What is your justification for believing in a God?

[njaohnt]

God has been in retreat since the enlightenment, he has gone from the explanation for everything to explaining nothing...

Say it. But it's the opposite.

How could non belief affect god?

Again. Think before you post!

Ask yourself that.

How is your favorite fairy tale any more logical than anyone else's?

Show me how it is the same.

[Moontanman]

The "God theory" comes from the Bible, whereas the "Santa Claus" theory comes from parents. The Bibe doesn't say that God is false, but your parents do(or no longer deny their lie).

 

No the bible is demonstrably false as is the tale of Santa Claus.

 

There's a big difference between Harry Potter, and the Bible.

1. The author of Harry Potter would even say that the books are false. The authors of the Bible are no longer availiable.

 

So why accept what they say with no evidence?

 

2. The Bible tells the story of creation, whereas Harry Potter doesn't fit with anything we see today.

 

The bible doesn't fit in with what we see today either...

 

 

Please, next time, before you post stuff like that, try to see how I would respond. This is a big waste of time which could have been avoided.

 

 

yes, i agree your entire argument is a waste of your time, you are clueless to reality and willfully ignorant...

[njaohnt]

I humbly suggest you consider this... pot kettle black....

Then there's no purpose to reply.

Why does it have to have a reason? Why does that reason have to be your favorite god myth?

Well why couldn't it just act differently?

[Moontanman]

Say it. But it's the opposite.Again. Think before you post!

 

I suggest you go to school and learn before you post.

 

Ask yourself that.

Show me how it is the same.

 

They are not the same but they have exactly the same amount of evidence and that evidence is false, your creation myth is not true, nether is any of the other religious creation myths, hokum every one...

 

Then there's no purpose to reply.

 

you are pointing to other religions and saying they are false, in other words the pot calling the kettle black....

 

Well why couldn't it just act differently?

 

please elaborate, this makes no sense at all....

[mooeypoo]

The "God theory" comes from the Bible, whereas the "Santa Claus" theory comes from parents. The Bibe doesn't say that God is false, but your parents do(or no longer deny their lie).

 

Excuse me? The "God theory" comes from WAAAAY before the bible. Ever heard of Gilgamesh? You should, it's the basis of 60% of the biblical stories, verbatim.

 

That said, we have evidence to show the bible was written by man after years and years of the stories in it passing from father to son. If that's the case, you can't possibly prove which of the stories come from God himself and which were actually stories parents invented or embelished that just continued onwards with the generations.

 

 

There's a big difference between Harry Potter, and the Bible.

1. The author of Harry Potter would even say that the books are false. The authors of the Bible are no longer availiable.

 

2. The Bible tells the story of creation, whereas Harry Potter doesn't fit with anything we see today.

The biblical story doesn't fit reality. In fact, it doesnt' fit itself (As I wrote before about having 2 conflicting biblical creation stories)

 

So what you seem to be saying is that if I can find you a book that:

1. Explains some creation version that loosely makes sense
2. Whose writer does not claim the book is false
3. Who has followers that believe it

You would believe it too.

 

That's the conclusion from YOUR latest claim, not mine. Is that so?

 

If so, I think you should become a Scientologist.

If that's not so, you need to come up with a better reason of what makes the Bible a proof of its own existence.

 

 

 

Please, next time, before you post stuff like that, try to see how I would respond. This is a big waste of time which could have been avoided.

Unlike what you want to believe, we don't exist to serve you. This is a discussion forum, we make our points, you need to address the points made. We are not supposed to make our points baed on what you could and couldn't answer.

 

Now, I'm still waiting for you to tell me what's so special about Israel that I (who grew up there and visited almost all religious locations) should be at complete awe and immediately transform myself to proper christian. I'm waiting.

 

 

Anyways,, this discussion is futile. You clearly think that "proof" is anything you say it is, and nothing we say it is, regardless of how established we explain it. You clearly move goalposts and change your argument -- just go over the last 20 pages of this thread and see how many times you repeated the SAME claim despite multiple people giving you relevant counter claims.

 

And you clearly do not go by what we define as logic, njaohnt; when you claim that the bible seems to be proof of god just because it's proof of God (which is basically what you're saying) or that the bible was written by god while other myths were invented by humans, but you give no proper evidence as to how you know this for a fact, or when you ignore OTHER religions with exacty the same amount of proof and evidence as your own just because it's inconvenient to you -- that means you're not here to discuss, you're here to preach.

 

And it's getting really tiring by now. If you wanted to convince people (Which is the point of this thread) that there's some rational justification in believing in a God, you clearly failed. Maybe you should let someone else who has more grasp on proper philosophical arguments try.

 

~mooey

 

Say it. But it's the opposite.

There were no really big miracles (like in the bible) in the past 2000 years. Maybe you should think befeore you post.

 

Unless you want to stop being a preacher, and start being a debater, and give us some actual examples as to what you mean.

 

Show me how it is the same.

 

If we were in a theology-works-yayzes! blog, we might've. As it goes, you're in a science forum. You made a claim, and you need to show *us* how it works, not the other way around.

 

Life ain't fair, but it does have rules. You accepted ours when you joined, it's time you start following them.

 

There's no winning by proxy here, njaohnt, and there never will be. If you want to convince anyone, you need to work at it, and dismissing everyone's claims off hand is not doing anything to your argument, it's just going against our rules and annoys us.

 

~mooey

[Greg H.]

By logic, I will list them out.

1.Christianity

2. Atheism

=other religions

Atheism is illogical, and so are other religions.

 

So as opposed to Christianity, all other religions (and lack of religious belief) are illogical. So, essentially, what you're saying is that anyone who doesn't agree with you is wrong. That's good to know. I can stop wasting my time trying to have a serious discussion with you.

[tar]

Why is the universe here?

 

Like perhaps there is another place for it to be?

 

I do not think the lack of a reason or a good reason, would be any justification of, or force the requirement, of the God of the Bible.

 

There is, logically speaking, no better sense in allowing that the universe created itself, than in requiring that an everlasting, all powerful intelligence created it on a whim. The later requires that God always was, and has no creator. If God requires no creator, it is approximately the same statement as "the universe created itself".

 

To question the universe's existence, would only make sense if one knew of something, other than, the universe. I know of no such thing. Don't know where one would go to find such an "other" existence. This universe appears to be it. That is, its the only one we have to talk about, to exist in, and to experience.

 

The Bible promises another realm of existence. And perhaps there is such...but no one has seen fit to "come back" and tell us about it. If this other realm, this other place, exists, it appears as if it has no bearing on "this" universe. Reality, as it is commonly considered, has to do with "this" universe.

 

If there is a "connection" between this universe and some other "real" realm, why must one die, cease to exist, to experience it? What if "this" is our only shot at existence. This life we have accomplished, in a universe tending toward entropy? Would it not be better to enjoy this life, and make it possible for others to do the same? Than to discard this life for a promise made by someone halucinating in the mountains?

 

The God of the Bible is too human-like to be a real existing thing. The "made in his own image", gives the whole book a "human" slant. How could the creator of the universe be at all like a human. Why would he need eyes to see, or hair to protect him from the elements, or lungs to breath Earthly air, or a penis, or a heart to pump blood to muscle and tissue? And why would the creator of the universe care if he was ignored or praised? MUCH more likely that a human would care if he/she was ignored or praised.

 

And the promised heaven for believers, and the promised hell for lost sinners, is not so much of a reward or punishment as its made out to be. What good would heaven be, if you had no body and brain and senses with which to experience it? How could you take YOU with you, when you go? And likewise, what pain could hell cause, if you have no skin and nerves and brain to feel the heat? How could your flesh be burned away...more than once?

 

Justification of God? It has not been shown here, yet, that the God of the Bible, is a real component of THIS universe. Or that it makes any sense that he would be required to be outside this universe, looking in.

 

So if we are to together hold values, and consideration of others, we could just as well do that, on the merits of doing that, as do that on threat of "false" damnation if we fail to do it, or "false" everlasting life if we succeed.

 

Myths and stories and the wisdom of our forefather's (foremother's) have value, but do not justify the belief in the God of the Bible.

 

Figuratively in some senses, yes. Literally in all senses, absolutely not.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

njaohnt

I am placing this modnote in both this thread (well obviously) and in Christian Evidence

Please take a look at the Religion Forum Rules - especially rule 2 (big bang) and the whole of rule 3.

1. This is science forum. Phrases along the lines of "no matter what science says" will raise hackles and must be supported by a great deal more than simple affirmations of personal faith or revelation. If you are not here to discuss and debate these matters then it might appear that you are here to proselytize and convert - and that is not allowed.

2. In both threads you have been asked very straight forward questions of fact/interpretation that were raised by your argument. It is a rule that questions like this should be responded to- it is this rule that stops the forum becoming a blog or soapbox. Please go back through the last few pages and see if you could address some of these outstanding questions. The threads will not be allowed to continue in their present form. Please note this is not the first time I have asked modnote 11 July & modtip 9 July


all posters

a. Please keep it friendly and civilized.

b. From either perspective and view there are arguments that seem persuasive and water-tight but which are disputed from the alternative position. A mere repetition of the argument does not advance matters. The instant and peremptory dismissal of a response is also to be avoided - no matter how sure you are in the logic of your point.

c. When arguing that a point is illogical, irrelevant, or incorrect it aids understanding massively if some explanation is given.

d. Any topics that branch off or are suggested by this thread would be much better addressed in a new thread.

[zorro]

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 usually start with my belly button. Since I have one and so did my mother and her mother .... and so on. In the beginning there is no ancestor and God had to create the reproductive pair as well as the sympathetic environment from nothing.

zorro ...

Edited October 17, 2012 by zorro

[Moontanman]

I usually start with my belly button. Since I have one and so did my mother and her mother .... and so on. In the beginning there is no ancestor and God had to create the reproductive pair as well as the sympathetic environment from nothing.

zorro ...

 

 

God had to create? A reproductive pair? I'd like to see some support of this for sure. oh yeah, exactly what is a sympathetic environment? And who says anything came from nothing?

Edited October 17, 2012 by Moontanman

[zorro]

God had to create? A reproductive pair? I'd like to see some support of this for sure.

Adam and Eve and you. All sexual reproducing species. .... All species derive themselves from a sexual or nonsexual ancestry. At the beginning of this, God spontaneously created or ignited the first action of all species.

 

oh yeah, exactly what is a sympathetic environment?

Before a species is created, God had to create it's sympathetic environment to support him/her. Neither you nor the Ammonite can be created until the Earth, a Solar System ..... are created and are perfectly suited for existence. The species must have a Genome that evolves itself to the changing conditions of the Earth.

 

.....................................Ammonite

.......................

 

 

And who says anything came from nothing?

I did. .....And many others since Christ's resurrection. Why would you question this fundamental ??? Look it up.

 

http://www.amazon.co...ated+Everything

Book Description

Publication Date: September 22, 2009 ....Richard Dawkins is arguably the modern poster boy for Charles Darwin. However, a key difference radically separates the two men. Darwin believed in the existence of God and calls God the "Creator" seven times in The Origin of Species. Dawkins, in contrast, claims, "The more you understand the significance of evolution, the more you are pushed...towards atheism." It seems Professor Dawkins thinks Charles Darwin didn't understand his own theory.

 

Just months after the 2009 discovery of the supposed "missing link," author Ray Comfort turns the tables on evolutionists. In Nothing Created Everything, he examines the evidence for evolution and shows it is lacking. He demonstrates that when it comes to explaining how life began, atheists and evolutionists offer faith not facts. Ironically, atheists insist nothing created everything, a scientific impossibility.

 

In a conversational tone, Comfort speaks to both atheists and believers and urges this discussion be based on hard evidence. And when it is, he insists, people will realize evolution is a theory that can't be tested or measured and therefore can't be scientific.

 

 

zorro .......

Edited October 17, 2012 by zorro

[iNow]

How can one use evidence and logic to argue someone out of a position at which they arrived using neither?

[Moontanman]

Adam and Eve and you. All sexual reproducing species. .... All species derive themselves from a sexual or nonsexual ancestry. At the beginning of this, God spontaneously created or ignited the first action of all species.

 

Horse feathers, show some support for this or admit it's nothing but your belief.

 

 

Before a species is created, God had to create it's sympathetic environment to support him/her. Neither you nor the Ammonite can be created until the Earth, a Solar System ..... are created and are perfectly suited for existence. The species must have a Genome that evolves itself to the changing conditions of the Earth.

 

.....................................Ammonite

.......................

 

 

You need to support that assertion, it is not supported by anything but belief....

 

 

I did. .....And many others since Christ's resurrection. Why would you question this fundamental ??? Look it up.

 

I question it because it's not supported by any evidence what so ever, it's nothing but what people want to believe is true, nothing else. .

 

http://www.amazon.co...ated+Everything

Book Description

Publication Date: September 22, 2009 ....Richard Dawkins is arguably the modern poster boy for Charles Darwin. However, a key difference radically separates the two men. Darwin believed in the existence of God and calls God the "Creator" seven times in The Origin of Species. Dawkins, in contrast, claims, "The more you understand the significance of evolution, the more you are pushed...towards atheism." It seems Professor Dawkins thinks Charles Darwin didn't understand his own theory.

 

A great many people believe both in the fact of evolution and god, I how ever do not but your idea that the two are incompatalbe is simply not true.

 

Just months after the 2009 discovery of the supposed "missing link," author Ray Comfort turns the tables on evolutionists. In Nothing Created Everything, he examines the evidence for evolution and shows it is lacking. He demonstrates that when it comes to explaining how life began, atheists and evolutionists offer faith not facts. Ironically, atheists insist nothing created everything, a scientific impossibility.

 

In a conversational tone, Comfort speaks to both atheists and believers and urges this discussion be based on hard evidence. And when it is, he insists, people will realize evolution is a theory that can't be tested or measured and therefore can't be scientific.

 

Seriously, you are going by what Ray comfort says? REALLY? Ray comfort is a liar, I don't mean i disagree with what he says, he is demonstrably a liar. The best way to tell if Ray is lying is to check if his lips are moving.

[zorro]

Horse feathers, show some support for this or admit it's nothing but your belief.

 

You need to support that assertion, it is not supported by anything but belief....

 

I question it because it's not supported by any evidence what so ever, it's nothing but what people want to believe is true, nothing else. .

 

A great many people believe both in the fact of evolution and god, I how ever do not but your idea that the two are incompatalbe is simply not true.

 

Seriously, you are going by what Ray comfort says? REALLY? Ray comfort is a liar, I don't mean i disagree with what he says, he is demonstrably a liar. The best way to tell if Ray is lying is to check if his lips are moving.

 

You asked for a "everything from nothing" ref. You may not believe him ..so what .. He is much better than trashing up your mind with the Dawkins garbage.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxF73wIcrjw

 

 

in contrast: Hal Lindsey: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlf9qX1RP2Y

 

 

zorro .....

http://www.amazon.co...ated+Everything ..

 

 

 

Edited October 18, 2012 by zorro

[Moontanman]

You asked for a "everything from nothing" ref. You may not believe him ..so what .. He is much better than trashing up your mind with the Dawkins garbage.

 

belief has nothing to do with it...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxF73wIcrjw

 

 

in contrast: Hal Lindsey: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlf9qX1RP2Y

 

 

zorro .....

http://www.amazon.co...ated+Everything ..

 

Oh wow! Hal Lindsey, i apologize i thought you were just a typical nut job but if you follow Hal Lindsey then you are on the right track....

[EquisDeXD]

Horse feathers, show some support for this or admit it's nothing but your belief.

 

This isn't the right way to go about this, religion isn't about how smart you are, it's about how connected you are with a particular idea, and the more of your life you've spent around it, the more likely you are connected to it, and thus the harder it is to counter it. Have you ever heard of the Boiling Frog experiment? I wouldn't call it ethical, but in it, they boiled water and threw a frog in, and it jumped out right away. But, when the frog was placed in lukewarm water and the water was heated gradually to the point it was boiling, the frog didn't notice and stayed until it died. It seems strange to relate, but it's just meant to show that things are accepted or unnoticed if they are gradual, so if you really want to convince someone their belief in god is wrong, your going to need to spend a lot more time on it than you think, or probably want to. The best way for this progress to be made isn't to always target specific situations, but rather to create an open minded society over time.

Edited October 18, 2012 by EquisDeXD

[Moontanman]

This isn't the right way to go about this, religion isn't about how smart you are, it's about how connected you are with a particular idea, and the more of your life you've spent around it, the more likely you are connected to it, and thus the harder it is to counter it. Have you ever heard of the Boiling Frog experiment? I wouldn't call it ethical, but in it, they boiled water and threw a frog in, and it jumped out right away. But, when the frog was placed in lukewarm water and the water was heated gradually to the point it was boiling, the frog didn't notice and stayed until it died. It seems strange to relate, but it's just meant to show that things are accepted or unnoticed if they are gradual, so if you really want to convince someone their belief in god is wrong, your going to need to spend a lot more time on it than you think, or probably want to. The best way for this progress to be made isn't to always target specific situations, but rather to create an open minded society over time.

 

 

Quite the contrary, i do not try to proselytize atheism, i and this forum requires you back up positive assertions with evidence. The positive assertion of any god much less the abrahamic one is not supportable with evidence and so is just a belief.

 

I cannot assert that antigravity is possible without some evidence to back it up and so it goes with the assertion that there is a god or gods...

[EquisDeXD]

Quite the contrary, i do not try to proselytize atheism, i and this forum requires you back up positive assertions with evidence. The positive assertion of any god much less the abrahamic one is not supportable with evidence and so is just a belief.

But that's exactly the point, this is a science forum, and they obviously didn't make this thread to only discuss science, so there's not much of a point debating the non-science aspect, it's just something that has to be done over time. And with your comment on atheism, that response wasn't about converting anyone to atheism, it was about open-mindedness, it's not that over time people need to never believe god exists, its just that people need to be able to look at their beliefs as merely beliefs, and accept there may be flaws in them and be open to new ideas.

 

I cannot assert that antigravity is possible without some evidence to back it up and so it goes with the assertion that there is a god or gods...

Well you can believe and discuss it still, though it's not best to do so on a science forum unless your investigating if it's plausible.

Edited October 18, 2012 by EquisDeXD

[too-open-minded]

Probably because the subconscious will to survive causes me to create a defense mechanism in which I feel more content thinking I will not cease to exist.

 

Justification like a boss.

[EquisDeXD]

Probably because the subconscious will to survive causes me to create a defense mechanism in which I feel more content thinking I will not cease to exist.

 

No, there's smart people who have specific beliefs, even scientists, and they don't necessarily have to believe such because they are defensive, but because they feel it explains everything or fills some void in their life.

Edited October 18, 2012 by EquisDeXD

[iNow]

And what people believe is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what assertions people can support with evidence and logic. Until then, your fairy tales and myths can be disregarded in the same way we disregard unicorns and the tooth fairy.

[losfomot]

And with your comment on atheism, that response wasn't about converting anyone to atheism, it was about open-mindedness, it's not that over time people need to never believe god exists, its just that people need to be able to look at their beliefs as merely beliefs, and accept there may be flaws in them and be open to new ideas.

 

merely beliefs? A belief cannot be merely.

 

If you believe something, that means it is the rock solid truth. There is no accepting there may be flaws or being open to new ideas. You either believe in something or you don't.

 

Saying...

 

its just that people need to be able to look at their beliefs as merely beliefs, and accept there may be flaws in them and be open to new ideas.

 

is like saying people should be agnostic... or atheist.

[EquisDeXD]

merely beliefs? A belief cannot be merely.

 

If you believe something, that means it is the rock solid truth.

How so?

 

 

There is no accepting there may be flaws or being open to new ideas.

 

You can believe it to different extents.

 

 

You either believe in something or you don't.

That's sort of true, you can believe something more strongly than something else.

 

 

 

 

 

is like saying people should be agnostic... or atheist.

No it's like saying you can believe in god without people like moon criticizing you if you have a logical justification for doing so, and you can still believe whatever anyway if you want.

Edited October 18, 2012 by EquisDeXD

[ydoaPs]

If you believe something, that means it is the rock solid truth. There is no accepting there may be flaws or being open to new ideas. You either believe in something or you don't.

 

Hmmm.....you should let the entire academic Philosophy community know this. Any other revelations for academia?

[Moontanman]

merely beliefs? A belief cannot be merely.

 

If you believe something, that means it is the rock solid truth. There is no accepting there may be flaws or being open to new ideas. You either believe in something or you don't.

 

It might mean you think it's the rock solid truth, but really believing something does not equal knowledge. You might object to the word merely in reference to belief but that is not inaccurate.

 

Saying...

 

 

 

is like saying people should be agnostic... or atheist.

 

Well I think they should at least ask questions and see if the dogma their beliefs are rooted in have any connection with reality....