhist's nirvana.

that should answer that.

 

[snex]

No. Belief and religion should never be extended over to others, especially without their consent. I support violence in no way, and those who are religious and do have a very flawed view, for in no major religion is it right to commit acts of major violence.

this seems like a rather arbitrary constraint. you cant claim to respect faith while at the same time saying that only certain conclusions that faith leads to are "allowable." if you respect faith, you have given up the justification to morally judge people that use it, no matter what the results are.

Fire can cook meat, heat homes, provide entertainment, and has helped man progress. So has it also created death, destruction, weapons, and war. It's all fire.

fire makes no guarantees that those who use it will be moral people. faith does try to offer this guarantee. but over and over and over again, we see that it fails. why then do people claim that faith is a virtue?

 

[SSBbo]

Fire can cook meat, heat homes, provide entertainment, and has helped man progress. So has it also created death, destruction, weapons, and war. It's all fire.

i agree with you mostly, but the majority of religious people aren't murderous, evil, war-mongering, etc.
every religion (even atheists, see people that want to "help evolution" be killing impaired people) has it's wackos and we have to live with that.

also, i don't like people like the OP forcing their beliefs on people. these are the minority as well (unless their a scientist. see "Ben Stein's: Expelled").

I am religious and very interested in science as well, some people think i'm atheist until they come over at sunday and don't see me.