What counts as evidence for God?

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Oh im sorry what meant was employee for white star line said that quoted not even god himself can sink this.What does 911 and pearl harbor have to do with mocking god?

I dunno. What does that employee's statement have to do with anything? Can we establish that it was, in fact, God that sank that vessel? I was under the impression that it was, in fact, an iceberg. Now, maybe you want to give God credit for that, I don't know. But I don't see how you can justify that claim.

 

[JayTheUnseen]

But if you acknowledge that there is no good reason for you to believe what you believe, why would you believe? It just seems silly to me that you know there's no good reason to believe what you believe, yet you go on believing in spite of that. If I believed something that I knew I didn't have a good reason to believe, I'd stop believing it, even if it gave me great comfort. That's because...




...Thoughts don't live in a vacuum. When you accept the idea, "It's okay to believe things without any good reason to do so", it helps color your other beliefs, and poison your epistemology. Best-case scenario, you're being inconsistent; worst-case scenario, this belief taints every aspect of your understanding of reality and you end up with something along the lines of crank magnetism.

I acknowledge that not everyone will see the proof I see as proof. Essentially, I understand that one will not believe in God, and as a result will not take certain events as proof the way I do.
After all, in my book, that's what Christianity is all about; to believe in what you can't see. Believing that I was created by a purposeful being, and that my molecules didn't happen to form together through some random process, is empowering. I know I'm not an evolved ape that gained high intelligence through some quirk of nature, but was created by an intelligent mind that has a purpose for my existence. You can call it superficial; perhaps a human should create their own purposes and doesn't need to be born into one. I do both. I believe I, like all humans, was born with a purpose; and along the way to fulfilling this purpose, I create and fulfill my own as well.

Believing in something I can't proof to other people( because I can prove it to my own mind, ) will not taint my mind unless I let it.

Also, the argument against theism is that, why believe in the supernatural explanation over the scientific one, correct? Honestly, evolution, which is presumably the basis for atheist creation theories, is as illogical as that of a supernatural being existing and having the power to shape a universe, to my mind. Simply because this; why have humans stopped physically evolving? We evolved from monkeys; we are not exempt from the cycle. So why is it we haven't physically changed as a race over the many years we existed? Granted, we are always evolving mentally; but no physical changes seem apparent.

I can't give a source, but it seems to me humankind has always had a fascination with flying. Why did we have to wait until our minds evolved to technologically allow us flight? Why weren't the sons and daughters of earlier generations born with tiny wings that grew larger with each new generation?

 

[Sehnsucht]

I'd like to offer some corrections, here, since it seems you'd adopted incorrect ideas about science, and evolution in particular.

I acknowledge that not everyone will see the proof I see as proof. Essentially, I understand that one will not believe in God, and as a result will not take certain events as proof the way I do.
After all, in my book, that's what Christianity is all about; to believe in what you can't see. Believing that I was created by a purposeful being, and that my molecules didn't happen to form together through some random process, is empowering. I know I'm not an evolved ape that gained high intelligence through some quirk of nature, but was created by an intelligent mind that has a purpose for my existence. You can call it superficial; perhaps a human should create their own purposes and doesn't need to be born into one. I do both. I believe I, like all humans, was born with a purpose; and along the way to fulfilling this purpose, I create and fulfill my own as well.

Believing in something I can't proof to other people( because I can prove it to my own mind, ) will not taint my mind unless I let it.

A few notes:

-Molecules don't assemble "randomly". They assemble as per forces and principles, and these are not random. If they were random, it would be impossible to study and predict their interactions, since randomness entails a lack of any coherent patterns. There are rules that govern and inform interactions in our universe.

On a related note, that something is non-random does not mean it is designed, or that there is an intent behind interactions. It only means that what order there is results from forces that are governed by rules. You might ask how and why those rules take the form they do, but that's a different question than whether the universe is random or not.

-You are an evolved ape, by definition. The term "ape" is a label that seeks to describe a certain class of animals. If an organism has hands with opposable digits, front-facing eyes, bipedal legs, is a mammal, lacks a tail, and so on, then that thing can be called an "ape". And you are evolved, because evolution via natural selection offers the most accurate account for the diversity of and relation between species. And under that picture, the human species shares a common ancestor with other extant apes (chimps, gorillas, orangutans, and gibbons).

-Might I inquire as to what purpose we were created with? If I were to create something intelligent, I'd likely do so for some kind of end or goal as well. Yet from my limited exposure to Christian theology, it seems God created Man so that we can "glorify" and "praise" God. Which is a bit bizarre. God created us so that we can thank him for creating us? Or we were created to be in the presence of God in Heaven? Then why the roundabout process of incarnating (and dying) in some material realm first?

Being created "for a purpose" is not an incomprehensible notion, of course. Though when the purposes are like the above, it kind of smacks of the absurd. Though if the above is indeed incorrect, I invite you to make the necessary corrections.

Also, the argument against theism is that, why believe in the supernatural explanation over the scientific one, correct? Honestly, evolution, which is presumably the basis for atheist creation theories, is as illogical as that of a supernatural being existing and having the power to shape a universe, to my mind. Simply because this; why have humans stopped physically evolving? We evolved from monkeys; we are not exempt from the cycle. So why is it we haven't physically changed as a race over the many years we existed? Granted, we are always evolving mentally; but no physical changes seem apparent.

I can't give a source, but it seems to me humankind has always had a fascination with flying. Why did we have to wait until our minds evolved to technologically allow us flight? Why weren't the sons and daughters of earlier generations born with tiny wings that grew larger with each new generation?

Here's a basic primer on the theory of evolution, since it seems you've been having a hard time wrapping your mind around it, in the past:

[collapse=ON EVOLUTION]
That's not really the case. On an individual basis (and as you've noted above), one's theism or atheism will emerge out of experience. I, for instance, have had nor have any spiritual or supernatural experiences, so I can't believe in God on an experiential basis. And I've not yet seen any arguments or ideas that warrant that I restructure my life and thoughts around a given deity. I would imagine that this is the case for many atheists.

But beyond the individual, on a philosophical and practical basis, what theism tends to lack is explanatory power. Science is the most useful and solid method we've yet devised to ascertain knowledge about the world we live in -- and we only have access to that world, at least while we are alive. Science has a lot of explanatory power, because it can describe, and predict, the phenomena that make up our experience of the world. The theistic account does seek to account for certain things, but it's either that science has a more robust explanation, or that theism presents unfalsifiable propositions that science cannot answer (due to the unfalsifiability), so we don't have the means to verify or confirm within the bounds of our experience.

This pertains to evolution as well. The diversity and prevalence of life is accounted for in detail by the theory of evolution. It's a pretty simple notion, once you break it down to a simple form. It's basically all about probability. If an organism has adaptations that allow it to better survive in their environment, the likelihood they will survive long enough to procreate increases. And they will transmit their genes to a new generation. Those who have a harder time surviving will have less chances to procreate, so those less successful organisms will phase out of the population.

And in an interplay between environmental changes and shifts, and interactions between different organisms and species, you have generations of speciations, extinctions, migrations, and various other things that lead of the rise and fall of countless species. This process is driven by natural selection -- that is, there is no mind or intentional agent driving any of this, but instead the non-random interactions in the forces of nature on our planet. If natural selection doesn't need an agent with intention to explain how it works, why would science need to posit one?

Humans have not appeared to change much over time because evolution is a very slow process. It's a sort of genetic snowballing that spans thousands upon thousands of generations. It is currently thought that Homo sapiens first started to diverge from the Heidelberg Man around 400,000 years ago (the Neanderthals also diverged from HM around that time). Humans haven't changed all that dramatically since that time. Life on this planet has been around for about 3 billion years, by modern estimates. The fact that it's taken so much time to produce our diverse "ecosphere" shows just how slowly natural selection occurs.

Humans are classified as apes, and all apes descend from a common ape-like ancestor. Monkeys and apes diverged earlier (I recall something like 2.5 million years ago, but don't quote me on that). If our distance evolutionary predecessors had wings, then these wings were clearly phased out -- because if they weren't, we'd still have them, or at least have vestigial wings. Wings were never necessary for our survival, so we were never pressured as a species to develop means of flight. If we are to develop wings, it won't happen for thousands of generations yet.
[/collapse]

Evolution is not the "basis" of the non-theistic worldview. In fact, atheism isn't a complete description of any worldview. It only notes that the individual (the atheist) does not hold theistic beliefs. It tells us nothing about what that purpose believes politically, culturally, philosophically, etc. Though an atheist will likely accept the findings of science as being provisionally accurate, since science does inform non-theistic outlooks (e.g. naturalism, materialism, secularism, humanism, etc.).

Also, I will note that in science, the origin of life is a different (though related) subject than the diversity of life. It's not yet been adequately confirmed how life began on Earth. But we are confident that, no matter how it got started, that once it did begin, natural selection can sufficiently account for how life developed and evolved over time.

This natural account is not "as illogical" as the supernatural account. And this, because we can at least say that whatever the case -- whether there is a God or not -- the theory of evolution does account for how life unfolds, and the evidence is so broad and vast that we can be confident that it's true.

So that's a basic primer on the theory of evolution and natural selection. It seems you hold to an incorrect view of the subject, or at least have enough questions that these theories don't seem to be credible. Whichever the case, I would recommend you begin exploring the topic further -- both for the sake of self-education, and because the topic is really quite interesting. 8)

 

[AfungusAmongus]

Honestly, evolution, which is presumably the basis for atheist creation theories, is as illogical as that of a supernatural being existing and having the power to shape a universe, to my mind. Simply because this; why have humans stopped physically evolving? We evolved from monkeys; we are not exempt from the cycle. So why is it we haven't physically changed as a race over the many years we existed? Granted, we are always evolving mentally; but no physical changes seem apparent.

What makes you think humans have stopped physically evolving? As Sensucht noted the various homo species led to homo sapiens over millions of years. Recorded history spans a few thousand years: merely the last 0.1% of this step of our evolution, which is itself only a minuscule fraction of our evolutionary history.

I can't give a source, but it seems to me humankind has always had a fascination with flying. Why did we have to wait until our minds evolved to technologically allow us flight? Why weren't the sons and daughters of earlier generations born with tiny wings that grew larger with each new generation?

Fascination with flying obviously cannot cause your genes to mutate such that you sprout tiny wings. But you do raise an interesting question. I suppose that bird wings evolved from dinosaur arms partly because these dinosaurs used their mouths, not their arms, for grabbing stuff. They had spare parts to work with. Primates, on the other hand, use our muscular arms for grabbing, carrying, and manipulating stuff. And punching each other. Light, feathery arms are presumably bad at those things.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I acknowledge that not everyone will see the proof I see as proof. Essentially, I understand that one will not believe in God, and as a result will not take certain events as proof the way I do.

But why do you assume that from the outset? If your evidence is so vague or weak that you recognize that others probably will reject it out of hand, shouldn't that imply a problem to you? In science, this kind of issue doesn't generally arise, for a variety of reasons. Would you care to share the events that you take as proof?

After all, in my book, that's what Christianity is all about; to believe in what you can't see.

...Although you do seem to be contradicting yourself here somewhat.

Believing in something I can't proof to other people( because I can prove it to my own mind, ) will not taint my mind unless I let it.

But you already brought up things that you hold as a result of this belief. If you aren't justified, what consequences could that have?

Also, the argument against theism is that, why believe in the supernatural explanation over the scientific one, correct?

Not quite. Within most epistemological frameworks, it comes down to "the 'god' hypothesis has not been validated". Or, to put it another way, if you don't believe things until there is good reason to believe them, until there is solid evidence presented, then the most rational argument against theism is simply "the burden of proof for god has not been met". What you're talking about comes down to epistemology - how do we go about establishing things as truth? And when it comes to supernatural explanations, there is simply no way to differentiate one potential supernatural source from another.

If you assume "Event X was caused by supernatural explanation (a)", not only are you saying something which has never, ever been proven to be correct and very often has been proven to be wrong, but you have absolutely no way to justify it being supernatural explanation (a) instead of, say, supernatural explanation (b). Even if it straight-up says "I am Yahweh, the Christian God", how could you possibly differentiate that from some other supernatural being doing that and simply lying? This QualiaSoup video details the problem very well, particularly this segment. Matt Dillahunty talks about it as well at length, but it really does come down to this basic problem - it's simply not possible to establish one supernatural cause as legitimate and another as illegitimate.

Think of every time we've claimed that something had a supernatural cause. So far, it's either been something we could not prove one way or another (the cause of the universe) or something we could prove had a perfectly viable naturalistic explanation - thunder, tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, the diversification of life, diseases, et cetera. Given that track record, why would you ever claim that something had a supernaturalistic cause? Not only that, but the naturalistic explanations, unlike the supernaturalistic explanations, offer real, testable solutions. Disease caused by demons? Pray and it'll go away. Maybe. Except it wouldn't, because that's not how disease works. Disease caused by bacteria? Take some penicillin and see me in the morning.

Science rejects supernatural explanations because they are not only completely unverifiable, but also completely useless.

Honestly, evolution, which is presumably the basis for atheist creation theories, is as illogical as that of a supernatural being existing and having the power to shape a universe, to my mind. Simply because this; why have humans stopped physically evolving? We evolved from monkeys; we are not exempt from the cycle. So why is it we haven't physically changed as a race over the many years we existed? Granted, we are always evolving mentally; but no physical changes seem apparent.

Please refer to this video I made literally years ago. Actually, don't. I just realized the quality is awful. Here, let me just explain the gist here: almost every single "problem" with evolution boils down to the person raising the objection not understanding evolution. Seriously, there's a level of presumptuous arrogance here that you probably didn't notice. I'm gonna answer your questions in just a sec, but pause here for a moment and think about evolution as a scientific field. It is taught in classrooms and universities around the world. Almost every single biological field uses it in some way or another, from zoology to paleontology to virology to Evolutionary Developmental Biology (obviously) to genetics. It's been said that nothing in biology makes sense outside of the light of evolution. To say that it is "widely" accepted among experts in relevant scientific disciplines would be an understatement; it's not for nothing that SMBC made this joke about evolution being more widely-understood than gravity.

So with that in mind, how much do you know about evolution? How much time have you spent studying it? How deep is your understanding of the scientific basis for evolution? Do you think you came up with that silver bullet question, that "stumper" that every scientist who spent years studying the topic missed? Or do you think it's just based on you not understanding some concept of the theory? I'm sorry if this sounds dickish, but honestly, every single time this happens, the question is a result of not understanding evolution. And if you were asking in an attempt to understand it better, it wouldn't bother me so much. But you're not - you're trying to show that evolution is "illogical". And when people start denigrating solid science, well, that starts widdling on my chips, you know what I mean?

In this case: two issues. Firstly, Homo Sapiens has only been around for around 200,000 years. That really isn't a particularly long time on an evolutionary timescale, particularly when you consider that we reproduce rather slowly. You wouldn't necessarily expect any significant changes within 200,000 years, unless there were significant selection pressures. That's the other issue - evolution doesn't simply happen. If a species is perfectly adapted for a niche, then natural selection becomes considerably less of an issue. You stop selecting for the one with slightly bigger plumage or the one who can run slightly faster, and just sort of stagnate. Hell, 200,000 years? That's nothing - crocodiles existed more or less in the form they are now 65 million years ago! This is what happens when you are virtually perfectly adapted for a given niche. Nature keeps selecting for, well, more of what there was last time. In order for certain adaptations, there needs to be a clear selection pressure, and there needs to be some genetic basis for it as well. Case in point:

I can't give a source, but it seems to me humankind has always had a fascination with flying. Why did we have to wait until our minds evolved to technologically allow us flight? Why weren't the sons and daughters of earlier generations born with tiny wings that grew larger with each new generation?

Because there's absolutely no selection pressure. We have no evolutionary drive, so to speak, to evolve wings. Not only that, but we also lack the basis under which such wings would form - as far as it is understood, wings simply would not (and could not) evolve like that. These "gradual steps" commonly do not work when it comes to limbs or "specific" functions - what happens instead is usually that creatures co-opt existing traits. Furthermore, primates used their arms as powerful grasping tools - losing this for wings would have held us back immensely. Just straight-up sprouting an extra pair of limbs is not something seen within the entire tetrapod superclass. I'm really butchering the science at this point, you can probably find much, much better explanations elsewhere. But please, seek out the explanations. Don't just act like one of the most important and powerful scientific theories ever is wrong because you don't understand it very well.

 

[JayTheUnseen]

What evolution suggests is that an occurrence happened millions of years ago; that molecules coincidentally moved together and formed the first lifeform. Can someone tell me the mathematical figure for how likely that is to happen? No arrogance, I am honestly curious.

I didn't come here to change views and take names. I didn't expect to change anyone's views, or to have my own changed. What I am saying, is that since I believe in a higher power, events that could be attributed to a higher power I will take as evidence. What I understand is that an atheist would not take these events as proof, as I do. Simply put, I have a tolerance of other people's views and don't feel much need to change them.

Also, the original lifeform was clearly surviving, was it not? Why did it feel the need to evolve and walk on land?

I'd like to offer some corrections, here, since it seems you'd adopted incorrect ideas about science, and evolution in particular.



A few notes:

-Might I inquire as to what purpose we were created with? If I were to create something intelligent, I'd likely do so for some kind of end or goal as well. Yet from my limited exposure to Christian theology, it seems God created Man so that we can "glorify" and "praise" God. Which is a bit bizarre. God created us so that we can thank him for creating us? Or we were created to be in the presence of God in Heaven? Then why the roundabout process of incarnating (and dying) in some material realm first?

Being created "for a purpose" is not an incomprehensible notion, of course. Though when the purposes are like the above, it kind of smacks of the absurd. Though if the above is indeed incorrect, I invite you to make the necessary corrections.

From my understanding, God had created all the animals on Earth, and was pleased with His work. However, He wanted to create a race more like him, since no animals were even close to being like Him, and a race that would love Him in an intelligent manner, as opposed to the simple love an animal has.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Let's start with the science questions, shall we?

the original lifeform was clearly surviving, was it not? Why did it feel the need to evolve and walk on land?

In a word? Competition. The sea was teeming with aggressive consumers, and dry land was not. There was a strong selection pressure to move out of the water and onto land. The plants made the jump first, as everything they needed for life was present - sun and water, basically. Animals followed much later, for much the same reasons.

What evolution suggests is that an occurrence happened millions of years ago; that molecules coincidentally moved together and formed the first lifeform. Can someone tell me the mathematical figure for how likely that is to happen? No arrogance, I am honestly curious.

Firstly: scientists in the audience are probably gritting their teeth right now, because evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of life. Evolution deals with the diversification of existing life; abiogenesis is the science of life from non-life. Let's not mix the two up, as it's a common creationist ploy to try to conflate the two, then pretend that abiogenesis's relatively weak evidence base somehow ruins evolution's credibility. It doesn't.

As for the question, I'd reckon it doesn't really matter. Somehow, life formed. We're not entirely sure how, although there are some very solid hypotheses, and we (as always) have absolutely no reason to believe that it was anything other than natural forces acting on molecular structures. If you're really interested, there's a wealth of literature on the subject that is just a quick google search away.

Actually calculating the odds is virtually impossible given how little we know about earth at that age. What we can say, however, is that given the sheer size of the earth, the odds probably weren't that far against. But as said above, none of this gives any justification to say "God did it". Remember, "God did it" has never, not once, increased our understanding of the universe or led us to any meaningful solution or progress - it's a useless non-answer that cannot be justified. In fact, I missed this earlier and I feel the need to come back to it...

Honestly, evolution, which is presumably the basis for atheist creation theories, is as illogical as that of a supernatural being existing and having the power to shape a universe, to my mind.

Even if we grant that evolution is completely false, that cosmology is completely false, that abiogenesis is completely false, that everything we know about our history and our origins can be thrown out... So what? It does absolutely nothing to demonstrate the truth of creationism or the idea that God did it. Many religious people are under two complementary erroneous assumptions:

1. That if there is no explanation, "God did it" wins by default
2. That any explanation is better than no explanation

And neither of these are true. If we don't have a good scientific explanation, then we don't have a good scientific explanation; that does not mean that your explanation gets a free pass on being justified. You see, it isn't "evolution vs. creation". It's "evolution vs. creation vs. every single other potential alternative hypothesis". And simply because we do not know what those alternatives may be does not mean that they cannot exist. Hell, not to put too fine a point on it, if someone asked me to find an explanation with the same evidential, explanatory, and predictive merit as creation, I could probably do it by flicking ink from a fountain pen at a pile of shredded documents, because it's not that hard to match "absolutely zero merit".

I mean, you ask what the odds are... So what if they're stacked a billion to one against? At some point, life came into being, and as tall as those odds may be, what are the odds of some supernatural being coming down and causing everything? How would you even attempt to quantify that? How can you calculate the odds of something existing when there's simply no evidence of them existing? You can't - any attempts to calculate the probability of God are simply flights of fancy, unhinged from anything resembling reality.

I didn't come here to change views and take names. I didn't expect to change anyone's views, or to have my own changed. What I am saying, is that since I believe in a higher power, events that could be attributed to a higher power I will take as evidence. What I understand is that an atheist would not take these events as proof, as I do. Simply put, I have a tolerance of other people's views and don't feel much need to change them.

And this is the debate hall, and I (and I'm sure some others present) hold that it's important to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. If you have events that you believe can be attributed to a higher power, why not share them with us? Why not take the time to examine your beliefs and ensure that you're actually justified in holding them? You seem loathe to actually share your reason for believing with us, and I can't help but wonder why. :/

 

[JayTheUnseen]

Let's start with the science questions, shall we?



In a word? Competition. The sea was teeming with aggressive consumers, and dry land was not. There was a strong selection pressure to move out of the water and onto land. The plants made the jump first, as everything they needed for life was present - sun and water, basically. Animals followed much later, for much the same reasons.



Firstly: scientists in the audience are probably gritting their teeth right now, because evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of life. Evolution deals with the diversification of existing life; abiogenesis is the science of life from non-life. Let's not mix the two up, as it's a common creationist ploy to try to conflate the two, then pretend that abiogenesis's relatively weak evidence base somehow ruins evolution's credibility. It doesn't.

As for the question, I'd reckon it doesn't really matter. Somehow, life formed. We're not entirely sure how, although there are some very solid hypotheses, and we (as always) have absolutely no reason to believe that it was anything other than natural forces acting on molecular structures. If you're really interested, there's a wealth of literature on the subject that is just a quick google search away.

Actually calculating the odds is virtually impossible given how little we know about earth at that age. What we can say, however, is that given the sheer size of the earth, the odds probably weren't that far against. But as said above, none of this gives any justification to say "God did it". Remember, "God did it" has never, not once, increased our understanding of the universe or led us to any meaningful solution or progress - it's a useless non-answer that cannot be justified. In fact, I missed this earlier and I feel the need to come back to it...



Even if we grant that evolution is completely false, that cosmology is completely false, that abiogenesis is completely false, that everything we know about our history and our origins can be thrown out... So what? It does absolutely nothing to demonstrate the truth of creationism or the idea that God did it. Many religious people are under two complementary erroneous assumptions:

1. That if there is no explanation, "God did it" wins by default
2. That any explanation is better than no explanation

And neither of these are true. If we don't have a good scientific explanation, then we don't have a good scientific explanation; that does not mean that your explanation gets a free pass on being justified. You see, it isn't "evolution vs. creation". It's "evolution vs. creation vs. every single other potential alternative hypothesis". And simply because we do not know what those alternatives may be does not mean that they cannot exist. Hell, not to put too fine a point on it, if someone asked me to find an explanation with the same evidential, explanatory, and predictive merit as creation, I could probably do it by flicking ink from a fountain pen at a pile of shredded documents, because it's not that hard to match "absolutely zero merit".

I mean, you ask what the odds are... So what if they're stacked a billion to one against? At some point, life came into being, and as tall as those odds may be, what are the odds of some supernatural being coming down and causing everything? How would you even attempt to quantify that? How can you calculate the odds of something existing when there's simply no evidence of them existing? You can't - any attempts to calculate the probability of God are simply flights of fancy, unhinged from anything resembling reality.



And this is the debate hall, and I (and I'm sure some others present) hold that it's important to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. If you have events that you believe can be attributed to a higher power, why not share them with us? Why not take the time to examine your beliefs and ensure that you're actually justified in holding them? You seem loathe to actually share your reason for believing with us, and I can't help but wonder why. :/

Thing is, atheists state ( truthfully, )supernatural beings aren't proven, and thus act like anyone who believes in it are wrong. Yet their own personal belief for how life formed is no more proven or even decided upon, yet they sneer at people who at least have a theory they believe in?

Also, note that theism and evolution can actually coexist. So far as I know, no proof, or even a de-notion of evolution, is present in Christianity.

 

[Sucumbio]

Depends on the Christian really as there are some who believe Genesis should be taken literally and that dinosaurs and man coexisted.

https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/dinosaurs-and-the-bible/

The question about why did God create humans go to Catholic dogma mainly and summarizes thus: Because angels, God's first sentient creation, was made to worship God, God felt an emptiness that could not be filled, and so he made Man, capable of Free Will, and whose love for God would be more meaningful because man would choose to worship God. The rigmarole of being born into mortal flesh, dying, and ascending to heaven, is a necessary journey by which the uniquely human Soul must endure for God made man in his image, and so each us has a piece of God in us in the form of the soul. This too is what spurned Satan to rebel,jealousy over that which he could never have.

 

[Sehnsucht]

I was going to cover the whole abiogenesis thing, but I had to go AFK for a bit. In any case:

From my understanding, God had created all the animals on Earth, and was pleased with His work. However, He wanted to create a race more like him, since no animals were even close to being like Him, and a race that would love Him in an intelligent manner, as opposed to the simple love an animal has.

So God wants love? A perfect, timeless, spaceless, omni-triad being needs to create something to love it? Why would a perfect being need anything, least of all love from some external personage?

And isn't God a triune persona? A harmonious relationship between the persons of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? God is One, but God is not Alone, and never was (and never will be).

Seems kind of absurd. God was feeling lonely and/or bored and/or love-starved, so God created some hairless apes on a small rock to tell Him that they love Him (and to ask him favours and good fortune).

I suppose, though, that in this sense, we would indeed have been made in the image of God. For if it is in our nature to need to love and feel loved, then it would consequently be in God's nature as well. Though I wonder if this means God had no choice but to create the universe and mankind, if it is in God's nature to need reciprocal relations of love. :4crackpottheology:

Thing is, atheists state ( truthfully, )supernatural beings aren't proven, and thus act like anyone who believes in it are wrong. Yet their own personal belief for how life formed is no more proven or even decided upon, yet they sneer at people who at least have a theory they believe in?

Using the methods available to us to gauge the only reality we all seem to experience, supernatural entities have not been verified beyond reasonable doubt -- either because no(t enough) substantive evidence has been found, or such entities are beyond our reach by virtue of their properties.

I think the conflict comes when the theistic account is proposed to explain some phenomenon. "Only God can account for X", a given theist might say, where X can be morality, the origins of the cosmos, logic, human cognition and self-awareness, the origin and diversity of life, and so on.

Yet there are other alternative hypotheses that can account for these things. I'd be wary of accepting any hypothesis at face value; they deserve to be compared and contrasted through both reasoning and fact-checking. If you say "I hold to the theistic hypothesis", there are those who would respond "What of these other hypotheses?", or "the theistic hypothesis is flawed for reason Y", and so on.

As BCP noted, there is no current theory of abiogenesis; there are only hypotheses. There is not yet a consensus on how life arises from non-life.

And this is bad because?

You say "yet they sneer at people who at least have a theory they believe in?". Are you saying it's better to at least believe in some hypothesis, over not having any real stake one way or the other? Are you saying that it's better to believe in something, whatever that may be -- even if you can't verify its accuracy -- than to admit and accept that you don't (yet) have the answers?

The obvious risk in this is that you might adopt ideas that are incorrect or untrue. Not just theistic ideas, mind, but any kind of idea. This mindset discourages skepticism, which can allow impractical, needless, or even malicious notions to slip through the cracks and cement themselves in your worldview.

Also, note that theism and evolution can actually coexist. So far as I know, no proof, or even a de-notion of evolution, is present in Christianity.

This is correct. Evolution happens when life is present. It doesn't matter what -- or who -- set life into motion, whether that be God or aliens or natural processes. Once it gets started, it becomes subject to evolutionary processes and pressures.

The issue is that we understand evolution to such a extensive degree that to posit God as being necessary to explain evolution is needless. In other words, you don't need God to explain evolution, so why bring God into the discussion? You could posit some designer as being responsible for toppling the first domino in the chain, but that's a hypothesis that must compete with others.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

It's a bit hard to love God intelligently when it involves complete faith. It'd be like going to an online dating site to find a profile of a man who claims to be an immortal claimant to creating the entire universe who loves everyone who visits his page unconditionally, is infinitely smarter than Stephen Hawking but is really confident the Earth is flat and the sky is a shell, is the best ethicist the world has never seen that is so good he can justify genocide, can out bench press anyone but he doesn't want to be a show-off so he doesn't like to take photos, is a single father whose only child is a zombie that can walk on water that is also him, and taking him at his word even though he won't message you back despite his location being "Watching you sleep ". If we saw anything comparable to that, we'd think the person was trolling or insane; either way we'd advise people that it'd be an unwise emotional investment.

 

[Claire Diviner]

I just like to go on record to say that I find it to be quite a fantastic oddity that a book that tells the tales of talking serpents, men surviving burning flames, a man being swallowed whole by a sea creature and living, people being raised from the dead, a man who can part an entire sea and walk across the entire way without the waters' separation letting up, and a flood that covers the whole world while a man and a small group of family and animals re-populates the entire planet is somehow supposed to be seen as non-fiction.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Thing is, atheists state ( truthfully, )supernatural beings aren't proven, and thus act like anyone who believes in it are wrong.

Again, it's an issue of epistemology. If you believe in something without justification, I think you're wrong. Even if you turn out to be right, the reason you were right has absolutely nothing to do with your beliefs.

Yet their own personal belief for how life formed is no more proven or even decided upon, yet they sneer at people who at least have a theory they believe in?

Our beliefs on how life formed are tentative. I'm not sure how life formed. There's decent evidence implying that in prehistoric conditions, simple lipids and amino acids would form naturally, and that amino acids can naturally combine to form simple RNA structures. There is also decent evidence implying that RNA can use nucleotides (which also form spontaneously) to replicate itself. So the first cells almost certainly were simply strands of RNA surrounded by a sphere of lipids (lipids naturally form into a sphere due to the way their tails are hydrophobic and their heads are hydrophilic).

This is all fairly tentative, based on what we know about the ancient earth's atmosphere and methodological naturalism, but so far this is what the evidence seems to indicate. And there is a decent amount of evidence indicating this. It's by no means comparable to the "theory" of "god did it". Remember, every single time we've said "God did it", we've either been proven wrong or been completely unable to justify the claim, and in this case, it's absolutely no different. I'm not sneering, am I? I just wish you would be more cautious in the application of your epistemology.

Also, note that theism and evolution can actually coexist. So far as I know, no proof, or even a de-notion of evolution, is present in Christianity.

In the narrowest sense? Sure. But evolution is just one facet of science, and there are countless things in science that contradict pieces of the Bible. For example, Adam and Eve. There was never just one man and one woman. Evolution happens in populations. And throwing out Adam and Eve throws the entire theology into chaos - original sin goes away, and as a result Jesus's sacrifice make no sense. And of course, the flood mythos is simply completely wrong, as detailed above, as is the tower of babel, the enslavement of the jews in Egypt, et cetera. That's not all evolution, but it is all science.

 

[Planet Cool]

Ugh, I can't remember if I've posted here before or not. Well, here's my $0.02:

I was an atheist for much of my life, but converted to Christianity about four years ago following a profoundly moving experience. (I didn't abandon my belief in evolution, as that seems to be something of a hot topic; the theory is based on a mountain of solid scientific evidence that I think is fairly easy to understand if you apply yourself to it, and it's never threatened my belief in God.) That said, I can only admit that much of my faith is just that - faith.

The big debate over whether or not God exists is interesting and intellectually (and sometimes emotionally) stimulating, but ultimately pointless, if you ask me. Even if there definitely is a God, there's no guarantee that our meaty monkey brains would be able to perceive / observe him. The same goes for invisible, intangible floating dragons or whatever; you can't observe what you can't observe, you can't know what you don't know, and that's that. I'm always going to be a Christian, and I think I'd still love and revere Jesus as a person even if I found out tomorrow that there's definitely no God. But I think agnosticism is the only position that is totally intellectually justifiable.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Ugh, I can't remember if I've posted here before or not. Well, here's my $0.02:

I was an atheist for much of my life, but converted to Christianity about four years ago following a profoundly moving experience.

Would you be interested in sharing this experience?

That said, I can only admit that much of my faith is just that - faith.

Okay, so here's where we sort of dive into epistemology a bit. Would you use faith to justify any other decision in your life? What differentiates your faith from the faith of a Muslim man, who holds directly contradictory beliefs to you? How do you use faith to determine whether or not something is true?

The entire concept of faith bothers me. We never heard about "faith" in matters of the real world, or when we do, it ends up being a poor equivocation. I don't have "faith" that my girlfriend loves me; I have reasonable expectations based on observed phenomena. I don't have "faith" that the sun will rise tomorrow, I can offer very strong, valid empirical reasons why I'm pretty sure that'll happen. In fact, if you look over everything I believe, you won't find a single thing that I hold on faith alone. If you can find such a thing, guess what: I'll stop believing in it. Faith is essentially the excuse people give for believing in something they have no good reason to believe in.

So why do you have faith? Do you have a reason for what you believe?

The big debate over whether or not God exists is interesting and intellectually (and sometimes emotionally) stimulating, but ultimately pointless, if you ask me. Even if there definitely is a God, there's no guarantee that our meaty monkey brains would be able to perceive / observe him. The same goes for invisible, intangible floating dragons or whatever; you can't observe what you can't observe, you can't know what you don't know, and that's that. I'm always going to be a Christian, and I think I'd still love and revere Jesus as a person even if I found out tomorrow that there's definitely no God. But I think agnosticism is the only position that is totally intellectually justifiable.

So... You understand that you cannot intellectually justify your position and you make the concession that God, epistemologically, resembles something we know is absurd to believe in. So why believe?

I find this discussion phenomenally important for a number of reasons. What a person believes informs their actions, and how a person goes about forming beliefs is crucially important. We have at least one incredibly influential congressman who believes that climate change is a hoax because of his beliefs about god. We have people sabotaging science education in favor of their favorite myths. We have people killing each other over their beliefs in god. On the flipside, if an Abrahamic religion is actually true, it's the most important thing anyone could ever know - nothing in this world could possibly stack up to an eternal afterlife, and no knowledge or action is as important as those that would lead you to eternal paradise and away from eternal torture. The fact that people are applying faith - an epistemological tool which simply fails - to deal with these incredibly difficult questions is a really big problem.

 

[Planet Cool]

Before I reply, I want to make it clear that I have zero interest in convincing anyone that God definitely exists. I've had these kinds of debates as an atheist and as a Christian, and they almost always lead to bitterness and frustration, as no one is really as willing to let themselves be persuaded as they claim (and I'm past the point where I'd hold that against them, given the subject matter). However, I'm happy to satisfy your curiosity as much as I can, and hopefully explain myself a little better.

Would you be interested in sharing this experience?

I'd rather not share the details, as they refer to something too private to post on the Internet for all to see. I don't think my story is particularly remarkable compared to others like it and I certainly don't expect you to be impressed, but I can tell you that, for many years prior to my conversion, I was a militant atheist (a "r/atheist," if you will), hostile to all things religious, and that it was not for nothing that I turned to faith (i.e. I didn't see any pretty waterfalls).

I didn't abandon any of the values I had as an atheist, such as my love of science, respect for scientists, and support of progressive social causes like marriage equality. I only picked up a few new values that have helped me to grow as a person, and I'm very grateful for it.

Okay, so here's where we sort of dive into epistemology a bit. Would you use faith to justify any other decision in your life? What differentiates your faith from the faith of a Muslim man, who holds directly contradictory beliefs to you? How do you use faith to determine whether or not something is true?

I don't know if belief qualifies as a "decision." I can decide to participate in church services, and I can decide to say that I believe (or don't believe) in God, but whether I do believe isn't really up to my conscious mind. As for what differentiates my faith from that of a Muslim man: nothing. God is a heady subject and I don't think it's reasonable to expect, let alone demand, that everyone from every culture come to the exact same conclusions.

So... You understand that you cannot intellectually justify your position and you make the concession that God, epistemologically, resembles something we know is absurd to believe in. So why believe?

I made no such concession. My point is this. If somebody tells you that there are such things as invisible, intangible floating dragons, beings that are completely impossible for you to personally observe (I assume you're already familiar with this rhetoric, so I'm keeping it bare-bones), then no one can blame you for assuming that there are no such dragons and living comfortably under that assumption. But, if the dragons do exist, then it doesn't matter that you believe they don't, no matter how well-founded said belief seems. That's how it is with God. If he exists, he exists; if he doesn't exist, he doesn't exist; whether or not we're ever able to find out for sure is of no consequence. That's why I don't like to get sucked into these kinds of debates. It's like running on a hamster wheel.

I find this discussion phenomenally important for a number of reasons. What a person believes informs their actions, and how a person goes about forming beliefs is crucially important. We have at least one incredibly influential congressman who believes that climate change is a hoax because of his beliefs about god. We have people sabotaging science education in favor of their favorite myths. We have people killing each other over their beliefs in god.

Religion is called the cause of countless sociopolitical problems, but nine times out of ten, it's only the excuse. That congressman promotes the notion that climate change is a hoax because the corporate overlords that dictate his political career require him to do so in order to stave off regulation that would cut into their profits. It would be no different if everyone involved were an atheist.

 

[Sehnsucht]

@ Planet Cool

The technical term for what you describe is the incorrigibility of experience. In short, you cannot help but experience what it is that you experience.

If I were to see a car pass by, and I perceive it as blue, but you say it's red, I cannot help but having experienced that car as blue -- whether or not it's in fact blue or red. My experience, then, could be said to be incorrigible.

So the real question is not what one experiences, but whether one has correctly interpreted that experience (or at least, as accurately or with as least bias as possible). I can't help but experience the car as blue, but if the car is actually red, then if there are ways for me to infer that despite my incorrigible sensations, then it might be in my best interest to scrutinize my experience. It may be that I am colour-blind, or that I mistook the car as blue in that one instance, or so on and so forth.

So too would it go for matters of (a)theism. You had the incorrigible experience of [something], which you've labelled as God (and you've adjusted your worldview accordingly to account for that experience). In this case, the question is not whether you have or have not actually experienced that [something], but whether that [something] points to God, is a sign of God, etc.

I'll make no presumptions as to what you've experienced and to what extent you've scrutinized and analyzed those experiences. But hopefully the above helps frame this whole topic with some technical jargon for future use. 8D

 

[Legitimate Ted]

My definition of evidence has always been a little strict.

Evidence is any information, either formerly proven true or acquired through testing, used to come to a non-fallacious conclusion.

So as a result of this, the ever-so-popular cosmological argument breaks down a bit. God is eternal and created the universe, but why could the universe not have been the eternal thing? It is not proven (and is actually impossible to prove) that the big bang was the beginning. The reasoning is the same, the answer to both "Why does God exist?" and "Why does the universe exist?" is "Just... cause?"

 

[Click Klack]

There is no evidence. God is an idea. I'm personally an atheist. But if there is a creator, I don't think it's the Christian idea of god. If there was a truly all knowing all powerful all loving god why would he leave all these bad things on earth. If he loved us so much why is there poverty, and war, and sickness. and you could argue that that's all satan and the devils work. But if god is all powerful why not just erase the devil and if he was all knowing why would he create the devil in the first place, he could see that he would make all this bad stuff and pain for what he loved or why would he make humans in the first place if we would just be in pain and die. It dose not make any sense. If there is a creator I think it would be a neutral being with no preference to what humans have created as what is right and what is wrong. It just put us in motion know we, the people choose where to take it. Not god. Us. the people choose where to take our lives and our species.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

A thought experiment that I'd put forward against theistic arguments from a moral standpoint is to ask the individual to imagine that instead of the God they contend to exist, it was he or she in its place as the prime mover, existing before creation. Then one is to ask the participant what they'd do with power equivalent to their conception of God. It is my belief that they'd honestly envision something different, however subtle, in the process, the product, and the relationship that follows. Only a supporter of the argument that this is the best world of all possible worlds, which seems like a pretty feeble argument unless their faith doesn't involve a God with omnipotence or the ability to intercede with their creation in any shape or carries any form of reincarnation/afterlife or some such dynamic with mortal life.

You could carry this test to the documents that outline the various faiths in the instances that they describe circumstances where the God or Gods interact in a form of offering or punishment. The only way to evade the contradiction with their own feelings and the purported record is if they do not believe any of it literally, however again this puts them in a precarious position because at a certain point when their stance and its origins gets so soft, they aren't really coming from a place of evidence or cause anymore.

Anyways, the point is that generally the stronger their position in both of these experiments, the more likely they are to belie them with their own attitudes. This is important, because from a philosophical and practical standpoint, the moral argument to me seems like weakest or nearly the weakest angle to take. However, it is the one that has the strongest hold on the general populace, and the reasons and degree to which they hold these views aren't going to be reconsidered regardless of how logical an argument can be. The best way to convince someone is for them to convince themselves, or at least think they did. You've got to use the forces that hold the belief to get rid of them, instead of bringing squares for their circles, right or wrong.

Of course, the target audience for this approach might also be the kind to claim that their God is mysterious and that each apparent fault from our human understanding in the design of his universe and its inhabitants, and their relationship now that is dubious and the decisions they made in their texts that are contrary to modern culture, are a part of a system being orchestrated by reasons beyond our comprehension (tantamount to philosophical suicide, but okay). Therefore the thought experiment fails because we can't imagine the "context" that the actual supposed God is in. This takes them to another pretty weak stance, but one that will be a struggle in an informal situation.

I'd claim that if God's good is incomprehensible to man, then it is not a good that is for mankind by definition. If good does not do good to man, then it is not man's good. If it can be comprehended, then it can be imagined, argued, and unless the believer falls back on faith, which they might, they won't be able to defend themselves unless they can offer a reasonable explanation, which I believe they wouldn't be able to do. Perhaps they could say there is something about the laws of the universe that we can't incorporate into our efforts so it is theoretically possible but currently undoable. But that just begs the question of why their God would let such restrictions stand, and the only choice they'd have is to say that their God isn't omnipotent (at least in this way) and thus can't do anything about it or that there is yet another reason that we can't currently imagine to be the case which commits the fallacy of ad infinitum.

Really this discussion isn't all that important from an informal standpoint because I believe that eventually our scientific and cultural advancement will handle our theistic beliefs on their own. Religions have become less and less intelligible and human as the aforementioned advancements threaten their sensibilities (it is an obfuscating defense mechanism that reveals it is dying; again, when one's positions because so weak and unthinkable, it's essentially falling out of existence by definition) because in the end, it is our bodies and minds that take precedence before these kind of doctrines, they are what picks to follow and belief these kinds of thoughts to begin with to the degree of their liking.

We'll trim the fat of our conduct, in my opinion, and while spirituality will always be a thing (until we've reached the Omega Point, so to speak, when the difference between God and creation no longer exists), it's prevalence will decline, and I think I recall seeing some studies that indicate that even now the world is becoming less and less religious by the generation. Though my only concern is regarding how secular we are, because at that point it's really tough to care about what people are thinking unless they're dangerous zealots, and I'd fear those regardless of their ideology. So yeah, the dialectical march of materialism will sweep it aside.

 

[Warlock*G]

There is no evidence for God, nor is there evidence for the absence of God. This debate is pointless.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

There is no evidence for God, nor is there evidence for the absence of God. This debate is pointless.

But isn't this sort of an admission of defeat for the theist? If there is no evidence for God, there is no way to fulfill one's burden of proof. An intellectually honest person positing the existence of some phenomenon or being would have to admit that, given exactly no evidence, there is no reason to believe in said being or phenomenon, and therefore would reject its existence.

 

[Warlock*G]

But isn't this sort of an admission of defeat for the theist? If there is no evidence for God, there is no way to fulfill one's burden of proof. An intellectually honest person positing the existence of some phenomenon or being would have to admit that, given exactly no evidence, there is no reason to believe in said being or phenomenon, and therefore would reject its existence.

Which is what I do, as an atheist. That said, if Jesus comes down floating on a cloud, slaps me, and calls me an unbeliever, then I'll say "my bad, I was wrong, what took you so long?"

 

[Teran]

Notice how characteristic of the Abrahamic God that is, saving the precious scripture and letting a worshipper burn to death because hey whatever.

Probably the best evidence I've seen tbh

 

[Wreckarooni]

Or when a Tornado rips through a town and kills 100s but one old useless lady arises from the rubble. HALLELUJAH!

....wait a second why the tornado in the first place God? What about all those dead people? That old lady's house?

Or when a rapper who mistreats women and probably had sex with some underage chicks wins a Grammy and thanks God.
Meanwhile some bible worshiping virgin got ***** in an alleyway in NY. Yea God works in mysterious ways.

Cherry picking and delusion unfortunately. Assigning an imaginary figure to be responsible for only the good random events the universe throws at you and never the bad is like flipping a coin and ignoring every time it lands on tails. Or like pardoning an 8 time convicted serial killer and rapist because one day he did some charity work.

 

[Cyn]

The point of faith is that there is no evidence to support it.

 

[Purin a.k.a. José]

We will certainly never know. I believe in God myself, but I believe it's a in-between; there are evidences Jesus existed at some point (e.g. Shroud), but we really can't be sure about God; not because "he surely does not exists", but because all of his actions on Earth that had evidences have become too old, or we simply have no clue of what's on Heaven. there certainly may be a evidence on the world, but it's surely hard to find. If we could have evidence for God, I believe it would be something that dates from when the Old Testament happened.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

We will certainly never know. I believe in God myself, but I believe it's a in-between; there are evidences Jesus existed at some point (e.g. Shroud), but we really can't be sure about God; not because "he surely does not exists", but because all of his actions on Earth that had evidences have become too old, or we simply have no clue of what's on Heaven. there certainly may be a evidence on the world, but it's surely hard to find. If we could have evidence for God, I believe it would be something that dates from when the Old Testament happened.

Err, the Shroud of Turin has been long-established to be a 12th-century hoax.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

But isn't this sort of an admission of defeat for the theist? If there is no evidence for God, there is no way to fulfill one's burden of proof. An intellectually honest person positing the existence of some phenomenon or being would have to admit that, given exactly no evidence, there is no reason to believe in said being or phenomenon, and therefore would reject its existence.

Depends what stance taken on both sides and what evidence they use.

Like someone said earlier different jurors can reach different results with the same evidence.

The reason you think it is defeatist is because the evidence doesn't work for you.

I feel like debates like this end up mostly sharing beliefs and then challenging them at this point.

People will end up where they do for one reason or another.

Or when a Tornado rips through a town and kills 100s but one old useless lady arises from the rubble. HALLELUJAH!

....wait a second why the tornado in the first place God? What about all those dead people? That old lady's house?

Or when a rapper who mistreats women and probably had sex with some underage chicks wins a Grammy and thanks God.
Meanwhile some bible worshiping virgin got ***** in an alleyway in NY. Yea God works in mysterious ways.

Cherry picking and delusion unfortunately. Assigning an imaginary figure to be responsible for only the good random events the universe throws at you and never the bad is like flipping a coin and ignoring every time it lands on tails. Or like pardoning an 8 time convicted serial killer and rapist because one day he did some charity work.

Christian theology seems to apply that God doesn't interfere with choices or events like this anymore. Mostly to keep free will being a thing.

For some people the miracle is that they didn't die and they are trying to be thankful that it did happen.

From their standpoint, it looks like it to them.

 

[Shadic]

Just on the note of abiogenesis, Wikipedia actually has a good section here:

While features of self-organization and self-replication are often considered the hallmark of living systems, there are many instances of abiotic molecules exhibiting such characteristics under proper conditions. Palasek showed that self-assembly of RNA molecules can occur spontaneously due to physical factors in hydrothermal vents.[92] Virus self-assembly within host cells has implications for the study of the origin of life,[93] as it lends further credence to the hypothesis that life could have started as self-assembling organic molecules.

The concept of "life" being made is something that's replicable and documented. Primordial Earth had plenty of chances for this to occur. See:

Laboratory research suggests that metabolism-like reactions could have occurred naturally in early oceans, before the first organisms evolved.[12][163] The findings suggests that metabolism predates the origin of life and evolved through the chemical conditions that prevailed in the worlds earliest oceans. Reconstructions in laboratories show that some of these reactions can produce RNA, and some others resemble two essential reaction cascades of metabolism: glycolysis and the pentose phosphate pathway, that provide essential precursors for nucleic acids, amino acids and lipids.[163]

 

[Done]

This is a confusing topic to diccus, and as a fellow follower of chirst, i think merely that god will come down one day and punish all the people who dont belive in him. hes not forceing you. Anyway, All we have is the bible. I've had dreams about him, and its like messages. i understand other people's thinking, but i just rely on god.
Thank you.
-Bray

 

[Wreckarooni]

This is a confusing topic to diccus, and as a fellow follower of chirst, i think merely that god will come down one day and punish all the people who dont belive in him. hes not forceing you. Anyway, All we have is the bible. I've had dreams about him, and its like messages. i understand other people's thinking, but i just rely on god.
Thank you.
-Bray

Which God though? there are like 100 different Christians Gods (one for each sect and their biased interpretations of God and God's word) not to mention the 10,000s other Gods from different religions.

Are you so sure that it's not you who will be punished for believing in the wrong God your entire life. You believe what you believe only because of where you grew up and what your parents had passed down to you before you were mature enough to understand choice.

 

[Done]

Which God though? there are like 100 different Christians Gods (one for each sect and their biased interpretations of God and God's word) not to mention the 10,000s other Gods from different religions.

Are you so sure that it's not you who will be punished for believing in the wrong God your entire life. You only believe what you believe only because of where you grew up and what your parents had passed down to you before you were mature enough to understand choice.

True.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

This is a confusing topic to diccus, and as a fellow follower of chirst, i think merely that god will come down one day and punish all the people who dont belive in him.

Do you think that this is good?

 

[Done]

Do you think that this is good?

Confusing, Again. Its Hard... ;P

 

[Soup's On!]

Confusing, Again. Its Hard... ;P

What's confusing about it? You say that God will one day punish everybody who doesn't believe in him. Do you think that's a good thing?

 

[Done]

What's confusing about it? You say that God will one day punish everybody who doesn't believe in him. Do you think that's a good thing?

I did''nt mean it like that. what im trying to say is that he is SAYING that you dont HAVE to trust in him. he gives you a CHOICE.

 

[Soup's On!]

That's what you said in your first post. We have a choice, and according to your first post it's between "believe in god" or "don't believe in god (and be punished)".

All @ Budget Player Cadet_ and I have asked is: Do you think that arrangement is good?

 

[Sehnsucht]

I too continue to find that baffling.

"The choice to believe in my existence is freely up to you. But if you choose to ignore and/or be skeptical of my existence, you will be severely punished."

If it's God who decides who goes where after death, then God reveals itself as either oddly cruel or totally alien (or both). As many a person has noted in the past, eternal agony does not seem a proportionate punishment for what basically amounts to not giving a person enough attention. We would narrow our eyes if a human being demanded homage on penalty of punishment. Is God exempt from this? Is it because God is our creator and benefactor? My father and mother are my progenitors, but in what way do I owe them homage, worship, glorification? And why so for God?

If it is not up to God to determine who goes where, then we have an absurd state of affairs***. Believing that God exists draws you to God's presence, because that's just the way things are. And likewise, disbelief estranges you from God's presence. And this, ever and after, because God is atemporal and tenseless. Don't like it? Tough luck, then; it would be as productive to cry out against all of this as it would be to cry out against being inexorably bound to gravity.

In both cases, it's hard to work up too much enthusiasm to serve someone who is either unfathomable or suspect/curious/disagreeable in character and motive.

***Not that reality isn't already absurd. But at least it makes a certain amount of sense, relative to our experience.

 

[Zurf]

I beleive that God is a just being, and judges everyone fairly based on how they live and what they choose to do with their life.

No one is given the same set of circumstances to begin with, and so it is logical to assume that a just God would make a special case for each and every one of his children. God would not penalize someone for not beleiving in him if they were never given the chance to learn about him in this life.

Anyway, I beleive many people search for God in the wrong place. One could take a natural phenomenon or any extraordinary event, and some would insist that it was a miracle, while others would assert that it was purely coincidental and explainable by science. To find God you must first search not for physical evidence or proof, as much of it is subjective anyway, and instead search within yourself and ask Him in sincere prayer if he is really there. Often times the answer does not come right away, but instead gradually, like the light from a sunrise.

Faith is often misinterpreted to be a perfect belief, while in fact faith is never perfect. There is always doubt. But faith in God can always grow and become more firm as a person earnestly seeks to learn and grow closer to Him. Humans by nature always make mistakes and waver in their convictions, even if only minutely, and challenges will often test one's faith, and it can diminish just as it can grow. I can attest to the fact that faith in God brings happiness and contentment to life, but it takes real work and effort to gain that faith.