Research on Belief in God

[Arnout]

That's a very weird argument for proving or disproving the existence of a God though. Science is nothing more than deducing natural laws from a certain environment. If those theories and models hold, it is not the world which behaves according to those models, but those models are merely describing the world behaving under a specific set of circumstances. I bet this picture isn't coming from a scientist. If so, that scientist would be narcissistic, because he would basically be saying: look, the world works according to my theory, while in reality it will always be the other way around. Ie: you can never say the world behaves according to those formulas and models, that's just bullcrap. You can predict it, sure, but that's all.

But I bet I'm way too serious now

Put yourself in God's place. Going to be around forever, are you going to create something that is to endure a while or something that is a flash in the pan. Natural laws must be obeyed. The rules of nature are in place and must be obeyed.

Exactly, and why create something immediately that will destroy the earth in a couple hundred years once they get the hang of it

 

[DominicDecoco]

That's a very weird argument for proving or disproving the existence of a God though. Science is nothing more than deducing natural laws from a certain environment. If those theories and models hold, it is not the world which behaves according to those models, but those models are merely describing the world behaving under a specific set of circumstances. I bet this picture isn't coming from a scientist. If so, that scientist would be narcissistic, because he would basically be saying: look, the world works according to my theory, while in reality it will always be the other way around. Ie: you can never say the world behaves according to those formulas and models, that's just bullcrap. You can predict it, sure, but that's all.

But I bet I'm way too serious now

Didn't read the rest after 'That's a very weird argument for proving or disproving the existence of a God though' as it was never intended as an argument. I lost the interest of argueing sense to some long ago. This was just a little, let's say, interesting picture I found myself chuckle on about and thought others might do the same.

 

[Arnout]

Hence my disclaimer.

 

[bikebottles]

good question

It is all infinitely beautiful and infinitely complex. So how did it all come about? Something even more beautiful and even more complex must have created it: God. But how did God come about?

Does this really costitute an answer or does it only push back the question?

Ah, good question. I am assisted by the book: "What Everyone Should Know About the Bible" by V. Gilbert Beers:

pg 2: "Genesis 21:33 and Deuteronomy 33:27 speak of "the Eternal God" who always was and always will be. Psalm 102:26 addresses God, saying "You remain forever." and 102:27 continues, "You are always the same;you will live forever." The God who has no end also had no beginning. He always was. He has always existed. Eternal and forever speak of no beginning and no end. God always was and always will be. This is hard for our limited human minds to grasp, but it is not too hard for our trusting souls to accept."

This is a book great, I recommend it.

 

[bikebottles]

another good question

Whats the point?

Why go through a couple billion years of nothing, 500Ma of bacteria, another few hundred of sea life, land life before plants even, those big things with the small brains, early mammals, a few million years of ancestors living in the trees, and everyhting else that ever surrounded it, all in the struggle for survival, the game that lasted 1 thousand million years, all so that me and you could be discussing this on this forum now (because only humans have aferlife right?)

Why not just create humans and be done with?

Here again, I will quote from the book "What Everyone Should know about the Bible" by V. Gilbert Beers. He is smarter than I am, has a better answer than I could come up with:

Pg 5: "How long would it take for you to design one snowflake? How about one billion of them, or a billion times a billion? We're told that no two snowflakes are alike, yet there must be multibillions in one acre of snowfall. How about all the snowflakes on the thousands of acres on one mountain? Multiply those billions times all the snow in the world for one day, or for one winter---then for thousands of winters. The number would be staggering. Trillions times trillions times trillions. Yet no two snowflakes are alike! How long would it take to plan countless snowflakes with no two alike?"

"Then of course, there are stars, planets, and galaxies. Can you imagine planning for a trillion worlds or more? Each has its own unique features. Each needed intricate planning. Have you considered that our vast, seemingly endless universe may be only one small part of God's greater domain?"

Again, I recommend this book!

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Good post bikebottles.

 

[bikebottles]

Who made God?

Who made God?

I am sorry that I could not find an answer to your question.

Please see post #454.

 

[King Boonen]

I am sorry that I could not find an answer to your question.

Please see post #454.

Which answers absolutely nothing. It asks several random questions about snowflakes and then extrapolates to "Wow, isn't the universe massive".

it gives absolutely no explanation of anything I'm afraid.

 

[Descender]

Which answers absolutely nothing. It asks several random questions about snowflakes and then extrapolates to "Wow, isn't the universe massive".

it gives absolutely no explanation of anything I'm afraid.

Indeed.

I'm relieved to see I wasn't the only one being massively baffled by bike bottles's completely irrelevant posts.

 

[bikebottles]

Oh well!

Indeed.

I'm relieved to see I wasn't the only one being massively baffled by bike bottles's completely irrelevant posts.

Oh well. I tried. Now, I'm going to go ride!

 

[mastersracer]

Here again, I will quote from the book "What Everyone Should know about the Bible" by V. Gilbert Beers. He is smarter than I am, has a better answer than I could come up with:

Pg 5: "How long would it take for you to design one snowflake? How about one billion of them, or a billion times a billion? We're told that no two snowflakes are alike, yet there must be multibillions in one acre of snowfall. How about all the snowflakes on the thousands of acres on one mountain? Multiply those billions times all the snow in the world for one day, or for one winter---then for thousands of winters. The number would be staggering. Trillions times trillions times trillions. Yet no two snowflakes are alike! How long would it take to plan countless snowflakes with no two alike?"

"Then of course, there are stars, planets, and galaxies. Can you imagine planning for a trillion worlds or more? Each has its own unique features. Each needed intricate planning. Have you considered that our vast, seemingly endless universe may be only one small part of God's greater domain?"

Again, I recommend this book!

If you are suggesting this is a reply to Hitch's question, it is a very bad one. God is defined as omniscient and omnipotent. The answer is that such an entity would be able to instantaneously compute these problems. To say that there were 2 billions years of life prior to humans because of the complexity of some computation is a non-answer.

The rest of your arguments are variations of Paley's argument from design and have been thoroughly dismantled.

For the scientific response to arnot's post, see Krauss, A Universe from Nothing. Positing a divine entity to set the initial conditions for the universe is not required by contemporary cosmology. Or here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo with Dawkins introducing him

 

[BroDeal]

Pg 5: "How long would it take for you to design one snowflake? How about one billion of them, or a billion times a billion? We're told that no two snowflakes are alike, yet there must be multibillions in one acre of snowfall. How about all the snowflakes on the thousands of acres on one mountain? Multiply those billions times all the snow in the world for one day, or for one winter---then for thousands of winters. The number would be staggering. Trillions times trillions times trillions. Yet no two snowflakes are alike! How long would it take to plan countless snowflakes with no two alike?"

It would be easy for a god to design a snowflake building machine that uses random decisions to incrementally grow snowflakes, which is basically how they are created in nature. The same goes for any number of other creations.

 

[ebandit]

a good story

if Only Religious Tomes were Anything More than the Word of Man

now Jonny Hoogerland Rocks...............

I spotted a Unicorn Yesterday in the Woods...............Honest!

 

[bikebottles]

God's materials given to us to use.

It would be easy for a god to design a snowflake building machine that uses random decisions to incrementally grow snowflakes, which is basically how they are created in nature. The same goes for any number of other creations.

Yes, our modern computers can do this and snow machines can make snow for skiers but we humans don't create these things from nothing as God has done.

We use materials made by God for all these things, he gives us the intellect to make use of the things he made for us.

Eh, this dialog is really more for masterracer...sorry Bro Deal

 

[DominicDecoco]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7I_bSMnJko

 

[rickshaw]

Lack of FAITH

Unfortunately, most "believers" are lacking in the FAITH department. Because their faith is so weak,

1) they feel they have to prove something (god) that is not provable or
2) kill those who do not believe

".... seriously, right up on the mountain there was this bush and it was on fire! And it talked to me! Honest... it was GOD. No, I wasn't drinking....."

Religions have always been used to explain what we can't yet understand or rationalize our bad behavior.

 

[Froome19]

Unfortunately, most "believers" are lacking in the FAITH department. Because their faith is so weak,

1) they feel they have to prove something (god) that is not provable or
2) kill those who do not believe

How can something which is reality not be provable? ..

 

[Froome19]

Whats the point?

Why go through a couple billion years of nothing, 500Ma of bacteria, another few hundred of sea life, land life before plants even, those big things with the small brains, early mammals, a few million years of ancestors living in the trees, and everyhting else that ever surrounded it, all in the struggle for survival, the game that lasted 1 thousand million years, all so that me and you could be discussing this on this forum now (because only humans have aferlife right?)

Why not just create humans and be done with?

If you believe in God then that question is invalid as no one can comprehend a being which is not bound by the dimensions of the universe.

 

[Froome19]

What do you mean by "false premise"? When he says that "faith" means you don't have to explain why you believe in something? Personally I find this accurate - but I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on it as well. Of course my knowledge of religion is somewhat restricted but IINM certain concepts like the holy trinity are deemed inexplicable and dogmas are not to be questioned.

As for the way from Xianity to terrorist bombings, I should note that this is just a small extract from a larger chapter where he makes the case that "Moderation in faith fosters fanaticism". The isolated quote might seem to jump to the conclusion pretty fast, but the chapter in a whole explains it much better.

One thing he said was that people often assume religious fanaticists to be crazy/insane/deranged, when really a lot of them are not crazy at all, they just really believe whatever their faith tells them. He gives the example of a Christian who murdered a doctor at an abortion clinic in Florida (I forgot the name). Dawkins later met with one of this guy's (for lack of a better term) "disciples", who struck him as a well-spoken, intelligent, logical and even likeable person. The only problem was that he really believed that his friend was right to kill the abortion doctor.

Then people say that the faith of these people is not the real faith, but a perverted one. Again I must agree with Dawkins - if there are no discernable standards as to what constitutes a real faith, then how can there be a perverted one?


Just yesterday six people were killed at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin. Not yet many details have emerged, but I heard on the radio today that the shooter had possibly mistaken the Sikhs for Muslims. I then had to think of Dawkins and his "wave of disavowings from religious leaders" which might soon arrive, claiming that the shooter had a "perverted" faith. (But of course I do not want to jump to conclusions in this case since we don't know much about it yet, there might have been compltetely different motives than religion)

The problem seems to be that the main religions, Islam and Chritianity, are "evolving" so to speak and their leaders are placing their supposed principles above the boundaries which have been layed out previously. Religion obviously requires a stability which involves discipline from the leaders. The problem being that there are so few leaders like that as the above religions (specifically Islam) seem to not identify leaders for their moral qualities but rather due to their love and interaction of their religion. People seem to be immediately consider the latter is the cause of the former but unfortunately it is not so and for true feeling for the latter there requires the former. Only when a leader has that can they truly envisage the neccesity of boundaries and the correct judgement which is required to bring about stability within a religion.

 

[Froome19]

But how can there be a perversion of faith, if faith, lacking objective justification, doesn't have any demonstrable standard to pervert?"
- Richard Dawkins[/I]

Of course it does, such a generalisation is truly foolish..

 

[Froome19]

I only have to look at our Earth, our universe and see it's wonder. It is no accident of nature and neither are we.

If we study Jesus, he is either a nut or the Son of God. I choose to believe that he is Christ, the son of God who came to us to show us the way to live and the way to heaven. All else is folly.

Believing such would not make sense as him being the Son of God may be something which when looking at his actions may seem possible but when perceiving the bigger picture; other religions etc it is immensely unlikely.

 

[Froome19]

]

Jesus, the Son of God. Here is where faith comes in. I believe that the Bible was given to us for our understanding and knowledge and it explains why Jesus came here and who he is. If you believe you have a soul, you need to understand where it came from and what to do about it.

Here is what I dont get; what has Jesus got to do with the Bible...?

 

[Froome19]

It is all infinitely beautiful and infinitely complex. So how did it all come about? Something even more beautiful and even more complex must have created it: God. But how did God come about?

Does this really costitute an answer or does it only push back the question?

God by definition must be the fabric of reality himself...

You could ask exactly the same question to an atheist and they could not come up with an answer, so concluding there must have been some fabric of reality which is truly eternal and therefore omniscient and omnipotent is not all that hard to believe.

 

[Froome19]

Put yourself in God's place. Going to be around forever, are you going to create something that is to endure a while or something that is a flash in the pan. Natural laws must be obeyed. The rules of nature are in place and must be obeyed.

If God is eternal and created everything then he is nature itself and therefore he can decide unto himself what can be discerned as nature and what can not be.

Prior to creation there was no nature and logically God can create anything and manipulate any parts of nature to his will, that at least is the understanding of the majority of religions.

 

[Descender]

Of course it does, such a generalisation is truly foolish..

How?

____________________