Has God Given Enough Evidence for a Rational Faith?
As a college student, I explored significant doubts I had about my faith. It bothered me that God didn’t make His existence more obvious. In fact, one skeptic made me wonder: Why doesn’t God write “Jesus Saves” on the moon or “Made by God” on each cell?
After carefully examining the evidence, however, I became convinced that God has made himself known (Rom. 1:18–21; 2:14, 15). He has not made Himself known exhaustively, but He has sufficiently. Consider three prominent arguments for the existence of God:
The “Cosmological” Argument
Both scientific and philosophical reasons help us conclude that the cosmos, at some point, had a beginning. Given that something can’t begin to exist without a cause, the cause must be outside the cosmos. Since matter, time and energy simultaneously came into existence at a finite point in the past, the cause is plausibly timeless, immaterial, intelligent, powerful and personal. Simply put, the beginning of the universe points to a Beginner.
Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »
The Fine-Tuning of the Laws of Physics
The laws of physics that govern the universe are exquisitely fine-tuned for the emergence and sustenance of human life. The slightest changes in any number of physical constants would make our universe inhospitable. The most compelling and reliable explanation for why the universe is so precisely fine-tuned is that an Intelligent Mind made it that way. Simply put, the fine-tuning of the universe points to a Fine-Tuner.
The Moral Argument
This argument reasons that since objective moral values exist, so must God. If God does not exist, then moral values are ultimately subjective and nonbinding. Yet we know objective moral values are real. Therefore, since moral values do exist, God must as well. Simply put, the existence of moral values points to a universal Moral Lawgiver.
Much more could be said about these arguments. My father and I go into depth on each one of these (and more) in the updated Evidence that Demands A Verdict. And we also explore the historical evidence for the deity of Christ and his resurrection. There is evidence for those who want to consider it.
Why Doesn’t God Just Prove His Existence?
So then why doesn’t God make his existence more evident? Why didn’t God write “Jesus Saves” with the stars? This troubled me until I realized that it’s an absurd request. After all, what language would God write it in? Hebrew? Arabic? English? And if he wrote it in a particular language, wouldn’t all the illiterate people throughout history object? What about all the blind people? Clearly the request for God to write “Jesus Saves” in the stars wouldn’t actually fix the supposed problem.
Remember: God is not interested in proving His existence, but in knowing mankind personally (John 17:1-5). As counterintuitive as it may seem, there is no reason to believe that if God were to make His existence more manifest that more people would repent of their sin enter into a saving relationship with Him.
He has offered sufficient evidence for rational faith. The question is — Will we trust Him?
God revealed Himself tirelessly in the Old Testament by sending plagues to Egypt, parting the Red Sea, and destroying the enemies of Israel. Sadly, this didn’t produce lasting heart-change in the people. They continually rebelled and followed other gods.
And even in the New Testament, when Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead, the religious leaders want to kill Lazarus and run Jesus out of town. Therefore, even if God blazoned “Jesus Saves” in the stars, we would have little reason to believe this would generate lasting faith.
God is not interested in merely proving His existence. But for those with eyes to see, and ears to hear, God has made Himself known. He has offered sufficient evidence for rational faith. The question is — Will we trust Him. https://stream.org/evidence-rational-faith/
Tags
Who is online
48 visitors
“Remember: God is not interested in proving His existence, but in knowing mankind personally (John 17:1-5). As counterintuitive as it may seem, there is no reason to believe that if God were to make His existence more manifest that more people would repent of their sin enter into a saving relationship with Him.
He has offered sufficient evidence for rational faith. The question is — Will we trust Him?”
If god supposedly created mankind, then he should know everything about us. Especially if he's omniscient.
Oxymoron.
When has god offered anything because the Bible is the work of mankind? Your claim put the cart in front of the horse.
Logic says that first, you must exist before you can act. How can you trust what doesn't exist? Believing in something existing does mean that it does actually exist. You have just deluded yourself into a false belief and then you agree with your delusions.
It isn't God we don't trust, Jeffy, it's people like you who tell us about God that we don't trust. Get it straight!
Are you talking about the cult claiming to know the only true path to an afterlife. An afterlife only that cult is rewarded? The cult where members make public religious declarations of devotion and are then flaunt the 10 commandments and their savior's teachings for all but an hour on Sunday. The cult that now feels emboldened to openly promote an unconstitutional theocracy.
Not to mention an afterlife that one can only see or experience once your brain and central nervous system has shut down.
I just wanna know which cult has the right decoder ring? They can't all have it.
No, there is no real evidence, no matter how much the faithful wish to make its so.
But the faithful have all the ecplinatoon and proof they need. That is an aspect of faith.
It's called wishful thinking (or delusion). Got it.
Hey Gordy......Good to see you....
Quick question......I'm assuming that you have never experienced a faith in God that the faithful experience. As a believer myself..... How can you draw the conclusions you have drawn..... if you have never experienced such a thing and have no way of knowing what compels every believer on earth to become one.......
Thank you. you too.
That would be a correct assumption.
My conclusions is based on logic and reasoning, including an analysis of the evidence (or lack thereof) for any god/s, as well as subjective observation. I am aware many people have different reasons for having faith and some have even told me why they do, although personal experience tends to be subjective and anecdotal. However, I've noticed it boils down to one or two things: people are raised to believe and have faith (most commonly by family members) and/or they have some emotional need or appeal which they claim faith provides or meets. Somewhere in between is the idea that faith provides a convenient explanation for things, i.e. "god did it." Some people are able to challenge their faith and overcome it and become non-believers while others fall into it and become believers on their own.
So you believe that Billions of People.....a large number of which are intelligent, logical and reasonable....are in your words "delusional"........I will try to come up with an analogy of why it is difficult .....if not impossible for a non-believer to have a good grasp on what it is that makes us Believers......
My first attempt at an analogy.......
Someone who has never had an orgasm ......trying to explain the pleasure of an orgasm.....
Second attempt.....
Someone who has been blind their entire life......understanding what makes a beautiful painting....beautiful.....
Third attempt.....
Someone who was born deaf.....explaining why people like music.
Do you see what I am getting at? It's not easy.....
What does it mean for you to be a Christian? Is it about a social group, is it the feeling of safety that the bible gives you when it answers your questions about life, is oit the knowledge that death is not eternal or is it because you were raised to go to church by your parents so you continue to do so?
I was raised Catholic but I never believed a word of it because it doesn't stand up to logical analysis. The hypocrisy of the church was also obvious even to a teen.
Are there hypocrites in the Church?......You bet there are.....and I am truly sorry their existence has soured your view of Christianity. As far as
I will try to answer that but it is almost impossible for the same reasons I portray in my analogies.......Imagine trying to describe why the color purple is your favorite color...... without using another color.......
It is an event that changes a persons life.....and has changed Billions of peoples lives.......the things that you mention are just secondary......compared to the experience of being saved.....once it happens.....things are different and for lack of a better explanation.....it is like looking at everything through a different lens......You notice God working in your day to day life......not being Saved..... reminds me of the saying ......"can't see the forest for the trees"........
I hope that helps you understand.......
Another little question......and I'm not trying to be disrespectful (you know I respect you).......does logic preclude you from even believing in the possibility of the existence of God?
Just because billions of people believe something does not make the belief valid or true. That's an argumentum ad populum fallacy. People believe largely because of societal norms, practices, expectations, ect. and challenging those norms or beliefs is frowned upon. People can believe whatever they want. But belief does not equal fact.
I am open to the possibility of a god if there was evidence for one. As it is, there is no evidence forthcoming.
Thank you.
Ok, here they are. Without getting into a long dissertation on about your citation, I will briefly address each point it makes:
1. The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.
This is an argument from design (Teleological Argument) fallacy. It's also one of the most commonly used arguments for the existence of a god. It is also based on the assumption that there is a god to begin with and ignores known natural processes that accounts for it. Essentially, it's immediately making a flawed conclusion based on a flawed premise. From the planet standpoint, Earth has simply formed in its current orbit the same as all the other planets formed in theirs. Astronomers have discovered planets that reside within their star's habitable zone. Given the sheer vastness of the universe and countless planets that exist within it (estimates place between 1-30 billion planets in our galaxy alone), there is no reason to assume Earth is wholly unique in regard to its development or placement in the solar system. There is certainly nothing which suggests a god has any influence on it, outside of mere belief that is. It's a matter of mathematical probability. In regards to human development, the process of evolution is a perfect explanation. We even see progression of human development (and other life forms) from the fossil record. The fossil record alone discredits the validity of a "Designer," as it is a freak show of various organisms which shows life improvises as it goes on, which is the exact opposite of design.
2. The universe had a start - what caused it?
The start of the universe is generally accepted to be the Big Bang, as there is empirical evidence to support it. As for what precipitated or caused it (assuming there is such a cause), the honest answer is "no one knows." As previously stated, using god as an explanation is an assumption and lacks any objective support. It's intellectually lazy and dishonest. It's no different than saying the universe was started by fairies, leprechauns, or gnomes. Such a statement has the same validity as saying god is the cause. It's also an argument from ignorance fallacy: "We don't know what caused the start of the universe. Therefore, god."
3. The universe operates by uniform laws of nature. Why does it?
This is essentially the same thing as the previous point and invokes the same logical fallacy: "We don't know, therefore god."
4. The DNA code informs, programs a cell's behavior.
See previous statement. DNA is just a product of biological evolution. Microbiologists understand the process of how DNA evolved and how it replicates. It also makes the same assumption that god is the cause of DNA programming, but offers nothing to support that assumption.
5. We know God exists because he pursues us. He is constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him.
This is nothing more than mere belief or dogma. It's also a gross generalization that attempts to apply to everyone. While it might make for an interesting philosophical discussion, there is nothing logical or rational to suggest this is factually or objectively true.
6. Unlike any other revelation of God, Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God revealing himself to us.
Again, more dogma. The belief about Jesus is held by the Christian religion. But other religions either downplay his significance or outright omit him. It's a Christocentric idea. It's not so different as the Mormon idea regarding John Smith acting as god's ambassador, so to speak. It's just an assumption about Jesus, based on dogma, that he was the son of (or is) god himself and/or that he performed various miracles, as there is nothing objective to support that belief. So what makes Christianity correct in that regard and all other religions wrong?
Basically, it all boils down to not understanding something and invoking god as an explanation. While that might be a nice, easy, feel-good explanation, it is not really an explanation of anything. Invoking god is a failure to explain. None of the points cited in the article objectively proves or even suggests in the least, that there is a god. It's all based on belief only. And as I always say, belief does not equal fact.
"Since matter, time and energy simultaneously came into existence at a finite point in the past, the cause is plausibly timeless, immaterial, intelligent, powerful and personal."
You started out with some logic, the cause may be timeless, immaterial and powerful, but why leap all the way to "intelligent and personal" without so much as a logical premise for it? Dark matter may be timeless, immaterial and powerful but it need not be "intelligent" and definitely doesn't need to be "personal". The fact is the observable universe doesn't give two shits about us. This universe is set on kill, not stun. At virtually every turn if we're not being careful we would die and there is zero evidence of any afterlife.
So what exactly does the tag mean?
Assuming it has some meaning to your State of Jefferson dreams, what does it have to do with the article?
Absolutely, the FSM has made his existence very clear to me and has my undying faith. Ramen.
Praise the prophets Parmesan and Romano. They are proof that the FSM wants us to be happy.
I pasta the point of refusing the marinara long ago. I will communion with my garlic bread and Chianti with gusto.
LTNS Jen. We need more SINners on NT.
Oh DuH,
I just got the meaning of Jen's new moniker,
Thanks, lol
Join my club. I often trip over the shockingly obvious 2-3 times before I recognize it.
RAMEN!
I have enough evidence of God all the time. I see proof it a mountain landscape or meadow. I see Him in the beauty of the night sky. The sweet innocent face of a new born baby is also proof. There are many more things that give evidence if one will only have the open mind and takes a bit of time to look.
That's nice and poetic. But it's no more proof of god than it is for fairies, leprechauns, or gnomes.
Why do you want faith when you could have truth instead?
Or accepted.
Unless you have compelling evidence.
Where does it say that those two words are mutually exclusive?
And your "compelling evidence is?
Believing falsehoods and emotions do not refute logic. This is why logic is still needed.
Why do you need faith if you have the empirical truth?
Would you rather have faith that is comfortable and confirms your beliefs or facts that might be factually true and reproducible yet forces you to change your previously held opinions?
Logic is important to me. Very important.
He put it out there so I have the right to respond unless this thread is a religious circle jerk where everyone has to pat him on the back and tell him how much they agree.
Believing in ideas that you cannot prove is a negative harbinger of the interdependent society that we live in as a group. Do we want our country based on, lies that are emotionally easy and comfortable or do we base it on facts that might cause people to have to reconsider their previously held beliefs when the new ideas are true and reproducible? Intellectually do you want to regress socially or do you want to move forward? Beliefs and religious faith take us back to the middle ages when kings and popes ruled the western world based on dogma, or do you prefer to have our society based on science and logic that moves us forward.
Evidence of what exactly? I've made no affirmative claim. You believe there's a god? So where's your proof?
Sure you have, you've affirmatively claimed there is no God. So where's your proof?
Specify where I said that! Then look up what a logical fallacy is!
I apologize. I must have misunderstood your posts the last couple of days.
No worries, you wouldn't be the first. That said, I dont accept claims for a god without some kind of evidence or proof. After all, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I am curious though as to why you think if God existed there would not be free will.
Assuming god is omnipotent and omniscient, as those traits are often attributed to god, then that means god knows in advance before we're even born what choices and actions we make. Therefore, we're created simply to carry out those choices and there is no way to deviate or choose differently, unless god is wrong. It's all predetermined and the idea of choice or free will is just an illusion.
But you see, therein lays the rub... they do not keep their faith and belief to themselves. They cram down my throat and expect me to pay for it with my tax dollars. That's just plain crap.
Not found within a two thousand year old manuscript of specious origins and translated by men of questionable motives.
Absolutely. Religion needs to be kept out of public policy and schools that are funded with taxpayer dollars. There should be no public vouchers to private schools unless they are held to the same standards as public schools. Our taxpayer dollars should not be used to support either private religious schools or charter schools.
That sounds like having a mind so open that your brains fall out. There are simple, natural explanations for why we have mountains and meadows. Have you never learned how mountains form? The points of light we see in the night sky are other suns, far away from us, do you dispute this?
See 3.1.1
Faith is the abcense of proof.
Says who?
Logic. If you have proof then you don't need faith and belief. Faith and belief are emotional decisions made in the absence empirical proof and logic.
Rene Decartes disproved the ideas of Thomas Aquinas. Look it up.
Your watchmaker's fallacy (arguement from design) fails because the earth existing is not proof of god because we can explain the existence of the earth without needing any god or religion.
See 3. 1. 1
Repeating the same lie over and over doesn't make it true, even if you believe it to be true.
This can either be a confirmation bias fallacy or an ad nauseum fallacy.
we can explain the existence of the earth without needing any god or religion.
Can you explain why the earth was perfectly placed at just the right distance from the sun to support life? Chance isn't a reasonable explanation.
Denying God over and over doesn't mean he doesn't exist no matter how much you want to believe he doesn't.
You're putting the cart before the horse, MM, there is life on earth BECAUSE the conditions are right to support it. There are undoubtedly some others that support life, the universe is so huge. Don't you ever ask yourself why God created those billions of useless, lifeless planets out there?
Believers have the logical burden of proof to prove that their claim (god exists) is true. Abense of that empirical proof we revert to the idea that their claim is false and that God doesn't actually exist. I am saying that there is no proof of god existing, so your premise of god existing is invalid.
Where is that empirical proof of god existing?
There are other planets in the Goldilocks zone, even in the backwater of the Milky Way in a remote part of the universe. It does not need god action to do that.
Why not? There are trillions of suns in the universe with multiple trillions of planets circling, out of that almost unimaginable number why is chance not a reasonable explanation for one planet to be at the right distance to support life?
What lie? What is false in that quote?
Where is that empirical proof of god existing? Where is that empirical proof he doesn't
A lot of people who believe in God don't make good arbiters of truth and the real meanings of life. And that turns a lot of people off the whole god thing. Best to live your beliefs to the fullest because actions speak louder than words. We all have our personal belief systems and even the same words (like 'God') mean different things to different people. I don't feel the need to prove anything to anybody, we all have to get to our truth our own way. I do believe we aren't just physical beings that die and stop existing, energy keeps going, unbound by a body. Its mostly the religious dogma that gets it wrong so much of the time, but how its interpreted is even worse.
Why just one? Out of trillions one would think there would be at least a billion.
There may be. Scientists are unsure how common it is.
I'm not the person making the claim that god exists. You made the claim so you must prove your claim to be true. You cannot put the burden of proof on me as a way to deflect from your lack of evidence. A supernatural creator doesn't automatically exist, even if you sincerely believe that it does. Your belief does not rise to the level of fact.
NASA's new orbital telescope that replaces Hubble might be able to tell us that.
NASA James Webb telescope.
And saying that God exists over and over again doesn't prove that he does. Two way street. But, there is literally more proof of Big Foot than God, so there ya go.
Faith, no matter how sincere, is not proof of anything. If I have faith that I won the Powerball lottery does that mean that I can call the broker and by my dream sailboat?
Actually, it is.
Believing god exists doesn't mean it does, no matter how much you believe it does.
Your disbelief God doesn't exist doesn't prove it even if you sincerely believe it does.
You say the burden of proof is on the believer, you can't keep coping out with that stupid argument. The burden of proof lays equally on the disbeliever.
Might? When it does get back to me.
So do you think when we die we just float around the universe endlessly?
A logical fallacy. One cannot prove the nonexistence of something. The burden of proof is on the one making the affirmative claim. Or do you simply believe or accept every thing as true until proven otherwise?
No, we just die and decompose into worm chow. That's about it.
Why is chance not reasonable? Chance is just mathematical probability. Given the sheer numbe of stars and planets in the universe, there is a good probability that some planets are within their stars habitable zone, and possibly harboring life. Earth is just one planet. What makes earth so unique in that regard?
Where in that quote does it say that faith is proof?
Just because it is by chance doesn't mean that religion is a reasonable answer by default. The gap that a god can exist in is getting smaller as our knowledge expands. In 200 years there will be almost no place for a god of the gaps to exist in.
Do you understand the random chaos of entropy? Order as humans knows it is inherently unnatural in the universe.
Agreed.
Life could be the default mode when given enough time on any rocky planet. We just don't know enough about the universe now, but that is slowly changing.
Actually chance is a perfect explanation. Example? Par three on any golf course. If I hit a ball over and over and over again, eventually, one will go in for a hole in one. That's chance. There are literally trillions of planets in the universe, chances are that at least a few are going to be in a zone that supports OUR life forms. For all we know, there could be other life forms on other planets that would find our planet completely toxic. To assume that our planet is the only one in the universe that supports life is arrogant presumption..
Faith is not an explanation. It is an easy cop-out that is in spite of logic. Believing in anything does not make it true or real.
How many times and how many ways do I have to explain this idea to you or anyone else?
If I sincerely believe that I won the Powerball lottery can I also sincerely believe that I own either of these sailboats? Santa I've been very good this year.......
That's just reality. Cremation is fine. Burials are just a waste of land space and more costly anyway. As for a soul, that is just religious belief. There is nothing to substantiate claims for a soul.
Without proof, faith is meaningless. It's just an emotional comfort mechanism or based on emotion. But it explains nothing. Faith is a failure to explain.
It does not make it false or fake either. But then that isnt really what the qoute says is it. Go back and read it again slowly
Faith is. It neefs no explanation.
Hit a tee shot with a 5 iron on a short par 3 one time. The green was much lower than the tee so I had a perfect view. It landed perfectly, rolling straight for the hole as my heart beat faster and faster, but it just tailed off a couple inches before the hole. Closest I ever came.
You're into the sauce tonight, aren't you Arky?
That is all that there is. Game over, no more quarters accepted for this game. There is no bonus round and there is no soul to exist eternally.
We are just not that important. There is no heaven but there is also no hell.
It's called the "Goldilocks Zone", where liquid water can exist on the surface. That's why life evolved here, starting fairly early in the Earth's history. You're assuming it was "placed" here, which is not true.
No, I don't and to be honest its too complicated for a forum like this and I'm not about changing minds. Just happens to be something I've spent a lot of life looking into and experiencing. I also believe in reincarnation. Can't prove a thing to anybody else, but I've had personal experiences that got me here. There isn't some guy named god sitting on a cloud, but its hard to get that picture out of my head, so I understand how stupid it can seem.
Epistte as smart and as important, you IMAGINE you are, there must be someplace after death for your brilliance to shine for all eternity.
No, faith is just intellectual laziness. It's nothing more than wishful thinking, no questions asked and no answers accepted.
When we die our brain rots in the ground and worms eat it.
Have your body dumped in the ocean, fish gotta eat.
Nope!
First I'll donate my organs. Then leave the rest to medical science. Whatever is left can be ground up into chum or put in canned dog food for all I care. If I'm cremated, my ashe's can be used as plant fertilizer.
No there is no evidence that there is anything after life ends.
I'm not brilliant. I am moderately logical, but I am far from being brilliant. I do have a finely tuned BS detector.
Faith is an idea that you desperately want to be real, but without any reality or proof. It's a wish that you desperately believe. It is utterly irrelevant in reality, despite how much you believe.
It is the logical equivalent of building a castle on the sand at low tide. High tide is reality.
Faith is something you can not adequately understand or even care to try to understand. Faith and people of faith hurt you or effect you in no was yet you feel compelled to denegrate them. You have do what ever you can to destroy their belief so you can feel some sort of superiority that you dont really possess. Just what are you afraid of.
I do have a finely tuned BS detector.
It doesn't work when you spew BS. Do you turn it off before you speak?
Now there's an idea. I would be ok with that. Tape a small vial of my ashes too a rocket and fire it off.
This post reeks of a religious persecution complex.
There is no persecution complex here. The article shows how to maintain faith in God and that He exists and that there is a rational basis for that faith.
They know exactly what they have to lose if they are wrong and we are right.
And if when we die you turn out to be right, what have we lost by believing in this life? Then there’s the reverse to consider. We love God and as a result follow Him. We have much to look forward to.
And for those of us who believe we have a rational basis for our faith, there is nothing the skeptics and deniers can say or do that will ever persuade us to give up those beliefs or to take our message about those beliefs to all the world. No amount of denying in any and all forms will stop us.
👍👏🎯
Faith is the opposite of rational. It's simply wishful thinking. You can believe whatever you want, but belief does not meat it's true or factual.
That's what I keep telling those who deny that Quetzalcoatl is the only real god.
What is that rational basis?
A Pascal's Wager is a logical fallacy.
It is the bottom line. The proof demanding skeptics who refuse to believe by faith have much more to lose than the lifelong believer in the event of being wrong. Likewise the denier has absolutely nothing to gain by being right while the believer has eternal life.
That sounds like something a salesman or con artist would say to elicit an irrational judgement or decision based on emotion so you buy what they're selling. If someone made a claim to you, especially an extraordinary claim, chances are you would require proof before you accept such a claim. And yet, you don't hold the same standard of god or religious claims? Interesting. And your statement is still a Pascal's Wager and a logical fallacy.
I agree that possibility exists
There is no proof that God exists because the bible is not a proof of god. Having faith is what doesn't exist doesn't create a god, no matter how ardently you believe or how much faith that you claim to have.
It is a claim of god because it was written by man. Faith in what you can't prove is a delusion that you want to believe in.
There is absolutely no rational basis for blind faith, faith religious or otherwise. You have always lived via religious faith so it seems normal to you. The fact that you were wrong and those who told you to believe in god were wrong is not something that you may be able to understand.
Then WHY does it seem to bother you so much what OTHERS believe?
Faith is a fool errand. Either something exists or it doesn't faith is irrelevant. Prove it or understand that or it decent exist. You have been lied to by your parents, those around you and the church who told you to have faith in what doesn't exist. I never said that accepting reality is easy but you can do it if you want to.
I'm sorry for the many typos. This is the corrected version. I hate Grammarly.
Faith is a fool's errand. Either something exists or it doesn't, so faith is irrelevant. Prove it or understand that or it doesn't exist. I'm sorry that you were lied to by your parents, those around you and the church who told you to have faith in what doesn't exist. I never said that accepting reality is easy, but you can do it if you want to.
Man, you sure spend a lot of time and energy trying to convince people that they are wrong, and you are right.
In fact, you seem a little pissed that someone has faith and a Higher Power.
Weird, getting pissed at what you consider nothing.
Indeed. using Earth as a guide, we know life can exist in a variety of environmental conditions, even in otherwise completely inhospitable conditions (for humans or other types of life anyway). The implication is life is probably more robust and prevalent than we realize.
Too slow if you ask me. I wonder what the collective response will be when we discover actual life on another planet (or if life finds us)? And I'm not talking "possible" life, but rather actual "smoking gun"-look under the microscope and you'll see it-life.
Well, epistte is right. But it doesn't seem like she spends that much time or energy in it. It doesn't seem to difficult to begin with.
What makes you say that?
It seems like epistte is more pissed at typos than at someone for what they believe.
Why would atheists bother to comment on an article about God or faith? That is highly illogical. that takes time and effort to talk about stuff you don't believe. Which is illogical.
Why not? it's an opportunity to point out certain absurdities and logical inconsi
As opposed to faith or believing in a god?
As opposed to faith or believing in a god?
It is absurd that you spend all this time commenting on something you don't believe in.
Do you comment this much on unicorns and fairies, or do you think they exist?
where are they posting that unicorns exist?
are unicorns believers getting tax breaks?
Is time wasted before starting government meetings asking the blessing of unicorns?
are unicorn fundamentalists trying to force their beliefs on zebra and giraffe worshipers?
Is there a problem with the way I spend my time?
Is anyone claiming unicorns or fairies exist?
Exactly. We are saved by faith through grace.
$5.00 says that they will claim that god also put life there for us to find. Praise Jesus.
Why do you have faith in what you cant prove? I get annoyed at illogical claims because being intentionally ignorant is very offensive in the 21st century.
How can you claim that a higher power exists when there is no evidence of it? You can't just make things up to suit your beliefs. It doesn't exist because you believe that it might or that you have been told by others that it does.
The Bible is an unproven claim, so it isn't proof of anything, even if you believe it to be. Believing in what you cant prove makes you foolish.
Have you ever heard the tern cognitive dissonance?
Look up "Drake's equation" it's a calculation of the habitable planets in our own galaxy.
I have patiently tried to explain to you, to no avail, that I care nothing about your beliefs. I am not here to convince you that I am right or that you are wrong. I am not out to convert anyone. Everyone believes whatever they wish to believe.
Your ceaseless demands for "proof" is tiresome. I don't believe for one second that anything in the world will ever convince you that God exists. That's perfectly fine for you. Others have faith and believe, and that is fine for them.
Seems like one major difference is that I can accept others' beliefs, while you appear to have a hard time doing that.
God has worked in MY life. I make no claims for others.
Take it or leave it at that.
IMPASSE.
No bet there.
You mean the Flying Spaghetti monster, of course.
As a species we are moving forward, yet we have to make choices about the direction in which we go. If a large number of people are saying "We should go left!" and the rest ask "Why?" and the reply is "Because our God said so!" then we all have a vested interest as to whether this supposed God exists or not. Throughout history we have had religion controlling human choices, making laws, inventing traditions, claiming to be the arbiter of truth. Only in the last century have enough people woken up enough to question the motives behind the direction religion would have us go. That is why it bothers some of us when many want to blindly accept something with zero evidence, to continue walking the path of religious belief just because their ancestors did and trying to force everyone to conform to their unproven Gods wishes. If everyone stopped pushing their faith into government, schools and courthouses you'd likely find a lot fewer people challenging your faith.
What I get from that long comment is that you think eveybody should be just like you and those already like you and you are willing to force others to your views.
What has been pushed onto you specifically? What is being pushed into govt., schools, and courthouses?
Sorry, but people don't have a right to tell others how or what to believe when it comes to religion or God.
But I am not here to convince others of anything--other than to live and let live. It really isn't anyone's business what others believe regarding God.
Prayer, creationism, bible/religious studies, religious clubs, the 10 Commandments, ect..
That works both ways. Believers don't have a right to tell or influence people how they should believe (or not) nor push their religion into the government or law!
Too bad many theists are not content with such a position.
Theists DO push their beliefs on others. Not all of them, but many of them, it's common, it's happened to me several times in my life, it's happened to almost everyone, god believers pushing their particular brand of god belief on them. Atheists don't do this.
Too bad many atheist aren't comfortable with hearing God mentioned.
Yes they do--just as much as believers do.
Not even close!
What do you base that assumption on? It certainly doesn't bother me if you mention god.
Your comment is just silly. No one can prove God exists and no one can prove God doesn't exist, so it is all faith. Since many people hold one of the two positions what you are saying is that the majority of human beings are on a fool's errand.
I would just say that someone else's faith may be irrelevant to you, and that is a fair comment, but their faith is not irrelevant to them. You have faith in your belief that there is no God. Is your faith irrelevant ?
Faith is a belief in something that cannot at the moment be proven.
If I loan you ten bucks I likely have to have faith that you will pay me back, since I don't positively know that you will until you do.
What you are experiencing is projection as my comment made no such claim. My comment answered the question asked "Why some of us are bothered by others faith". I simply pointed out that many of us now want some evidence to support the claims of God if we are all to act according to the religious demands. Why should anyone follow the blue laws that many States have banning alcohol sales on Sundays? I'm not wanting everyone to buy alcohol on Sundays, I'm just questioning others rights to ban anyone from buying it. If your faith says no alcohol on Sunday, then by all means, follow your faith, but why force your faith on others through a ban on everyone? If your faith demands you decorate your home and personal space with Christmas ornaments and displays of mangers, by all means, do it, but why do we allow schools to assign Christmas projects to every child regardless of their faith?
I was indoctrinated in the Christian faith from childhood. I had a father who was a pastor for nearly 50 years and I ended up following in his footsteps being a pastor for over a decade. But the more I studied, the more questions I had that other pastors, ministers and priests were only able to answer with "Well God is a mystery" and "If you're having a crisis of faith, just fake it till you make it. Go through the motions and your faith will build".
So yes, there was a time when I was pushing my faith on others, sharing my indoctrination with anyone who would listen and taking advantage of the weak minded who would come to me asking for answers which I gave them, told them how they were supposed to be living and how they should behave. It wasn't until after I had read through the bible cover to cover several times and then read many other religious documents and books and studied other faiths that I saw they all shared the same core and all had the same flaws.
Now I try not to force my beliefs on others, but I do question and challenge unfounded faith and beliefs, not because I'm trying to convert anyone, but to get them to really think deeper than the surface. It's the difference between learning the basics of how to operate a computer and knowing how to code. You can teach just about anyone how to press the buttons to get their desired outcome, but it takes real study and dedication to understand what's going on beneath the surface. You can learn to do all the traditions and trapping of religion as many of the religious do, they go through the motions because it's what they were trained to do, but truly understanding the basis of that religion takes study and dedication and an open mind that can accept the reality when you find how little fact that faith is based on.
I have no problem hearing God mentioned. I do have a problem when others try to legislate their faith or try to push their personal faith in public schools by assigning kids dozens of Christian based projects throughout the year. From Halloween parades and dress up day at public schools and many Christmas art projects to making Easter baskets and painting eggs, all are an attempt to push a specific faith using our tax funded public schools. The many blue laws banning alcohol and other product sales on Sundays all based on religious faith, not any practical or logical reasons. The majority of those trying to overturn Roe v Wade are evangelicals who believe a tiny invisible soul is created during conception, I disagree with anyone trying to push that kind of belief on others and refuse to have a reasonable debate about abortion. I disagree with the evangelicals who forced their "God" into the pledge of allegiance in 1954 and onto our paper money in 1957.
If it was just "hearing" God mentioned, I'd not even bat an eye, but it's not and you know it. There is a desire by many religious persons the world over to have their faith validated by others, to be pat on the back and told "You got it right, this is the true religion". That is why there have been so many wars and so much violence perpetrated by the faithful, who, when their faith was challenged by other religions, took up the sword, prayed to their Gods for victory, and then proceeded to murder those who refused to accept their faith as fact.
Pascals wager only works if there are but two possible outcomes thus giving you an "either or" choice. If it were just 50/50 then you'd have a point. But the fact is there are thousands of Gods people have believed in with thousands of traditions and rituals that they claim their God demands for salvation. Even within the Christian faith alone there are thousand of sects, each with differing beliefs on what their God demands of them. So it's really a choice between tens of thousands of traditions, rituals, faiths and Gods or choosing not to believe in any of them and just trying to live well, treat others as you would like to be treated and cherish the time you do get on this planet because there is no guarantee of anything beyond this.
What is your god?
Why does your god have a gender? Does that mean it has a body? Why does your god have a body?
What is the purpose of this god?
What motivates this god?
Why would your god have negative emotions if it was a perfect god?
Why would your god create imperfection in anything? Is this god doing lab experiments with its creations despite having a plan and influencing outcomes so that this god's plan is achieved?
Why would your god create a world only to destroy it like it was a sandcastle built at low tide? The Earth's sun is a star that will eventually go dark like all other stars. Nothing eternal about life on Earth.
Did this god create all forms of life on Earth? Then why did your god keep creating species and then causing them to go extinct via climate change and asteroid collision? Why does your god value life so cheaply?
I think few people who consider themselves "atheists" have "faith" that God doesn't exist, they simply see no evidence for God so reserve their judgment until such proof is provided. You likely never even think about not believing in Bes, an ancient God who was depicted as a grotesque, bandy-legged dwarf with his tongue sticking out. Until someone makes the claim that he does exist and wants you to worship him you hadn't even considered his existence. And since the only evidence of him are ancient manuscripts and some stone reliefs, you likely wouldn't consider not believing in him as a "faith".
I do not claim that no Gods can exist, I simply have never found empirical evidence of their existence, so all of them occupy the same space, from Vishnu to Yahweh. All have zero evidence of their existence, so it requires no faith to disbelieve them. It takes faith to believe in something without evidence.
I have no evidence to prove aliens from other universes don't exist, but I don't have "faith" that they don't exist. I hold out the same possibility for deities. In fact, what are Gods if not alien to us. I simply don't worship or have faith in any specific alien, or spirit, beings. I think there is actually far more evidence of flesh and blood aliens, though not proven empirically, than there is of spirit beings. Because they can't be proven empirically, I'm not inclined to wear tin foil hats to avoid alien mind control as apparently some would suggest. I consider those persons rather unhinged, not devout. But they could be right and everyone not wearing a tin foil hat may be brain drained by enemy aliens trying to take over our world, or not. It's another Pascals wager for you Christians to consider, do you risk not wearing the tin foil hat if there's any chance it may provide protection from an enemy? Is not wearing a tin foil hat considered an "act of faith"?
What happens to Alzheimer's patients? Are their minds restored or do they go through eternity with no recollections of who they were?
How about the criminally insane? Do those people spend an eternity being tortured by irrational thoughts and personal demons?
Why should a "soul" be changed after death?
skirting the CoC [ph]
It must--why else would you spend all this time on a topic you don't believe in?
If you want people to believe in your god, then you should be able to describe it.
From your answer, it appears that you don't know much about your god.
I don't try to convince closed minded people. Jesus didn't go around saying " I'm the son of God please, pretty please believe me"
this seems to be very common from reading these articles - they can't exactly articulate anything about their god or their reasons for believing in their god but not other mystical magical unproven entities, yet they still want to recruit you and expect you to take their word as "gospel" and fact it seems, they will keep claiming they know the "truth" yet can't exactly explain what it is in detail or how they arrived to that conclusion or the criteria they used to decide to put their belief into it. Seems rather odd to me.
Your ad hom attack aside, how are those questions stupid? If yo want to make claims for a god, then those questions are perfectly reasonable.
Are you open to the possibility that your god is not real or your belief in one is wrong?
Not even a little. Don't presume to speak for me regarding how I feel about certain subjects.
My time to spend. What difference does it make?
Are you open to the possibility that your god is not real or your belief in one is wrong?
Yes I am, present your evidence to the contrary.
yet can't exactly explain what it is in detail or how they arrived to that conclusion or the criteria they used to decide to put their belief into it. Seems rather odd to me.
I could easily explain what led me to that conclusion, but it would be a waste of time to explain it to those that automatically reject God. If God himself hasn't been able to convince someone of his existence I sure can't
How they understand god seems to depend on what the contingency of the moment is.
One the material level, our remains are either buried or burned depending on one's wishes. The remains slowly breakdown into smaller and smaller compounds some of which enter the environment others, like bones, can remain in place for centuries. But all of them remain within the gravitational field of the earth which is moving through the universe. Eventually the earth will be incinerated by an ever enlarging star when all of earth's content will become fuel for that dying star which is also moving through the universe. The ultimate fate for our star could be an explosion sending atoms into space and leaving larger fragments to "float" around the universe OR it might implode into a super dense but small black hole keep all its mass totally compressed into the size of a baseball or maybe a basketball or maybe something somewhat bigger. But that would also be moving through the infinitely expanding universe.
So, the answer is YES.
A rational basis needs facts to support it and no facts can be found for something that cannot be subjected to an investigation, but leaving that aside the really important point that statement brings up is that you shouldn't need a rational basis to believe something. It strongly suggests a weakness of faith to argue for a rational basis.
I'm going to assume you meant the last word there to be "way," in which case that is a false statement. Some people of faith want to impose their faith on our government and how it operates and therefore on everyone in the country no matter whether they share that faith or any faith. That would hurt me and millions of other Americans as well as destroy a founding principle of this country. That doesn't even begin to describe the atrocities all over the planet committed over the ages by people of one faith to people of another faith and so on. People of faith have a tremendous amount of blood on their hands in our brief history as a species. There's no reason now to trust that won't keep happening.
Not a goddam thing as long as you don't try to impose them on the rest of us in some manner and don't pretend you don't know what I'm talking about.
Then why do you keep trying to do that?
Are you aware of the statement What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence?
Carl Sagan has a similar statement. There is no empirical evidence for any supernatural religious gods.
Yes I am saying exactly that. Logic is not the default position of human beings. That might be why it is prized.
Even a low probability of it happening is big when the number of opportunities number in the 100s of trillions over tens of billions of years. There could be many millions of earth-like planets out there and if there are any sentient beings I'd bet they've also invented their own god(s) and believe themselves having been uniquely created in all the universe by those god(s).
Removed, Impasse Rule. Please read this article:
(BT)
Removed, Impasse Rule. Please read this article:
https://thenewstalkers.com/community/discussion/34161/anothermeta-from-hell
(BT)
I agree-- never here.
(But they might impose Sharia, at least to some degree, in the U.K.)
So what? Some people of non-faith want to "remove" any and all connection to faith in our government and therefore on everyone in the country no matter whether they share that lack of faith or not.
SOSDD ..... a small minority of non-faith fundamentalists fighting with a small minority of faith fundamentalist. The large majority of us in the middle prefer live and let live. But can't have that can we? Gotta have a loud mouth bitch for everyone else that is not of like mind right?
Sanctimonious drivel. Some of the biggest mass murders in history were Atheist brethren with you and yours. Yep, that be some real proud moments in history for atheism to be sure.
But-- what if that something is a something of which its existence can neither be proved nor disproved?
What then?
I see no problem with that.
How to determine which belief system is true? Which one is the right one?
Well-- obviously its the one that's the same as mine!
Atheists seem to believe that nothing can exist without proof.
To them, without proof means it CAN'T be.
Which is silly and close-minded. Most of the scientific theories would have never been proven over time if people had all been like atheists today.
Okay.
Removed, Impasse Rule. Please read this article:
(BT)
An atheist is someone who is not convinced there is a god. Proof is not even a requirement, just evidence that correlates with the claim.
Here is Oxford defining atheist :
Most theists are, in effect, atheists except for one God. You are probably a Zeus-atheist. That is, you probably are not persuaded by the evidence (so to speak) that Zeus exists (or even existed). This is in spite of all sorts of ' evidence ' (e.g. temples, artifacts, documents) showing that entire societies genuinely believed in the ancient Greek and Roman gods. They invested time, blood, energy and great fortune to praise, honor and defend their gods. Yet still, you and most every other person on the planet are not convinced these gods were anything more than mere beliefs of ancient minds.
An atheist in general is not persuaded that any god exists. It is simply the lack of sufficient evidence.
There is nothing complicated about this if people would stop trying to redefine English words.
Well said.
Not at all. Atheists simply do not accept claims for something supernatural without evidence.
Ok, so would you be willing to accept the possibility that there is no such thing as a god or that your beliefs in one is wrong?
Most scientific theories are not accepted without compelling supporting empirical evidence. What makes a god any different?
Exactly. Clearly that is not how the atheist operates so why pretend such a ridiculous redefinition of the word 'atheist' is accurate?
For example, science arguably does not prove - it explains. The closest science ever gets to 'proof' are theories that are extremely well-corroborated such as Einstein's GtoR, evolution (biological or cosmological) or particle physics. Surely you do not think atheists reject all of science due to a lack of proof, do you?
If it exists then it can be proved in some way. We know that dark matter exists. Atomic and subatomic matter exists and we can now image it, even if for micron fractions of a second.
and when you were given the chance - you were still unable to do so, but still make the claim without any evidence. i'm seeing a trend here.
i've never stated that i reject your God - unless you would like to find anywhere that i said i do reject your God and would post it as evidence, or you can admit that your suggestion that i automatically reject your God is false.
how has your god been able to convince you of his existence ? (yes i know, another question you won't be able to answer on top of the pile of other questions you are unable to answer)
"and when you were given the chance - you were still unable to do so, but still make the claim without any evidence. i'm seeing a trend here."
I told you why I wasn't going to explain it. I'm seeing a trend here, you ask the same questions over and over expecting a different answer.
" I've never stated the i reject your God"
I didn't say you specifically, but it's obvious you do, if you didn't, you wouldn't say " your God"
and you still will make the claim your God exists with no proof, no evidence, but expect everyone to treat it as fact and will debate it as fact - yet you are unable to even articulate why you believe in your God or the criteria you used to select your God as the mystical magical unproven entity you would believe in over Leprechauns, Zeus, Vishnu, Ra or any other mystical magical unproven entities.
i state its "your God" since i do not hold the belief in your God (nor did i say i rejected your God either) - care to try again ?
instead of telling me what my beliefs are - why don't you just answer the questions concerning yours ? it seems that would be much more productive
I'm open to ANY evidence, yet none has been provided. I've read the bible several times, cover to cover, it contains zero "evidence" of any God. It does contain many anecdotal stories of people who believed in a God or Gods and their claims of the supernatural. We have yet to verify a single empirical piece of evidence proving anything supernatural. So it's not a matter of being open to "further" evidence, I'm waiting for any actual empirical proof of anything supernatural. I am still an atheist because I do not believe in any of the claims of God or gods because every claim is done so without evidence. I would guess that you don't worship Vishnu, so you and I have something in common. I've just gone one God further than you seeing as how there is the same amount of evidence for the existence of Vishnu as there is of Yahweh (the ancient god of the Hebrews) or the trinity God many Christians worship, none.
But in that example you know I exist and that I have your $10. The better analogy would be if you loaned your imaginary friend ten bucks by putting a ten on your porch then walking away. When you come back the next day it's gone, but with faith you can believe he'll repay you. That is the same as faith in God since you have no evidence he exists but you imagine you're doing his will.
"and you still will make the claim your God exists with no proof, no evidence, but expect everyone to treat it as fact"
You do know sentences are started with the first letter of the first word being capitalized and the word I is suppose to be capitalized, right? I assume you went to school, am I wrong?
I don't expect everyone to treat my beliefs as fact, people have different opinions.
" i state its "your God" since i do not hold the belief in your God"
Saying you don't hold a belief in my God is another way of saying I reject God. Thanks for proving it.
It's been fun playing along with you, now run along before your mom gets ticked off because you're spending too much time on her computer. When referring to yourself, don't forget to capitalize the word I LOL
But it doesn't make scientific theories wrong just because they lack proof.
Example:
For years, we thought the sun rotated around the planets. There was no proof for that, but we believed it. Then, someone finally was able to prove that the planets orbit the sun, not vice-versa. Whoever believed differently before it was proven were actually right, even though no such proof existed.
Removed, Impasse Rule. Please read this article:
https://thenewstalkers.com/community/discussion/34161/anothermeta-from-hell
(BT)
Removed, Impasse Rule. Please read this article:
(BT)
Removed, Impasse Rule. Please read this article:
https://thenewstalkers.com/community/discussion/34161/anothermeta-from-hell
(BT)
This is a completely ridiculous statement. Scientific theories invite doubt, they thrive on incredulity, they require not giving up until the theory can be repeatedly tested in accordance to the scientific method. It's precisely what atheists request for any evidence of God or the supernatural. Scientists throughout history have hypothesized how things work and then found ways to test and refine their theories and are always open to changing their theory when they are unable to present a repeatable test of their theory. It's the complete opposite of religious theory that has historically run from serious examination, rejected doubt and punishes incredulity. Strong belief without proof is rewarded while those with little faith are maligned, attacked and occasionally killed to keep the religious status quo. It's why I am anxiously waiting for any evidence proving me wrong, any proof of the supernatural would be exciting and change everything we know about the universe, while you seem to be set on one brand of religion while rejecting all others as false and claim nothing can ever change your mind. And the brand you've chosen likely was the first one you were introduced to as a youth and you believe it just so happened to be the right one since you weren't born in another country that worships a different deity, lucky you. No need to go examine all the other faiths that exist in the world, no need to doubt or challenge what you were taught by your parents or peers because they must be infallible, right?
But those things existed long before they were proven. That is my point. Not all things can be proven right now. Some things will be proven in the future. So saying that something simply can not exist because there is no proof is rather silly.
In other words you are arguing that it is possible that there is a God?
Let's get this on the record. Yes, it is indeed possible there is a God. If by 'God' we are referring to a sentient creator of the known universe (nothing more specific than that) then one can confidently state that God -by that definition- is possible. Scientifically possible too!
On your analogy, note that ancient people first looked up into the sky and saw dots of light moving about. They then noticed patterns - the lights seem to be circling around the Earth because the same patterns keep coming back. Based on that evidence they concluded that everything in the sky revolved around the Earth - the geocentric model. Perfectly sensible given the information they had. And that conclusion also reinforced the notion that the Earth is the jewel that God created and then wrapped everything else around it. Nice and clean. Sensible. Comfortable.
Then, as science progressed, a few notables began to realize that the patterns - especially the orbits of the planets- are more complex than first thought and that the geocentric model did not explain the observations. Much to the dismay of (and opposition by) the church, with Copernicus, et. al. the reality of the heliocentric model emerged.
This is how science works. We observe, carefully gather data, come up with hypothetical explanations for the observations, test the hypotheses and if we come across an hypothesis that resists all attempts to prove it wrong, the hypothesis is formalized as a theory and then held endlessly to the scrutiny of other scientists seeking to make a name for themselves. Science continually advances (major trend) based upon new evidence. Science will reject ideas that turn out to be wrong in favor of those that better explain observations.
So if we ever get evidence of a sentient creator of the known universe, it will be science -not religion- that brings forth this evidence and pursues a formal explanation. And science would be all over that evidence. Discovering a sentient creator would be the biggest breakthrough ever in the history of science.
Ah yes, still squirming uncomfortably and unable to still answer the very simple questions posed to you so instead you lash out and attack grammar -- a pathetic and yet amusing tactic. It must be terribly frustrating to put belief into something yet not be able to explain that belief or the something you put the belief into 😂
Lol that's hilarious 😂
I know you stamping your feet and wishing that statement was true, unfortunately you are wrong. Not believing in your God isn't a rejection of your God necessarily, I could simply question if your God exists and remain open to that possibility (I know, this is probably a difficult concept, take your time)
Sorry for your luck, I don't live with my parents, haven't for many years. Care to fail again ? It's quite amusing to watch 😂
You have absolutely no idea what faith I am, or even if I go to church or not.
And that isn't the point.
Science does prove things. Not all things can be proven right now, but that certainly doesn't mean that they don't exist.
I think some of my stuff is original, (I also take what I learn from others) and I started questioning religion on my own at a young age
Science could tell that they were there but we didn't have the technology to prove it. Now we have the technology to do so.
When was the last time that god acted?
how much original thought is there in religion?
You keep missing the point. Deliberately?
Some things can not be proven right now. That doesn't mean that they don't exist. Period.
1977?
Science explains - it does not prove. Science always leaves the door open for new evidence (falsifiability); no theory of science is ever considered a proof (100% certain) even if our intuition screams certainty.
Hey! I liked that movie! It was very entertaining and I believe God approved of it ( no theater that showed it was struck by a lightning bolt that I know of) . The sequal was pretty good too!
Quite true.
I am confident epistte would agree with that too.
For example, we have no evidence of extraterrestrials (and thus certainly no 'proof') but that does not mean they do not exist.
But, this does show that god acts.
True. Well said. God doesn’t beg us to believe in him or to worship Him.
Absolutely not. There is no chance that God is not real.
Exactly.
There is no reality that there is no God. It is something you merely hope against hope is true.
I didn't attempt to guess your faith, I simply pointed out that if you are like the vast majority of people, you have adopted the faith of the region you were born into. I think it's fairly obvious that random chance of birth place shouldn't determine whether a religion is true or not, yet nearly all people of faith claim the religion that is most popular where they were raised is the true religion. This means it's far more likely that it's peer pressure and the so-called "wisdom of the crowd" that creates faith in a certain belief, not the belief itself having more evidence or being more true than any other faith.
Gnostic theism. Untenable and irrational position - tantamount to claiming to be omniscient.
The God of the Bible did not beg, He simply complained about worshiping other gods and commanded He be the only worshiped god. A few of many excerpts ...
God did not beg. God insisted that everyone worship Him and only Him and tossed out some rather harsh punishment for non-compliance.
What "evidence" would that be? I simply asked a question. of course, there is no empirical evidence for any god (and therefore no reason to accept a god as real or true) and there many different religions and belief systems. They all cannot be true.
Now that sounds closed minded. But you know this for certain how exactly? Where's your proof?
I didn't say it did. But what makes scientific theories right or wrong (the degree of validity) is the available evidence to support or refute scientific theories, with a degree of certainty. However, without proof or compelling evidence, scientific theories lack a high degree of certainty. Therefore, such theories cannot be accepted as is or at face value, even if it seems sound.
At least not likely in our lifetimes. Decades or even centuries from now as technology improves, maybe.
You are quite correct. I have a masters degree in sarcasm but lately I have a Ph.D in typo. I hate when that happens.
Did you ever consider that this might be an entertaining logical exercise pointing out fallacies in the thinking of others? Logic is a amusing pet to have and NewsTalkers is how I take it to a walk.
Removed, Impasse Rule. Please read this article:
(BT)
Since the scientist in me can't possibly know one way or the other, I prefer the term "agnostic".
We don't have proof of other life forms because we lack the technology to do so. It isn't as if we have the technology to find or communicate with then and still don't have any evidence but we still believe in them. Our only meager attempts so far are Voyager and SETI.
Various civilizations have made grand religious claims about various gods creating Earth and having day to day interaction it in without any proof for 4+ millennia. Certainly if god existed there would be something by now.
It is a logical fallacy to claim that something exists because you can envision it exiting in your heart oir mind, and that you believe that idea to be true. Creating that idea of a god doesn't not create that god in reality. All you have done is to delude yourself, until you understand the difference between faith and reality.
You have the constitutional right to believe and pray to/worship anything, even the proverbial rusty Studebaker hubcap and 2 Pez dispensers but don't expect that others will see your believe as rational.
People often claim that I have science as my religion so one day I will roam yard sales to build a shrine to science with old textbook books, test tubes, a teapot from interstellar space and a broken microscope. I will need bobbleheads of Neil Degrasse Tyson, Steven Hawking and Sir Isaac Newton to finish my religious icon.
You base that assumption on what exactly?
The same can be said for theistic belief. Believing or hoping for a god is little more than an emotional appeal or comfort mechanism.
That so reminds of someone.......who is it?......it's coming to me................oh, yeah--YOU. That god's existence can be rationally proven is exactly you're desperately and vainly hoping to convince yourself.
Then rational arguments shouldn't matter to you----yet you're obsessed with trying to come up with one. Why isn't your faith enough?
Removed, Impasse Rule. Please read this article:
https://thenewstalkers.com/community/discussion/34161/anothermeta-from-hell
(BT)
Likely true, but not the point.
Claiming that god created the Earth in 7 days doesn't invalidate geological or evolutionary proof otherwise. The fact that we cannot create life in a test tube from inert elements/compounds doesn't mean that Genesis is proof by default.
Why are you writing that to me? Do you have me confused with someone who takes the opposite view?
Fully agree.
I use the term 'agnostic atheist' to describe a rational atheist - one who is not convinced by the evidence that a god exists but who will objectively review any new credible evidence. The gnostic atheist, in contrast, holds an irrational position since one cannot possibly know that no god exists. Per your point.
Science is a process. An ongoing process.
All religion is mythology designed to scam the rubes.
That depends on what's really concealed at Area 51 or at Roswell. Some claim to have seen evidence, but first science must explain that which some feel is evidence before the conclusion can accepted as proof that we are not alone in the Universe.
Good question. If there is something there why all the secrecy? Do we have a Men In Black situation here?
I agree with you.
Perhaps so that some of us Earthlings don't freak out (what? too late?). Or perhaps so that the technology can be examined and perhaps someday be replicated without falling into the "wrong hands". Not so sure which are the "wrong hands" anymore these days.
Nope! 2003
Well they are taking their sweet time in the analysis. 60+ years? Get some friggin' project managers in there and get this thing done!
And I agree with what you said. But I did not make that point, ergo my question.
No shit! Hey let's light a fire up in here people! Come on now, do we need to get Elon Musk in on this or what?
A never ending process.
We don’t deny that we believe and are saved by faith. We stand on our faith and that we have the assurance of eternal life through grace. We believe that the uestion that is the title of the seeded article is a resounding yes. You have no facts or proof on the deniers side.
Yes, He has!
Yes he did!
You've offered no facts or proofs to support your assertions for a god, outside of "because I say so. While you can believe whatever you want, belief does not equal fact. So your claims regarding god is nothing more than personal opinion and there's no reason to accept or take them seriously.
Yes, what?
Did what? That makes no sense.
Faith would seem to be the antithesis of reason.
Faith would seem to be the antithesis of reason.
Shit happens.
Shit happens.
How the hell did that happen? I'm not even drunk.
You can beliebe whatever you but your believing thst there is no God does not equal fact. So your claims regarding there beling no God is nothing more than personal opinion and there's no reason to accept or take them seriousl
But which god out of the tens of thousands of gods that have been worshipped?
If there is one god, then why not thousands of gods? Yahweh even acknowledged other gods and clearly did not like its competition in the Bible. Yahweh is a "jealous" god. Which begs the question: Why would a perfect god experience jealousy or any other negative emotion?
very good point
Hello Dismayed Patriot! Your first paragraph I wholly agree with. Emphatically. I totally discount the rest of your comment, nevertheless. You mention going deeper into faith and finding very little there, I paraphrase. Therefore, my question to you is this:
"Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you became a believer?"
And, if you did not receive the Holy Spirit what qualifies you to imply others are utterly hoodwinked and emotionally crippled? If you received the Holy Spirit how did you walk away and become one using the parlance of an unbeliever?
Certainly. It is clear to me there are atheists in this discussion "pushing" lack of belief.
I have no blood of another on my hands while a person of tremendous faith. I advise others not to have another's blood on their hands, period. While it is certainly clear some religious people are bad, many more are solidly good people. Let's not write ill of such believers. Also, there are bad and good people threaded throughout all categories of mankind.
Are you more or less hinting you allow a category and and open mind for aliens, but you do not allow a category and open mind for spirit beings? I seek to follow your conversational drift. . . .
Spin.
Spinning atheism as a religion rather than acknowledging uncomfortable but nevertheless healthy skepticism.
Atheists challenge the most grandiose possible claim of all time - the claim of knowing the supreme entity who created everything. Why? Because the most grand possible claim (extraordinary) needs a commensurately grand (extraordinary) level of evidence. Given the claim of God has not a shred of genuine evidence nobody should be confused as to why the challenges exist.
Yet, you departed your "inherited" faith and now utterly have lack of belief. Dismayed, you are one exception (of the many exceptions) to this so-called, "wisdom of the crowd."
Our faith in God and Jesus as Messiah is spiritual in its nature:
24 But Thomas, one of the Twelve, the one called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples were saying to him, “We have seen the Lord.”
But he said to them, “Unless I see in His hands the mark of the nails, and put my finger into the mark of the nails, and put my hands into His side, I will never believe.”
26 And after eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them, the doors having been shut. Jesus comes, and He stood in the midst and said, “Peace to you.” 27Then He says to Thomas, “Bring your finger here, and see My hands; and bring your hand, and put it into My side; and be not unbelieving, but believing.”
28 Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”
29 Jesus says to him, “Because you have seen Me, you have believed; blessed are those not having seen, yet having believed.”
It is a category mistake to pit faith against reason and logic. For we believe that we have been left with an intangible tangible person of the Spirit that indwells the true believers. As a result, the evidence is us, living evidence, human examples. When the world sees us, as the first century saw the Messiah, you ought to see the Spirit in action. Of course, what the world sees is according to the level of an individual believer's faith! More on that at some other time.
The “Cosmological” Argument
The Fine-Tuning of the Laws of Physics
The Moral Argument
I give credence to the first one. You can't get something from nothing, so our nature, our existence, may have been caused by an agency outside of this "nature" , something SUPER-natural.
I don't put much weight on the other two. 'Fine tuning' is a not proof of God. The fact that something happened doesn't necessarily mean it came from intention.
Nor is the moral argument.
NASA's new orbital telescope that replaces Hubble might be able to tell us that.
NASA James Webb telescope.
There is no replacing the Hubble. Kind of like there is no replacing the starship Enterprise or the Millennium Falcon.
Was Kirk the best starship captain ever? There are those who question that.
And they would be wrong.
He's close, but no. Capt. Picard is.
And the nerd debate rages on to this day. LOL
Compared to Kirk, Picard is a weinee! He French for God's sake!
Oh please. At least Picard was secure enough to embrace his baldness. Kirk had to update his toupee with each subsequent movie.
The bible says the earth is flat, stationary and supported on pillars, the immovable center of the universe. It was very hard for Christians to accept that earth was a planet that orbited the sun but eventually they had to. Today they are having a hard time accepting evolution, but this they will eventually have to accept as well. Some Christian sects are already accepting it.
Don't be a moron the Bible doesn't say the Earth is flat.
If you posit that something cannot exist without a sentient cause then you introduce an infinite regress. The sentient 'first cause' you have in mind would itself require a sentient cause. This logic is self-refuting. The Cosmological argument is logically flawed.
If you eliminate the requirement of complexity the logic will work. That is, if the first cause is existence itself (i.e. the most primitive substance of existence) then everything is simply a form of existence. It is certainly possible (scientifically and logically) that an entity could have spontaneously emerged from existence with the ability to create our known universe.
Then again, if such an entity could emerge from existence then something far less complex (such as our known universe) could also emerge from existence without the need for a sentient cause.
It is easier for the known universe to spontaneously emerge than it is for the sentient entity that would create the known universe to spontaneously emerge.
Our universe is already hostile to life. Life as we know it can exist only on Earth (as far as we know currently). And even on Earth, life is constantly under attack. Life is even attacked by itself - case in point, cancer. So, really, to argue that the universe was fine-tuned for life (as we define it) is a bit ridiculous. Our universe is hostile to life but by virtue of a few rare exceptions, life has a slim opportunity to exist.
If the parameters of our universe were to change even slightly, we would not exist. No question about it. So it is true that the likelihood of carbon-based creatures such as human beings existing is extremely slim. Absolutely friggin' amazing that we exist.
So what if the parameters were slightly different? Well it is possible (albeit slim too) that the parameters might allow some other form of life. Maybe silicon-based creatures instead of carbon-based. And you know what they would be doing? They would be arguing that the universe was fine-tuned for their existence.
Even human life is hostile to life and stands a good chance of making its own habitat unsustainable in the near future, although that's a different question from whether the conditions are right for our biochemistry.
However I partly disagree with the premise of life being a rare exception, at least in those places where temps and variety of elements are sufficient. There's some indication from research in abiogenesis that our basic form of life at least is self-organizing ( ie the lipids and RNA necessary for a cell wall and simple metabolism ). So while it may or may not be rare, it might be inevitable or at least common when the conditions are right. Of course those conditions could be different for a different basic biochemistry. And it's quite possible that various life-precursors are still being generated on earth but they just end up being food for the existing life which already fills every environmental niche it can find.
Seems to me, your description (above) depicts life as a rarity.
I suspect it is very likely when the conditions are right.
The fundamental flaw in this argument is obvious. It presumes that objective moral values exist. That presupposes THE objective moral authority. The argument basically is nothing more than: God exists therefore God exists.
The other flaw is that it exempts the supposed behavior of this "god" from any moral critique whatsoever. The example I like to use is when the Abrahamic "god" murdered all the innocent first-born sons of Egypt (including infants and farm animals) merely because it was pissed at the Pharaoh. A saner and less violent & psychotic "god" like Quetzalcoatl would have merely eaten the Pharaoh in front of his advisors after ripping his heart from his chest. That directs the violence better and is less random.
Absolutely.
That, from practical experience, yields a counter by the theist along the lines of 'who are you to question the supreme being?'. Obviously anyone who goes there will not listen to reason.
And, funny how this works, if I had offered the morality critique along with my logical critique, the countering theist would run to the morality critique with the aforementioned retort and totally ignore the more difficult logical challenge.
( Of course, the logical challenge will likely be ignored -or talked around- anyway. )
OT a bit, but this was a very good interview with Reza Aslan which touches on the topic:
Very logical. Thanks for this.
The early people's developed "morals" and responsible behaviors when it came to protecting and caring for their children, their mates, and their tribe or group
Not enough evidence that a gullible 6 year old didn't start to question it
I'm curious. The "God" in the bible is supposedly the one that created everything. Now, there are much older religions than Christianity. Would that mean that the God in the bible is actually borrowed from a much older religion? It would make sense seeing that some of the stories in the bible were borrowed.
Not possible,or so they say, besides the earth is only 6000 years old./s
Excellent point. Well done. Belief is so totally faith based, no one religion can be, "the one". As a Deist, I think all religions are based on the same God, it's men or man, that has perverted it to fit a societies needs. In the end, I think religion was created to control masses f people. "If you do what we tell you, you'll die and go to a wonderful world. If you do NOT do what we say..."lake of fire"". What better way to control large masses of people?
Just came across this T-shirt...somewhere on the Internet:
Why would Satan need glasses?
Wait......what?
Never mind .........lol
Yep-- you done good!
BTW the vp gets a thumbs up as well. At first his response was what was "expected" in the school system. He obviously learned over the years that he had to play that stupid game. But to his credit he finally relented to your kids''s logic & said it was OK to wear the shirt-- it was the sensible thing to do. (Most school administrators wouldn't-- they would've maintained their rigid stupidity...)