Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
nsmbfan

The best reasons to believe that there is a God

Recommended Posts

Dawkins is a huge douche.

 

His writings on statistics and coincidence versus correlation and thus against "miracles" is pretty great. But yeah, I can't stand when he just out right speaks about religion.

 

 

I also agree that the use of the word "god" can be seen in a somewhat secular sense. I think, however, that for those of us with such a view, the word "reality" suffices and fits our ethos much better.

 

Take certain particular uses of the word "god" in regular religious idioms;

 

"God works in mysterious ways." and things like that.

 

Replace the word "god" with "reality" and you will a striking functional equivalence;

 

"Reality works in mysterious ways."

 

"God willing" versus "Reality willing"

 

The phrasing may seem awkward, but the semantic content remains almost completely unchanged.

 

Both refer to an external realm of forces and uknowns.

 

In the latter case the semantic function refers to the future, to that which is yet to be seen or known.

 

In the former it refers to the way the entirety of existence happens and "works."

 

 

 

MoonsOfSulkendastron-

 

You don't quite grasp the sense of time that is inherent to a scientific secular view of existence. Can you conceive of 100,000 dollars? Sure, you can think of things that cost more than that. You can see a tangible reflection of of what that denomination will grant in this world. Take it to the next level, can you conceive of 100,000,000 dollars? Sure, there are cars that cost more than this, etc. Now take it to 6,000,000,000. Do you get what that number is? Can you grasp what that number really means?

 

I doubt it. The human brain really is not the best at dealing with such astronomical figures. In fact, that is the very etymology of the phrase "astronomical number" itself. For many years there were number that were used to measure the heavens (props to whomever gets the heavenly bodies reference) but have since been eclipsed (I'm full of em) by the use and recognition of higher and higher orders of numbers.

 

It isn't a very good counter argument to talk about "poof and then there was everything." Quite to the contrary, it is our contention that it took billions and trillions of years for existence and the universe to arrive at its current point.

 

Time is a hard thing for humans to consider in its fullest extent. Needless to say, I think that you need to come up with a better argument then the seeming infeasability of emergent systems over trillions of years.

 

Yes, there is a certain mysticism on the surface of the big bang, etc. But an important point to note is that science has not made a claim about the big bang itself, we only speak about what happened afterward. It is an important nuance to see the distinction in. Science is reverse engineering ridiculous amounts of time through controlled experiment after controlled experiment. The LHC at CERN is probably the single most important experiment to be taking place in contemporary science and physics. In an attempt to recreate the conditions of the big bang, one can begin to actually hypothesis about why or how it occurred.

 

Also,

 

Science, when you get deep into its theories sounds absolutely insane. Regardless of how out there or completely impossible the hypothesis may be it is only made and predicated on the ability to test a prediction that theory makes.

 

Religion doesn't do this. It is really really hard to compare the two because their fundamental aims are completely different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im much more comfortable simply not knowing the answer to a question than pretending to know the answer, especially to questions nobody has the answers to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
science again is all theory, no facts. The existence of a god is theory, to some not fact. its all faith.

 

**TO ALL:

maybe who/whatever that created life understood the extent of human intellegence and logic and made it so neither side could factually prove one or the other wrong---TO PROLONG THE FREE WILL ARGUMENT I MADE ABOVE so we would never KNOW FOR A FACT....thus forcing us to choose b/t one or the other...

 

To parrot Dow in a slightly different fashion.

 

This is exactly the point about not understanding scientific nomenclature and science's inability to express it in lay terms.

 

 

"Theory" in science is not something that may or may not be true, it is something that is experimentally tested and has not been disproven.

 

Science works under the function of negation. We disprove incorrect theories and develop new ones which work better than the old ones, only to repeat the process over time.

 

You should really take a class or read a book on scientific theory before decrying the process itself, cus until then your arguments are going to be dismissed for the superficial level they stay at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand the free will and good/evil arguments, but if god is truly omnipotent and omniscient, then he must have foreseen the good/evil split that would occur and let it happen. thus making him also responsible for all evil in the universe, as he could have chosen for only good to exist.

 

and again, I ask, who created god? if he has always existed, or there is some outside framework that even he is beholden to, then why is the universe's existence without god so implausable?

 

yea if a god was the alpha and omega and knew everything and could do anything, then of course he knew what was/is going to happen and the influence the devil(or evil) would have on it.

 

if u believe/read the bible or whatever it says sin/evil saddens God, but it could be argued that that is a product of his decision to give us free will. he knew it would happen. But if only good existed, it would be boring. For us and for him-he wants life to be interesting for us because we dont know anything other than this life. That is unless of course all we knew was good and that no alternative way(evil) existed, but the devil/evil existed before humans did (if you read Genesis/believe that). Also Revelation talks about the end of evil, and how good prevails, so in the meantime we as humans can enjoy life and choose to believe in it all or choose to not to because it makes us uncomfortable to even think about.

 

Maybe its a learning process..so in the end we understand good and evil and the consequences of choosing one or the other.

 

Id say if god does exist, then he is submissive to noone/nothing. He was always here...but got bored and wanted some action so he created imperfect humans he could have a relationship with and help in his scientifically perfect created world. He will always be too tho, so after the fall of evil, he can spend eternity with his beloved human creation that chose to believe in him in heaven..YAAAAAYY. Sounds like Sunday school i know. Just an idea tho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so millions have suffered atrrocities and unspeakable suffering cause god wanted to spice things up a bit. thats a belief system I can get behind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no one ever said that god gave a fuck about any of us.if ther IS a god.more than likely he's the kind that just put things in motion and then just let things happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
moons, study up on wtf a scientific theory is before you try to compare it to a claim of the supernatural.

 

faith is belief in a conviction when there is no evidence to support your position. a scientific theory is based on observations, experiments, and...EVIDENCE.

 

youre outta your element on this one, donny.

 

ha alright.

 

If there is no evidence to support your conviction, then that means the conviction doesnt exist? Than why do you feel that emotion? Because of social programming? Doubtful.

 

I would assert that conviction is also based on observations, experiments, and evidence.

 

You have observed what your action has resulted in, and also the results of similar actions of other humans throughout history. So you experiment with differant factors surrounding that action to see if you get the same result of conviction or not. If one way of doing the action has proven time and time again to yield conviction, then theres your evidence.

 

come out of said element with me on this one, bra. its all fun conversation!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...or, youre a goddamn ape that thinks youre a lot more important than you really are...

 

pfff hahahaha funny how things get personal when differing opinions arise...chill out bro its just a discussion!

 

im just throwin ideas out there anyway ha jsut to see if i got a reaction like that! Proof of the law that you dont bring up religion in conversations b/c they might wanna kill you afterward!

 

is all hope lost for adults that want to exchange ideas?!!! chill man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i would like to dispell the notion of a supreme creator, and bring people into the new age of living. I believe that it's quite possible that what we called God or Gods, were merely aliens... extra terrestrials, who put us on this earth, probably by mating with early man, thus creating "us in His image". Yes I stole my theory from a book, but so did you. At least I don't go waging wars over my belief system... and therefore it is superior.

 

Castro, Mao, Lenin, Pol Pot, and Hitler all killed in the name of eradicating religion. People will kill whether or they can come up with a reason for why.

and to mock, to give myself a feeling of intellectual superiority... you know, the kind of mental masturbation most introverted genius types indulge in.

 

If you're as smart as you think you are go make a difference in the world and stop wasting your energy.

 

why else?

 

oh and thanks for saying my thread has a purpose ;)

 

 

EDIT: that sounded dickish, but i'm not erasing. maybe you're right. this might be my cry for help and understanding of faith and religion in general. my purpose was to find out what drives people to believing whatever it is they do. if I can see how it affected you I may be open to it. see? sounds better now.

 

Haha. I wouldn'tve cared. Honestly means a lot to me.

 

 

To MAR,

 

It's only accidental in the philosophical sense of the word. That it could have happened another way. But it didn't.

That works backwards too. Prove that it could have happened another way.

 

I would argue that irrationality in existential arguments is a hard thing to even bring into it. Is it rational to believe in science? Is it rational to believe in god? What do the terms rational mean in each use there? For that matter what does the word belief mean in either use?

 

In regards to science most who "believe" in it would claim that the rational is that which matches a certain logic. That logic is the same logic which drives the scientific and mathematic engine. It's almost tautological to call a belief in science "rational" for one would have already had to agree to that particular use and meaning of rationality at all. However, for arguments sake, let us call "rational" here to mean a belief in something that confirms or disconfirms a scientific theory set forth by very particular rules for empirical observation.

 

The same goes in converse for a "rational" belief in a god. What is rational is simply what is consistent with one's existential frame work. What seems improbable in its potential for the Christian is blatant in its logical necessity to the Scientific Atheist.

 

The point of bringing up rationality is to open the notion that it is impossible to believe in anything at all. We make decisions based on acquired knowledge. That's why one person's solution to a problem might be different from another's.

 

Also, don't make the mistake of thinking that religion and science can't coexist. Or that belief in a god is synonymous with belief in a religion.

 

The disputes between the use of rationality and belief in these two cases sort of highlights the problem that Science itself has when dealing with Intelligent Design. The misuse of scientific terms and concepts is so egregious to those that follow and conduct scientific study that it almost renders the community immobile when trying to form an intelligible response to ID's claims. But to the lay-christian it seems to be "Scientific" rigor that affords them the ability to claim that there must be a creator if there are gaps in the explanatory power of a given scientific theory.

 

In this case it attacks Evolutionary theory and the idea that there are "gaps in the fossil record."

 

Which is itself a ridiculous argument. Science has never claimed that the fossil record is the grail of evolutionary theory. Particularly in light of recent advances in molecular evoltionary theory. We are coming up with much more accurate and concise visions of the living spectrum through genetic matching.

 

Just the other day there were major revisions to theories regarding several different types of dinosaurs. Rather than thinking they were all different species, it turns out that several were just juveniles of another species, etc.

 

The point of bringing up rationality is to open the notion that it is impossible to believe in anything at all. We make decisions based on acquired knowledge. That's why one person's solution to a problem might be different from another's.

 

Also, don't make the mistake of thinking that religion and science can't coexist. Or that belief in a god is synonymous with belief in a religion.

 

Basically, the point is, science does not claim to know everything, and it is a built in function to predicate its own failures as a means of self revision. Religion updates itself in a much different way. The dogmas of the two may each require faith in their own ways, but the faith of a secular belief is tied to something much more earthly and real than any dogma of soteriology and omniscent, omnipresent and omnipotent beings.

 

Earthly? Maybe. Be careful lumping all religions in with each other, they are all very different.

 

 

 

 

moons, study up on wtf a scientific theory is before you try to compare it to a claim of the supernatural.

 

faith is belief in a conviction when there is no evidence to support your position. a scientific theory is based on observations, experiments, and...EVIDENCE.

 

youre outta your element on this one, donny.

 

Actually, he's not. If you stop for a second to consider what evidence is, you'd realize that it's purely observational. Observation is limited by our equipment and faculties. In short, there is nothing that can be truly called factual. Science as a whole challenges itself on a daily basis. When you subscribe to a theory, in essence, you are subscribing to a faith. There's nothing wrong with that, but you have to admit that it's pretty close to believing in a higher being.

 

Try to view it in the reverse, we can't prove God's existence because we don't have advanced enough equipment. As William Cowper said, "Absence of proof is not proof of absence."

 

Sorry about the red text, I didn't want to make a huge quote stack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always liked Watts ideas. Call it the ghetto hippie in me.

 

 

What to tell children about God.

 

-Alan Watts

 

 

There was never a time when the world began, because it goes round and round like a circle, and there is no place on a circle where it begins. Look at my watch, which tells the time; it goes round, and so the world repeats itself again and again. But just as the hour-hand of the watch goes up to twelve and down to six, so, too, there is day and night, waking and sleeping, living and dying, summer and winter. You can’t have any one of these without the other, because you wouldn’t be able to know what black is unless you had seen it side by side with white, or white unless side by side with black.

 

In the same way, there are times when the world is, and times when it isn’t, for if the world went on and on without rest forever and ever, it would get horribly tired of itself. It comes and it goes. Now you see it; now you don’t. So because it doesn’t get tired of itself, it always comes back again after it disappears. It’s like your breath: it goes in and out, in and out, and if you try to hold it in all the time you feel terrible. It’s also like the game of hide-and-seek, because it’s always fun to find new ways of hiding, and to seek for someone who doesn’t always hide in the same place.

 

God also likes to play hide-and-seek, but because there is nothing outside God, He has no one but himself to play with. But He gets over this difficulty by pretending that He is not Himself. This is His way of hiding from Himself. He pretends that He is you and I and all the people in the world, all the animals, all the plants, all the rocks, and all the stars. In this way He has strange and wonderful adventures, some of which are terrible and frightening. But these are just like bad dreams, for when He wakes up they will disappear.

 

Now when God plays hide and pretends that He is you and I, He does it so well that it takes Him a long time to remember where and how He hid Himself. But that’s the whole fun of it-just what He wanted to do. He doesn’t want to find Himself out too quickly, for that would spoil the game. That is why it is so difficult for you and me to find out that we are God in disguise, pretending not to be Himself. But when the game has gone on long enough, all of us will wake up, stop pretending, and remember that we are all one single Self-the God who is all that there is and who lives for ever and ever.

 

Of course, you must remember that God isn’t shaped like a person. People have skins and there is always something outside our skins. If there weren’t, we wouldn’t know the difference between what is inside and outside our bodies. But God has no skin and no shape because there isn’t any outside to Him. . . . The inside and the outside of God are the same. And though I have been talking about God as ‘He’ and not ’she,’ God isn’t a man or a woman. I didn’t say ‘it’ because we usually say ‘it’ for things that aren’t alive.

 

God is the Self of the world, but you can’t see God for the same reason that, without a mirror, you can’t see your own eyes, and you certainly can’t bite your own teeth or look inside your head. Your self is that cleverly hidden because it is God hiding.

 

You may ask why God sometimes hides in the form of horrible people, or pretends to be people who suffer great disease and pain. Remember, first, that He isn’t really doing this to anyone but Himself. Remember, too, that in almost all the stories you enjoy there have to be bad people as well as good people, for the thrill of the tale is to find out how the good people will get the better of the bad. It’s the same as when we play cards. At the beginning of the game we shuffle them all into a mess, which is like the bad things in the world, but the point of the game is to put the mess into good order, and the one who does it best is the winner. Then we shuffle the cards once more and play again, and so it goes with the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Science as a whole challenges itself on a daily basis. When you subscribe to a theory, in essence, you are subscribing to a faith. There's nothing wrong with that, but you have to admit that it's pretty close to believing in a higher being.

 

 

this is bullshit. when I subscribe to a theory it is because it has been demonstrated to be the most correct answer to a question. should a revised theory come along it would be tested and either accepted or discarded based on the results.

the scientific method is inherently open to change and revision. I don't think that you can call following these methods "faith" any more than you can call my belief that the sun will rise in the morning "faith".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MAR-

 

I do believe they can co-exist, but it really comes down to how one treats science.

 

But also don't dismiss the difference between co-existing and harmonizing.

 

I think it is very hard for science and many of it's conclusions to harmonize with religious dogma.

 

 

And yes, I am sensitive to the differences in various religions, etc. I have been speaking mostly in regard to the monotheistic, likely christian, idiom that was suggested by nsmbfan at the beginning of the thread.

 

 

As far as your comment on observation and faith, that raises a deep question of science that most don't deal with because they are too busy explainin to the lay-person what the word theory means...

 

 

Sorry, pointed, but like I said in my initial post there is a faith that is contained in science, particularly if you are a realist. If you maintain, however, that the only faith necessary to conduct science is that of the explanatory power of a given theory, then you are really displacing and limiting the faith in the ineffable required. In the former view of science you must have faith that unobservable particles are indirectly observed and thus exist in reality almost by proxy. The latter view maintains that it doesn't matter the particular existential status of a given element of a theory, but the overall theories ability to predict and account for new information.

 

One is more existentially based (which I think is the form most compare to reliigion and which your comparison of "faith" turns upon) and the other is much more functionally based (which in some ways avoids your counter to science's rejection of faith in a higher being).

 

As I am sure you can guess, I am of the anti-realist functionally based group.

 

This is, however, not a distinction in science that most people question their beliefs towards. Although, I do advocate a strong introspection for anyone maintaining the validity of science over religion: for it isn't the existential claims in science that will back their arguments.

 

 

Aldo, I think it's telling that Moon hasn't responded to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pfff hahahaha funny how things get personal when differing opinions arise...chill out bro its just a discussion!

 

im just throwin ideas out there anyway ha jsut to see if i got a reaction like that! Proof of the law that you dont bring up religion in conversations b/c they might wanna kill you afterward!

 

is all hope lost for adults that want to exchange ideas?!!! chill man

i wasnt mad or trying to attack you, im just sayin i get a kick in the pants out of the idea that we were 'created' so that god could have a relationship with us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like that Casek.

 

this is bullshit. when I subscribe to a theory it is because it has been demonstrated to be the most correct answer to a question. should a revised theory come along it would be tested and either accepted or discarded based on the results.

the scientific method is inherently open to change and revision. I don't think that you can call following these methods "faith" any more than you can call my belief that the sun will rise in the morning "faith".

 

But what if the sun didnt rise tomorrow morning?!

 

You believe it will because it has, but if it didn't then that would shake everything you know up. You can't claim that it wouldn't rise, because to do so would claim that you know everything, and then, you'd be some manifestation of a god.

 

I made a mistake before. I assumed that to be an atheist you need to believe in science, that's not true.

 

Let me just summarize my feelings on the topic.

 

No one can claim to know anything, all we can say is we don't know anything, and even to say that is flawed because perhaps we know something.

 

We are left with one option, and that's to admit we can't know anything and therefore we are all agnostic. If one claims they are atheist, that is a faith in a lack of god. If one claims they are religious, that is a faith that there is god. If one claims they are apathetic, that's a cop-out.

 

The only thing that bothers me about this atheist/religious debate is the need for both sides to convert the other. It seems pointless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I ain't tryin to convince anyone.

 

We are all gonna die.

 

I could care less.

 

I'm merely, like always on here, trying to make sure certain terms are used clearly and that common misconceptions about science aren't advocated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are left with one option, and that's to admit we can't know anything and therefore we are all agnostic. If one claims they are atheist, that is a faith in a lack of god. If one claims they are religious, that is a faith that there is god. If one claims they are apathetic, that's a cop-out.

 

 

I get what you're saying, but this is still off the mark. It comes down to how you define Atheism I suppose.

I consider myself an Atheist, I live my life as though god doesn't exist because all evidence points that way. It is possible he exists, however the likelihood of that being true are so small that I don't think it worth considering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MAR-

 

I do believe they can co-exist, but it really comes down to how one treats science.

 

But also don't dismiss the difference between co-existing and harmonizing.

 

I think it is very hard for science and many of it's conclusions to harmonize with religious dogma.

 

 

And yes, I am sensitive to the differences in various religions, etc. I have been speaking mostly in regard to the monotheistic, likely christian, idiom that was suggested by nsmbfan at the beginning of the thread.

 

 

As far as your comment on observation and faith, that raises a deep question of science that most don't deal with because they are too busy explainin to the lay-person what the word theory means...

 

 

Sorry, pointed, but like I said in my initial post there is a faith that is contained in science, particularly if you are a realist. If you maintain, however, that the only faith necessary to conduct science is that of the explanatory power of a given theory, then you are really displacing and limiting the faith in the ineffable required. In the former view of science you must have faith that unobservable particles are indirectly observed and thus exist in reality almost by proxy. The latter view maintains that it doesn't matter the particular existential status of a given element of a theory, but the overall theories ability to predict and account for new information.

 

One is more existentially based (which I think is the form most compare to reliigion and which your comparison of "faith" turns upon) and the other is much more functionally based (which in some ways avoids your counter to science's rejection of faith in a higher being).

 

As I am sure you can guess, I am of the anti-realist functionally based group.

 

This is, however, not a distinction in science that most people question their beliefs towards. Although, I do advocate a strong introspection for anyone maintaining the validity of science over religion: for it isn't the existential claims in science that will back their arguments.

 

This is a cool post.

 

I think that science limits itself by thinking in "facts." The search for extraterrestrial life always amuses me. Why assume that all life will form in the same way that we have?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The search for extraterrestrial life always amuses me. Why assume that all life will form in the same way that we have?

 

I don't think anybody does assume that, unless you're talking about pop culture. we try to communicate with other life in the methods we do because that is how WE communicate. we don't know any other way to try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i would like to dispell the notion of a supreme creator, and bring people into the new age of living.

 

Why would you want to talk people down for believing in what they believe in? That's just an act of ignorance and arrogance. You're an atheist, I get it. I think we all get it, but it seems that you're wanting to portray your simple-mindedness to the rest of 12oz.

 

If you are bitching about theists wanting to disprove your idea of a God that you don't think exists, then why regurgitate what they're doing and forcing it upon them?

 

It makes no sense, it's just a circle that never completes itself.

Religion and science will always be head on with each other, and like I said to Ski Mask in a PM, science will always win. I hate to admit it, but the truth is the truth.

 

Theists cannot visually prove the existence of God but science can disprove it just for the fact that there is no manifestation of a visible human being.

 

My faith in God is up high, all though I don't follow some of the beliefs of my own religion, I still believe that he exists. The replication of a miniature Big Bang through CERN's technology furthers my trust that yes, God exists.

 

Notice how I used science to semi-prove and get across a point. If man can recreate the beginning of the universe, then why couldn't another being from another vast universe do the same?

 

The universe is ENORMOUS in size and we have yet to know if we are the only universe out there. Nobody knows how many of "us" there are. We cannot be that selfish that we think that we are the only beings in this world. It's just simply ignorant.

 

With that said I will answer your question, nsmb, to why I believe in the existance of God.

 

I just simply believe. I have found within myself that I have chosen the correct path to go on. I at anytime can stray from this path, but it's not what I want to do. Faith is exactly that, faith. And it's what I have, it's what helps me be close to the God I believe in.

 

I have many, many, influences from the atheist point of view due to many of my friends not believing in a higher power or wanting proof that one exists. We have had intellectual discussions as to why we believe and vice versa. Most of their responses are either it's just to absurd to believe in something like that or I need proof.

 

One's beliefs are personal and no one should interfere or bring them down.

 

Religion will never be expelled from humanity, it's impossible.

 

Welcome to the new age of living.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think anybody does assume that, unless you're talking about pop culture. we try to communicate with other life in the methods we do because that is how WE communicate. we don't know any other way to try.

The search for water, planet size, and certain gases is NASA's main method of determining if there is (or could have been) life on another planet.

 

p.s.

 

christfagtroll.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

given the size of area we are searching, we have to narrow things down. we know what set of variables allow us to exist, so its only natural for us to try looking for that first. also, just about everything we know that we would reasonably consider "life" exists in similar circumstances to us. how else should we search?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, honestly, I find that most of what NASA does is a waste of resources.

 

I do however agree it's the most logical start for a search, but it limits your results.

 

Think sawed off shotgun vs sniper rifle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Register for a 12ozProphet forum account or sign in to comment

You need to be a forum member in order to comment. Forum accounts are separate from shop accounts.

Create an account

Register to become a 12ozProphet forum member.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×