What is your justification for believing in a God?

[esbo]

That is known as Pascal's wager. The argument runs as follows:

 

http://www.infidels....eism/wager.html

 

 

 

 

It's rather silly, as is made obvious when you try to extend it to ANY other topic, or even put forth a remedial review of the logic involved.

 

 

 

 

what a load of rubbish the man is an idiot, he says he will "have any conversation" - except for the key one, the one

he has no answer to.

 

 

It like me saying I will meet you anywhere for a fight, any you say OK next Thursday at McDonalds, and I go "Oh sorry I can't make

that, I have a squash court booked!!!".

 

The man is an utter idiot, him and his male 'friend'

[iNow]

It like me saying I will meet you anywhere for a fight, any you say OK next Thursday at McDonalds, and I go "Oh sorry I can't make that, I have a squash court booked!!!".

Actually, no. It's not like that at all, but okay. You've chosen to disregard the central point of the video and focus solely on one comment that was entirely peripheral to it. Yay you! Good job!

[esbo]

Yes it is like that. He says he will discuss anything and then he says he won't, he is frigging joke.

[iNow]

And, as for the other 97% of the video that was specifically about the topic we've been discussing here... Would you like to offer an intelligent reply to ANY of that content, or are you content to continue being silly and dismissing it out of hand?

[esbo]

He says we don't know which God butt hat does not matter, there is only one God the God of the Jews the Christians the Muslims etc,,

That is basically your one God.

 

The bottom line is basically the same in all religions.

 

99% or religions have Christian values.

 

And even if you had to pick the right one, you can't win the lottery unless you buy a ticket.

 

With out a ticket you are doomed to hell!!

 

The is just one of those know it al who knows sod all.

Edited May 20, 2012 by esbo

[Jaden]

What is your justification for believing in a God?

 

To go with the flow?

To congregate with a "responsible" group of people?

Because of a spiritual or God experience you had?

To find a "good" girl?

Because you were just raised that way?

Because it just makes sense, in a philosophical sort of way?

Just to be on the safe side?

Because it was written?

I have many reasons for my belief in God. My main reasons now are different to what my main reasons were a few years ago.

 

When I first came to believe in a god, it was because I did not (and I still don't) believe that the universe and everything in it, especially life, could have formed without a creator.

Almost all scientists agree that the universe is not infinite or eternal, but had a begginning (the Big Bang.) They try to invent plausible theories as to what caused the Big Bang, which usually involve parallel universes etc, but while they may have been possible, none of these have ever seemed convincing to me. I found that the idea of a Creator seemed much more logical, and easier to believe than many of the ideas involved in these theories. So I decided that the most likely cause of the creation of this universe was that it was made by a "God" of some sort.

Also, I have found that science cannot explain how life originally formed. I understand the theories of evolution and abiogenesis, and I do believe that evolution occurs as a natural process, and given enough time could result in variation in species such as we see today (except for many systems which are far too complex to have evolved - but lets not go into that now) assuming that life already existed. However, the problem is that living cells could not have evolved from non-living material. This is the url of a website which contains the first chapter of a book which explains why, if you are interested:

http://www.chick.com.../123/123_01.asp The first few paragraphs are almost irrelevant to the matter, but further down the page it gives very compelling reasons (particularly in the amino acids and proteins sections.) So, the existence of life as we know it seems to defy any reasonable scientific explanation - which for me was another reason to believe that there is an intelligent creator, ie a God, somewhere out there. But there was still the question of which God, as there are so many religions in the world.

 

I found that the Christian bible was the only religious text to contain specific prophecies, which have often historically proven accurate. This for me was quite surprising - that a religious book had foretold events hundreds, and sometimes even thousands of years before they occured. You can do your own research if you disagree or if you don't believe me. This is real evidence that there is a God, and also that the Christian God is the true God.

 

I have also spoken to people who have experienced miracles first-hand. For example, my Christian grandparents were driving together up a hill, and as they were approaching the top they were unable to see the other side of the hill. My grandfather was told by God to drive on the other side of the road, where there could have been unseen cars coming towards them from the other side of the hilltop! He trusted God, and told my grandmother that they were going to drive on the wrong side of the road over the hilltop. So he changed to the lane of the oncoming traffic, and as they drove over the hilltop another car came speeding over, which was also in the wrong lane, which would have collided head-on with my grandparents had they not listened to God but stayed in their correct lane!

 

So between the scientific/philosophical arguments, the prophetic evidence in the Bible, and the miracles I have heard about, I think I have some pretty good reasons to believe in God and the bible.

 

But the main reason why I now have the faith that I do is because of my own personal experience with the Holy Spirit. One night I asked God to reveal Himself to me, and He did.

I don't know how to decribe the experience in words, but the best way I can think of is that the Spirit gave me a powerful sense of wholeness/love/peace for that time.

 

So, to answer your question Realitycheck, those are my best 4 reasons to justify my belief in God.

Edited June 3, 2012 by Jaden

[seriously disabled]

There is no rational justification in my opinion because there simply is no God or at least no caring God and anyone who says otherwise is just a damn liar.

Edited June 3, 2012 by seriously disabled

[Jaden]

There is no rational justification in my opinion because there simply is no God or at least no caring God and anyone who says otherwise is just a damn liar.

Would you care to provide any reasons for your opinion?

[seriously disabled]

Would you care to provide any reasons for your opinion?

 

I don't need to provide any reasons because my opinions are purely subjective based on my own life experiences and I just do not see the evidence for any loving God.

 

In the end of the day you either choose to believe in God or you don't and logic has not much to do with it.

Edited June 3, 2012 by seriously disabled

[Jaden]

In the end of the day you either choose to believe in God or you don't

This statement may be true for many people, but I have never chosen to believe in God.

Belief for me is not something that can be chosen, it is the result of looking at evidence and forming opinions based on that evidence.

 

logic has not much to do with it.

Would you not agree from my post above that there can be logical reasons for a belief in God?

[iNow]

This statement may be true for many people, but I have never chosen to believe in God.

Belief for me is not something that can be chosen, it is the result of looking at evidence and forming opinions based on that evidence.

To what evidence specifically are you referring?

 

Would you not agree from my post above that there can be logical reasons for a belief in God?

If there are, many of us here would love to hear them. Thus far all reasons offered through the various threads here from the various believers amount to little more than, "I believe because I want to." That's not really a logical reason to accept such an extraordinary claim as true, but I welcome correction from you on this point.

[Moontanman]

I have many reasons for my belief in God. My main reasons now are different to what my main reasons were a few years ago.

 

When I first came to believe in a god, it was because I did not (and I still don't) believe that the universe and everything in it, especially life, could have formed without a creator.

 

Your inability to believe has no bearing on reality.

 

Almost all scientists agree that the universe is not infinite or eternal, but had a begginning (the Big Bang.) They try to invent plausible theories as to what caused the Big Bang, which usually involve parallel universes etc, but while they may have been possible, none of these have ever seemed convincing to me. I found that the idea of a Creator seemed much more logical, and easier to believe than many of the ideas involved in these theories. So I decided that the most likely cause of the creation of this universe was that it was made by a "God" of some sort.

Also, I have found that science cannot explain how life originally formed. I understand the theories of evolution and abiogenesis, and I do believe that evolution occurs as a natural process, and given enough time could result in variation in species such as we see today (except for many systems which are far too complex to have evolved - but lets not go into that now) assuming that life already existed. However, the problem is that living cells could not have evolved from non-living material. This is the url of a website which contains the first chapter of a book which explains why, if you are interested:

 

You are so far behind the current research on the subject, and just because science cannot at this time explain something doesn't mean God Did it. This is called the god of the gaps and those gaps that this idea pushes god into get smaller every day. unless you are willing to give up your god belief if science is able to full those gaps this reason is totally dishonest. At one time lightning was considered proof of god, bolts of lightning were gods wrath, it never explained why tall trees and church steeples seemed to get god wrath more often that anything else but once lightning was explained god had to creep into ever smaller gaps. This is very disingenuous reason to believe.

 

http://www.chick.com.../123/123_01.asp The first few paragraphs are almost irrelevant to the matter, but further down the page it gives very compelling reasons (particularly in the amino acids and proteins sections.) So, the existence of life as we know it seems to defy any reasonable scientific explanation - which for me was another reason to believe that there is an intelligent creator, ie a God, somewhere out there. But there was still the question of which God, as there are so many religions in the world.

 

This is a total strawman argument, there is in fact some very good scientific evidence to back up abiogenesis, none to back up creation by a god. Thomas Heinze is a Christian apologist, your book is meaningless, he has an agenda that has nothing to do with evidence or even truth.

 

I found that the Christian bible was the only religious text to contain specific prophecies, which have often historically proven accurate. This for me was quite surprising - that a religious book had foretold events hundreds, and sometimes even thousands of years before they occured. You can do your own research if you disagree or if you don't believe me. This is real evidence that there is a God, and also that the Christian God is the true God.

 

The only religious text that contains specific prophecies? you confirmed this how? Show some evidence of this, i am very familiar with the bible and there is not only no evidence for god in the bible there is no evidence for that particular god either. I have done research and your bible fails totally, your bible is no better or worse than any of the rest of the worlds holy books, many of which are far older and more complex than the holy bible.

 

 

I have also spoken to people who have experienced miracles first-hand. For example, my Christian grandparents were driving together up a hill, and as they were approaching the top they were unable to see the other side of the hill. My grandfather was told by God to drive on the other side of the road, where there could have been unseen cars coming towards them from the other side of the hilltop! He trusted God, and told my grandmother that they were going to drive on the wrong side of the road over the hilltop. So he changed to the lane of the oncoming traffic, and as they drove over the hilltop another car came speeding over, which was also in the wrong lane, which would have collided head-on with my grandparents had they not listened to God but stayed in their correct lane!

 

This is not evidence of anything but coincidence.

 

So between the scientific/philosophical arguments, the prophetic evidence in the Bible, and the miracles I have heard about, I think I have some pretty good reasons to believe in God and the bible.

 

Again, your own baseless assertions , nothing more.

 

But the main reason why I now have the faith that I do is because of my own personal experience with the Holy Spirit. One night I asked God to reveal Himself to me, and He did.

I don't know how to decribe the experience in words, but the best way I can think of is that the Spirit gave me a powerful sense of wholeness/love/peace for that time.

 

And I've heard of many people of many different religions also having such moments of clarity as have many non believers too, this is not evidence of anything other than something you believe you felt.

 

So, to answer your question Realitycheck, those are my best 4 reasons to justify my belief in God.

 

And none of them are evidence of anything other than your own beliefs, faith, and lack of understanding, nothing more.

[Polednice]

Jaden, your view of religion is far too insular. There are people from all kinds of faiths, each of them mutually incompatible with yours, whose sacred texts contain prophecies that can be interpreted as being realised; whose adherents can attest to countless miracles at the hands of their own religious icons; and who can claim personal revelation that their god is the true god.

 

Clearly, only one of these thousands of gods could be real, which necessitates that the majority of these experiences must be explicable by natural phenomena. However, if we must already accept that these experiences can be accounted for naturally, it is extremely likely that all such experiences of all faiths are natural deceptions, and there is no logical reason to believe - however convincing your experiences were - that your god is the one, true god. That's a very narrow, uninformed view.

[Jaden]

To what evidence specifically are you referring?

I was referring mainly to the numerous prophecies in the bible which have been fulfilled throughout history, and some of the miracles I have heard about.

 

If there are, many of us here would love to hear them. Thus far all reasons offered through the various threads here from the various believers amount to little more than, "I believe because I want to." That's not really a logical reason to accept such an extraordinary claim as true, but I welcome correction from you on this point.

Please read post #531 above.

 

Your inability to believe has no bearing on reality.

 

there is in fact some very good scientific evidence to back up abiogenesis

Of course my inability to believe something doesn't affect reality. However, the reason I am unable to believe in abiogenesis is because I have yet to find any good evidence to support this theory, or even to show that it is possible for all of the neccesary amino acids (which are required to form the proteins found in living cells) to form in naturally occuring conditions, or even in laboratory conditions outside of already living organisms. And I have spent some considerable time searching, so if you can show me evidence for this then please do so. Rather, it seems that any amino acids produced would not be able to be used in living cells. (please read this link here: http://www.chick.com.../123/123_01.asp)

 

You are so far behind the current research on the subject

This is not true. I do not see how you could have derived that I am behind the current research... However if there are any recent discoveries which show good evidence for abiogenesis, or which can explain how the Big Bang occured with real science and without obscure and unproven concepts, then please show them (or else give a link to a website which does.)

 

just because science cannot at this time explain something doesn't mean God Did it

I agree. But it does mean that God is the best available explanation at the present time. Abiogenesis is unproven, but it is still widely accepted amongst athiests because it is thought to be the most feasible explanation for life. Why should intelligent design not be allowed this same status? My disbelief in abiogenesis is no different than an athiests disbelief in God.

 

This is a total strawman argument

(Referring to the book at this link: http://www.chick.com.../123/123_01.asp)

If you believe that the author of this book has mis-represented the theory of abiogenesis, then please explain how so that we can discuss the issue.

 

there is in fact some very good scientific evidence to back up abiogenesis

Please show me this evidence.

 

The only religious text that contains specific prophecies? you confirmed this how?

 

There are people from all kinds of faiths, each of them mutually incompatible with yours, whose sacred texts contain prophecies that can be interpreted as being realised

I did not say that the Bible was the only religious text to contain specific prophecies. I said that it was the only religious text to contain specific prophecies which have often historically proven accurate. There is a difference. An example of a fulfilled bible prophecy is Amos 9 8-15. This was written by the prophet Amos in about 750BC, and it's fulfillment was throughout recorded history untill its (arguble) completement in 1948AD. Many other religious texts do contain prophecies, but they are all either unfulfilled, predict things which could easily have been discerned through logic or else are so vague that they could be interpreted however you want to interpret them. This is merely an observation based on my own research, and I welcome you to prove me wrong.

 

This <"miracle"> is not evidence of anything but coincidence.

If my grandfather had had a sudden, unexplainable urge to drive on the wrong side of the road over that hilltop, which resulted in the avoidance of an accident, then that may have been coincidence. But that is not what happened, he was told to do so by God. This could not have been coincidence.

 

There are people from all kinds of faiths...whose adherents can attest to countless miracles at the hands of their own religious icons

All of these miracles, at least those that I have heard about, can easily be attributed to either coincidence or to the placebo effect; the example I have given (in post #531) cannot.

 

And I've heard of many people of many different religions also having such moments of clarity as have many non believers too, this is not evidence of anything other than something you believe you felt.

I would not decribe it as a moment of "clarity." I knew that the Spirit of God was with me. But regardless of whether or not others claim to have had similar experiences, it was still a convincing moment for me personally. I do not claim that this is scientifically valid proof of what I believe, but I was merely stating my reasons for belief, as was the purpose of this thread. This encounter helped to inspire in me a faith that goes deeper than mere reasoning.

 

There are people from all kinds of faiths...who can claim personal revelation that their god is the true god. Clearly, only one of these thousands of gods could be real, which necessitates that the majority of these experiences must be explicable by natural phenomena. However, if we must already accept that these experiences can be accounted for naturally, it is extremely likely that all such experiences of all faiths are natural deceptions, and there is no logical reason to believe - however convincing your experiences were - that your god is the one, true god.

I cannot prove to you that my experience was real; therefore you cannot know with certainty that I am being truthful. Likewise, the people of other religions cannot prove that the experiences they claim to have are real; therefore neither of us can know that they are real. The only experience that I know with any certainty to be real is my own. Therefore your statement that this "necessitates that the majority of these experiences must be explicable by natural phenomena" is effectively meaningless, from my perspective.

 

and there is no logical reason to believe - however convincing your experiences were - that your god is the one, true god.

This particular reason is applicable only to me personally, and to people who have had similar experiences, but the miracle testimonies and especially the (uniquely) clear, specific and accurate prophecies found in the bible are valid logical reasons for anyone to choose Christianity over the many other religions.

Edited June 13, 2012 by Jaden

[iNow]

I was referring mainly to the numerous prophecies in the bible which have been fulfilled throughout history, and some of the miracles I have heard about.

I asked you to be specific, though. This, however, is still quite vague. Would you be so kind as to elaborate with detail?

 

I also must say, what you're describing in post 531 as "miracles" are much better explained as coincidences to which you've attached personal meaning and emotional valence, but coincidences all the same. It is not "evidence" for Jahweh any more than thunder is evidence of Thor.

 

Of course my inability to believe something doesn't affect reality. However, the reason I am unable to believe in abiogenesis is because I have yet to find any good evidence to support this theory, or even to show that it is possible for all of the neccesary amino acids (which are required to form the proteins found in living cells) to form in naturally occuring conditions, or even in laboratory conditions outside of already living organisms.

You say you prize solid evidence and reject abiogenesis as not yet supported despite the clearly converging lines of research, and you reject the cosmic inflation model (big bang) due to lack of "evidence," and yet you think the fact that your grandparents narrowly escaped a traffic accident one day is evidence of a supreme creator of the universe? Double standards and hypocrisy, much?

 

God is never a "best explanation." It's a cop-out... a place holder of the gap until rational and reasonable people provide a valid answer.

 

 

This could not have been coincidence.

Jaden - I know this is very difficult to accept, but it almost certainly was just coincidence.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98OTsYfTt-c

 

 

Your "evidence" of belief really boils down to a mere wish or desire within you and nothing more. That's fine, but at least be honest about it.

Edited June 13, 2012 by iNow

[Moontanman]

Of course my inability to believe something doesn't affect reality. However, the reason I am unable to believe in abiogenesis is because I have yet to find any good evidence to support this theory, or even to show that it is possible for all of the neccesary amino acids (which are required to form the proteins found in living cells) to form in naturally occuring conditions, or even in laboratory conditions outside of already living organisms. And I have spent some considerable time searching, so if you can show me evidence for this then please do so. Rather, it seems that any amino acids produced would not be able to be used in living cells. (please read this link here: http://www.chick.com.../123/123_01.asp)

 

feel free to read the links in this thread

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/66874-god-and-abiogenesis/page__pid__683087__st__40#entry683087

[Jaden]

I asked you to be specific, though (about evidence.) This, however, is still quite vague. Would you be so kind as to elaborate with detail?

Well, there is the miracle I described in post #531, and I did give one example of a fulfilled bible prophecy in post #539. However, I will list a few more. I've checked, and all of these either have been fulfilled (most) or else they clearly will be in the near future (the last 2.)

 

Amos 9: 7-15. Outlines the destruction of the nation Israel, but says that its people will not be totally destroyed. They will instead be scattered "among all the nations." During this time the walls and ruins of Jerusalem will be rebuilt. Then a time will come when the people will be brought back from exile, and never again be "uprooted" from their land.

 

Jeremiah 25: 8-14. Israel and its surrounding nations will be defeated by Nebuchadnezzar and the "peoples of the north." They will serve Babylon for seventy years. After the seventy years, Babylon will be punished for its crimes, and then they themselves shall be defeated and made to serve other nations. The Babylonian empire will be destroyed forever.

 

Matthew 24: 1-2. The temple in Jerusalem will be destroyed completely. Not even one stone will be left upon another.

 

Luke 19: 41-44. Jesus says that because the people of Jerusalem have rejected Him, the city will be surrounded by enemies and destroyed.

 

Daniel 9: 24-26. At the time this prophecy was written, many of the Jews were in captivity in Babylon. Jerusalem and its temple had been destroyed by the Babylonians. Daniel says that the people will return to Jerusalem and rebuild. Later an 'Anointed One' (Jesus) will come, but will be rejected and killed, appearing to have accomplished nothing. Then a ruler will come with his armies and again destroy Jerusalem and the temple (as in Luke 19 41-44.)

 

Micah 3: 12. Jerusalem will be destroyed, the temple hill will become a mound overgrown with thickets, and Mt Zion will be ploughed like a field.

 

Nahum 3. The city of Nineveh will be destroyed with fire (verse 15) and many casualties (verse 3,) and never recover (verse 19.) Their guards will flee like a swarm of locusts in the sun (verse 17.)

 

Nahum 1: 10. The people of Nineveh will be drunk when they are defeated.

 

Matthew 24:14. The gospel will be preached in every nation of the world.

 

Luke 21: 33. The words of Jesus will never be forgotten.

 

Individually, these prophecies may not seem like strong evidence. But considering that the bible is full of similar prophecies, and taking into account the existence of miracles and the fact that many millions of Christians (including myself) have experienced the presence of the Holy Spirit, a strong case can be made for the existence of God.

 

I also must say, what you're describing in post 531 as "miracles" are much better explained as coincidences to which you've attached personal meaning and emotional valence, but coincidences all the same. It is not "evidence" for Jahweh any more than thunder is evidence of Thor.

 

Jaden - I know this is very difficult to accept, but it almost certainly was just coincidence.

Comparing this miracle to thunder being evidence of Thor is, quite frankly, ridiculous. Anyway, from the way you have written your post, you seem to think that my grandfather narrowly escaped a car accident and then he later attributed this to God. I was quite clear though, in post 531 that this was not the case. Before changing to the wrong lane, my grandfather informed my grandmother of his intentions. He told her not to worry, because it was an instruction from God. He was very clear to her, saying that God had told him to do so. He then changed lanes, and as a result of this he avoided the collision. Since you are persistent in your assertion that it must have been coincidence, I will spell this out to you again. God gave an instruction to my grandfather. My grandfather informed my grandmother of Gods instruction (she has confirmed this.) He then did what God had told him, and as a result of this a collision was avoided and lives were probably saved. This is obviously not just a "coincidence to which you've attached personal meaning and emotional valence," as my grandfather had told my grandmother that it was an instruction from God, before he carried out that instruction thereby preventing a major collision.

 

You say you prize solid evidence and reject abiogenesis as not yet supported despite the clearly converging lines of research

"Clearly converging lines of research", eh? Scientists are no closer to having any evidence for abiogenesis than they ever have been. All of the experiments done so far have only found further problems, some of which I will explain later in this post.

 

you reject the cosmic inflation model (big bang) due to lack of "evidence,"

I most certainly do NOT reject the Big Bang Hypothesis! I never said I do. Considering that the universe is known to be expanding, a beginning is inevitable. Something, however, must have caused that beginning. The best explanation physicists can give is that our universe was 'spat out' by some kind of multi-verse which can randomly create other universes. This multi-verse, however, has absolutely no supporting evidence whatsoever. The only explanation for the cause of creation of the universe that even has indirect, circumstantial evidence is the Creator God of the Christian Bible. The prophecies and miracle which I have explained in this post are evidence for that God.

 

God is never a "best explanation." It's a cop-out... a place holder of the gap until rational and reasonable people provide a valid answer.

Considering that there is evidence for a God who created life and the universe, and there is no evidence for either abiogenesis, or a universe spawning multi-verse, or for any other theory which attempts to explain the existence of life or the universe, I think we can safely say that God is the best explanation. He is in fact the only explanation with any supporting evidence at all.

 

As for God being a place holder of the "gap" in our collective scientific understanding, I think I should point out that this "gap" is no longer getting any smaller... It is actually increasing as we learn of things such as a beginning of the universe, and the requirements necessary for abiogenesis to occur.

 

feel free to read the links in this thread

 

http://www.sciencefo..._40#entry683087

Thanks for the link. I have watched a few of these videos (many hours of them), but I must admit that I haven't yet watched all of them due to lack of time. However, in the ones that I did watch, there was a lot of speculation but no real evidence to support abiogenesis. If you do believe that there is evidence in these videos, then please be specific with which videos and how far into them. The closest thing to evidence in the videos that I watched was that amino acids have been found in asteroids. However, while they were quick to point out that they found over 70 different amino acids, they failed to mention that those 70 only included about half of the amino acids necessary for life as we know it. The same applies to the amino acids which were created in the laboratory experiments. They also neglected to mention that amino acids are chiral. Amino acids cannot form proteins unless they are homochiral - all of them - and there is no conceivable mechanism by which amino acids could become homochiral. Also, nucleosides found in RNA (cytosine, uracil, adenine and guanine) do not form outside of living cells. Pyramidine nucleosides (cytosine and uracil) are not found in outer space either. DNA and RNA cannot form without enzymes, nor can ribose, and enzymes cannot form without RNA templates and ribosomes.

 

Not only is abiogenesis without evidence, it actually appears to be impossible. God, on the other hand, seems logical (as evidenced by the fact that the vast majority of the worlds population beleive in a god or gods) and does have supporting evidence. Nevertheless, I'm sure athiests will continue to insist that abiogenesis is the superior theory.

Edited July 7, 2012 by Jaden

[iNow]

Individually, these prophecies may not seem like strong evidence.

Exactly.

 

But considering that the bible is full of similar prophecies, and taking into account the existence of miracles and the fact that many millions of Christians (including myself) have experienced the presence of the Holy Spirit, a strong case can be made for the existence of God.

Popularity alone is irrelevant to the validity of a claim. If millions of people thought the tooth fairy was real, that would not mean the tooth fairy actually is. The same applies to your god(s).

 

Comparing this miracle to thunder being evidence of Thor is, quite frankly, ridiculous. Anyway, from the way you have written your post, you seem to think that my grandfather narrowly escaped a car accident and then he later attributed this to God. I was quite clear though, in post 531 that this was not the case. Before changing to the wrong lane, my grandfather informed my grandmother of his intentions. He told her not to worry, because it was an instruction from God. He was very clear to her, saying that God had told him to do so.

This is not a miracle, it is a coincidence no matter how many times you assert the contrary. Furthermore, even if I stipulated that it was a miracle, it is still not evidence of any god. Perhaps evidence that your grandfather was a bit delusional, but not evidence of a supreme creator of the entire universe in all its vastness and magnificence.

 

Either way, you here asserting that god gave instructions to your grandfather, or your grandfather asserting that he received instructions from god are not valid evidence of any such being.

 

 

"Clearly converging lines of research", eh? Scientists are no closer to having any evidence for abiogenesis than they ever have been. All of the experiments done so far have only found further problems, some of which I will explain later in this post.

My larger point is that you're being quite hypocritical and applying nasty double standards. You reject the multiple lines of research supporting abiogenesis, and dismiss out of hand the copious evidence for the big bang model, yet you're willing to accept as proof of god the fact that your grandpappy changed lanes while driving one day and avoided a car wreck. If you don't see the flaw in this approach then I suspect nothing I say will ever change your mind.

 

Something, however, must have caused that beginning.

This is untrue. It is not a requirement that "something must have caused the beginning." Also, even if something did, not clearly understanding it yet does not ipso facto mean god(s) did it. Finally, even if god(s) did it, then the question remains open as to "what created god, then?" Your logic is so broken it's painfully simple to show you being wrong.

 

I suspect that like most believers that you may come back and say that god doesn't need a cause. Well, then you've just broken your own demands for cause... you're giving a free pass to the concept of god(s) because you WANT to believe in them, yet won't give an equivalent free pass to the big bang itself. Hypocrisy and double standards continue.

 

 

Considering that there is evidence for a God who created life and the universe, and there is no evidence for either abiogenesis, or a universe spawning multi-verse, or for any other theory which attempts to explain the existence of life or the universe, I think we can safely say that God is the best explanation.

Closing your eyes and covering your ears and going, "lalalalala goddidit" is not an explanation. It's a cop-out. I guess we're done now.

[Severian]

Why do I need a justification to believe in a god?

[iNow]

Ask realitycheck. He opened the thread.

 

Either way, reading the OP again, it doesn't appear he was demanding justification. It appears he was genuinely curious.

[Moontanman]

Not only is abiogenesis without evidence, it actually appears to be impossible. God, on the other hand, seems logical (as evidenced by the fact that the vast majority of the worlds population beleive in a god or gods) and does have supporting evidence. Nevertheless, I'm sure athiests will continue to insist that abiogenesis is the superior theory.

 

 

For a moment Jaden consider this, you claim that there is little or no evidence for abiogenesis, while this is simply not true and the fact is that there is a huge amount of evidence for abiogenesis, nothing of course like the evidence supporting evolution via natural selection but consider this.

 

You are hanging your "religious hat" on the idea that there is no natural explanation for abiogenesis and that means that there has to be a god to have created the first cell, what if indeed there is a break through and next week a scientist shows that life can be not only made in a test tube but that the process is so easy that it could have occurred on the early earth no problem what so ever. Are you honest enough to say this confirms there is no god?

 

At one time, just a couple hundred years ago lightning was considered evidence for god, no one knew what caused lightning, it was the wrath of god, if you got struck by lightning it was considered to be evidence you had done something that displeased god.

 

Then is was discovered that a very simple technology could protect you from the wrath of god, there was quite an up roar, religious leaders declared that anyone who used a lightning rod was trying to divert the will of god and was committing a sin. Then of course it was quite difficult to explain why churches were the most likely building in a village to be struck by lighting.

 

Now days of course we know what causes lightning and why it strikes, the idea that lightning was a direct show of gods power is considered quaint and anyone who believes it is considered slightly less than tightly wrapped.

 

Are you honest enough to admit that god doesn't exist if abiogenesis is shown to be possible?

[njaohnt]

This is not evidence of anything but coincidence.

Well, from the evidence I have, it looks like this is a miracle. I think on this image…

…I should black out "Religion" and put and atheism because of this post.

 

Alright, here's my reasoning for this being a miracle.

What evidence do we have?

1. We know that there are more atheists on Science Forums than Christians.

2. We know that if this isn't a coinsidence, it is a miracle.

3. We know that the Christians on Science Forums have posted more "coinsidences" than atheists.

4. We know that a coinsidence has an equal chance of happening to anyone, Christian or non-Christain.

 

Gathering this we see that #3 violates #4 unless either

• it was a miracle instead of a coinsidence

--or--

• the atheists here are not displaying their coinsidences Show me that this is the answer, atheists, show me your coinsidences that that worked out for the better!

[Moontanman]

Well, from the evidence I have, it looks like this is a miracle. I think on this image…

 

…I should black out "Religion" and put and atheism because of this post.

 

Alright, here's my reasoning for this being a miracle.

What evidence do we have?

1. We know that there are more atheists on Science Forums than Christians.

2. We know that if this isn't a coinsidence, it is a miracle.

3. We know that the Christians on Science Forums have posted more "coinsidences" than atheists.

4. We know that a coinsidence has an equal chance of happening to anyone, Christian or non-Christain.

 

Gathering this we see that #3 violates #4 unless either

• it was a miracle instead of a coinsidence

--or--

• the atheists here are not displaying their coinsidences Show me that this is the answer, atheists, show me your coinsidences that that worked out for the better!

 

Coincidences happen to everyone Njaohnt, sinners, saints, pagans, buddhists, serial killers, muslims, jews, atheists, pantheists, mono theists, witches, warlocks, I mean everyone, belief does not enter into it...

 

A miracle is something that cannot have happened via natural means, it does not mean something that happens that was unlikely.

 

Saying that coincidences do not happen to atheists is either stupid or a lie....

[robheus]

 

Not only is abiogenesis without evidence, it actually appears to be impossible. God, on the other hand, seems logical (as evidenced by the fact that the vast majority of the worlds population beleive in a god or gods) and does have supporting evidence. Nevertheless, I'm sure athiests will continue to insist that abiogenesis is the superior theory.

 

Abiogenenesis does not "appear to be impossible" the only thing that may seem near to impossible is to explore the events that lead up to the formation of the first life, since we have only partial knowledge about the conditions on earth billions of years ago.

 

The "God did it" hypothese does not explain one single fact, it is in fact not more mysterious or explenataory as saying as "matter did it". But any scientists would reject that as an explenation since it is already assumed that any actual mechanism of line of development which leads from chemical evolution to biological evolution, must be understood in the terms of material development, however when almost all the details of that process are unknown, we don't know much. However at least some details might be partially correct.

 

Evolution on the other hand has massive evidence, and already refutes the idea that God created unchangeable species, as species DO change over long evolutionary periods.

[doG]

God, on the other hand, seems logical (as evidenced by the fact that the vast majority of the worlds population beleive in a god or gods)...

The vast majority of the world's children believe in Santa Clause. Do you think that is evidence that Santa Clause is real?