Belief In God

[fckthis 0]

I sometimes wonder why anyone can deny the existance of God. Even if you dont believe in the God of Moses, Muhammad and Jesus, it seems virtually impossible to think that the universe just came about out of thin air. To deny the "religious" God can be understandable, but to deny a higher power all together, to me at least, seems ludicrous.Your thoughts?

[timwakefield 68]

it seems virtually impossible to think that the universe just came about out of thin air.

Or out of thin nothingness.

To deny the "religious" God can be understandable, but to deny a higher power all together, to me at least, seems ludicrous.Your thoughts?

God cannot be separated from "religious God." If the existence of the universe precludes a creator, why should we assume that there is just one? Why not multiple creators? Why should it be ludicrous that we exist? Even if the chances of our coming into existence "naturally" were one in a trillion, it's a moot point, because here we are.

[crowTrobot 2]

it seems virtually impossible to think that the universe just came about out of thin air. To deny the "religious" God can be understandable, but to deny a higher power all together, to me at least, seems ludicrous.Your thoughts?

nothing personal, but this is a simplistic cave-man mentality - invoking a higher power to explain what we don't understand, when there's no logically valid reason to do so. your finite life with beginning and end, and your limited human concept of time is leading you to assume the universe had a beginning when it (meaning all there is, not just our visible universe) may be infinite and without a beginning with respect to our time. we don't know that there was nothing when the big bang happened, or for that matter what lies outside our visible universe (which is tightly constrained by the speed of light). our big bang may just be a small part of a much larger whole that is infinite with respect to the entropy-driven arrow of time that we experience.also your train of thought leads to "if god made us who made god?" type philosophical dead ends - so to believe in god you have to by faith say he is infinite, and you can just as easily by faith say the same thing about the universe. since neither is provable, either could be equally valid. agnostics rule.

God cannot be separated from "religious God."

not sure what you mean tim, but a universal creator can certainly be genericified. i have no idea if a creator exists, but i'm reasonable sure if one does exist the christian version (and pretty much all other specific versions) of him are innacurate human fabrications.

[MDXS 0]

not sure what you mean tim, but a universal creator can certainly be genericified. i have no idea if a creator exists, but i'm reasonable sure if one does exist the christian version (and pretty much all other specific versions) of him are innacurate human fabrications.

Good post. To expand on this idea, I consider it unlikely that there is a god. Even more unlikely is that if there is a god, that he cares at all about what's going down on this planet. And even if god has a passing interest, I can't possibly believe it makes a difference whether or not I believe in him. If god exists and pulls the strings, he gave me my mind, which I used to interpret the data as best I could and came up empty. How could god begrudge me of that? Why should I sacrifice intellectual integrity to accept a 2000 year old book of stories as absolute fact...especially since the thrust of the book (don't be a ****) I incorporate into my life?

[hotbacon 0]

also your train of thought leads to "if god made us who made god?" type philosophical dead ends - so to believe in god you have to by faith say he is infinite, and you can just as easily by faith say the same thing about the universe. since neither is provable, either could be equally valid. agnostics rule.

you don't have to be agnostic to believe this.But I agree that OP's argument was ludicrus for reasons that you already mentioned

[LongLiveYorke 38]

There are many people who think that believing in God is as crazy as you think that not believing in God is. And there are other still who choose not to believe one way or another.From what I've observed, if there is a God who created the universe, he did little more than "set the wheels in motion." Meaning, he has very little actual control over our everyday lives. There is no reason to believe that, if he exists, he has any desire for us to know for sure of his presence. So I don't let my belief or lack of belief in a god or a creator or whatever get in the way of my everyday life. It's fun to talk about it on internet forums or with friends late at night or whatever, but I don't let it concern me during my day to day activities. To me, it's little more than an abstract philosophical discussion that involves more than anything else the concept of what any person can accept as truth or can know without any doubt.

[fckthis 0]

Well that certainly opened my eyes. I neglected alot of factors. Next time, Im going to actually think it through if I make another statement.

[timwakefield 68]

not sure what you mean tim, but a universal creator can certainly be genericified. i have no idea if a creator exists, but i'm reasonable sure if one does exist the christian version (and pretty much all other specific versions) of him are innacurate human fabrications.

What I mean is that the concept of God is necessarily a religious concept. Regardless of whether the "true nature of God" is similar to any specific religion's idea of Him, ANY notion of him is based on what you have learned from religion. Any idea of "a higher power" requires a leap of faith.

[weishan14 0]

So I don't let my belief or lack of belief in a god or a creator or whatever get in the way of my everyday life. It's fun to talk about it on internet forums or with friends late at night or whatever, but I don't let it concern me during my day to day activities. To me, it's little more than an abstract philosophical discussion that involves more than anything else the concept of what any person can accept as truth or can know without any doubt.

That is very interesting, as my belief in God is a very important part of my day. I begin each day reading a portion from the Old and New Testament. I pray and thank God for the blessings (home, family, job, etc) that I enjoy each day. That is one major difference with having religion and having a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ. If you have a personal relationship, you want to be in communication with that person. I learn what God is like by reading the Bible (I also learn what I am like). I talk to God about the day -- He is my God but I can truly talk to Him as a Friend. One Who loves and cares for me more than any earthly friend or family member could ever love me. I know that many of you will read this and laugh, however I would like to challenge you to get a Bible and read it through one time. It is easy to dismiss something that you don't understand -- and the only way you can understand it, is to read it for yourself. Even if you read it as a skeptic, read it. See if you can read through the whole Bible and still not believe when you finish it.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

It is easy to dismiss something that you don't understand -- and the only way you can understand it, is to read it for yourself. Even if you read it as a skeptic, read it. See if you can read through the whole Bible and still not believe when you finish it.

My post was in no way meant to make fun of your beliefs or to convince you to do anything other than what you are already doing, of course. It was merely stating how I think about God.I have read many parts of the bible: most of the first 5 books of the Old Testament, a few others including job, the gospels, and all of Paul's letters. I was raised a catholic and attended Sunday school when I was quite young.I find the gospels to be the most interesting parts. I read them as works of philosophy and of poetry. I believe that if everybody on earth followed precisely philosophy that Jesus Christ preached (simply for moral reasons rather than religious ones), the world would be a much better place. It astounds me sometimes that certain people can claim to hold so dearly to some parts of the bible's teachings and yet ignore the parts that are most obvious and the parts that are brought up the most.If Jesus asked nothing else of us, he asked us to give all of our money to the poor and to live our lives as simple people devoted to helping others. In many ways, the core of his philosophy mirrors many eastern religions. It also mirrors the philosophies of many great minds such as Kant (categorical imperative = golden rule). So, I agree that there is a lot to get out of the bible even if one doesn't necessarily believe in the religious aspects of it.

[crowTrobot 2]

That is very interesting, as my belief in God is a very important part of my day. I begin each day reading a portion from the Old and New Testament. I pray and thank God for the blessings (home, family, job, etc) that I enjoy each day. That is one major difference with having religion and having a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ. If you have a personal relationship, you want to be in communication with that person. I learn what God is like by reading the Bible (I also learn what I am like). I talk to God about the day -- He is my God but I can truly talk to Him as a Friend. One Who loves and cares for me more than any earthly friend or family member could ever love me. I know that many of you will read this and laugh, however I would like to challenge you to get a Bible and read it through one time. It is easy to dismiss something that you don't understand -- and the only way you can understand it, is to read it for yourself. Even if you read it as a skeptic, read it. See if you can read through the whole Bible and still not believe when you finish it.

nice sermon myself and most posters here are quite familiar with the bible.

[Swift_Psycho 1]

My post was in no way meant to make fun of your beliefs or to convince you to do anything other than what you are already doing, of course. It was merely stating how I think about God.I have read many parts of the bible: most of the first 5 books of the Old Testament, a few others including job, the gospels, and all of Paul's letters. I was raised a catholic and attended Sunday school when I was quite young.I find the gospels to be the most interesting parts. I read them as works of philosophy and of poetry. I believe that if everybody on earth followed precisely philosophy that Jesus Christ preached (simply for moral reasons rather than religious ones), the world would be a much better place. It astounds me sometimes that certain people can claim to hold so dearly to some parts of the bible's teachings and yet ignore the parts that are most obvious and the parts that are brought up the most.If Jesus asked nothing else of us, he asked us to give all of our money to the poor and to live our lives as simple people devoted to helping others. In many ways, the core of his philosophy mirrors many eastern religions. It also mirrors the philosophies of many great minds such as Kant (categorical imperative = golden rule). So, I agree that there is a lot to get out of the bible even if one doesn't necessarily believe in the religious aspects of it.

Good post. I very much agree with you. Whether or not a person actually believes in Jesus Christ, I share your belief that the world would definitely be a better place if everyone practiced his preachings. And unlike arguments over what God is like and stuff such as metaphysics, I think it'd be extremely difficult for someone to argue otherwise.

[natewood3 0]

I am not sure why it is a leap of faith to believe in God. I see evidence of God all over, so my faith is not a blind faith, but it is based upon evidence. The problem is not with the evidence or proof for God's existence; the problem is with how we interpret the evidence.I see much evidence that we are created by an absolute personal God, who has revealed Himself in the Bible. One of the things I have noticed is that non-believers do not consider the Bible evidence at all...

[MDXS 0]

I am not sure why it is a leap of faith to believe in God. I see evidence of God all over, so my faith is not a blind faith, but it is based upon evidence. The problem is not with the evidence or proof for God's existence; the problem is with how we interpret the evidence.I see much evidence that we are created by an absolute personal God, who has revealed Himself in the Bible. One of the things I have noticed is that non-believers do not consider the Bible evidence at all...

There are many leaps of faith involved in following any religion. First, you have to believe there is a god...this can only come through faith, because there is no evidence for god. What you consider evidence is not evidence. Despite what Lionel Hutz claims, hearsay and conjecture are not kinds of evidence. Second, there's a leap that god actually gives half a crap about whatever happens on this planet. Third, there is the leap that the god that has a vesting interest in our activities is exactly as described in the holy writings/stories of whichever cult you adhere to. I'm simplifying, but you get the idea. Perhaps I can take a step of faith, but I can't jump down an entire staircase.The Bible is not evidence. The Bible is a book written thousands of years ago when people were even more ignorant than they are now. Just because you want to believe it is the most perfect word of god directly from the man himself, doesn't make it so. Just because you want it to be flawless doesn't mean that it withstands the rigors of science and rational thought. Many of the ideas for living within the Bible and other religious scripture are quite good. If everyone lived by the most salient teachings, the world would be a better place. Just don't make the mistake that any religion has all the answers, that any person has all the answers, or that faith is rooted in anything but yourself.

[crowTrobot 2]

I see evidence of God all over

like what?

[Jerry_Lundegaard 0]

All I see if evidence that God does not give a **** about us.Some people (like myself) are born into comfortable lives, with caring families that provide love and support.Others are not so lucky. Some babies are born to starve to death by age three. All part of God's great plan? Maybe, but tell that to the kid who starves to death.... I would be a little pissed to be used in that way... Wouldn't a caring god at least be fair, give us all a fair shake while we are infants, before sin and "free will" have corrupted us? **** happens, and maybe everything is part of something larger, a "god" but that thing cares no more about us than we care about the individual cells in our body.

[natewood3 0]

There are many leaps of faith involved in following any religion. First, you have to believe there is a god...this can only come through faith, because there is no evidence for god. What you consider evidence is not evidence. Despite what Lionel Hutz claims, hearsay and conjecture are not kinds of evidence. Second, there's a leap that god actually gives half a crap about whatever happens on this planet. Third, there is the leap that the god that has a vesting interest in our activities is exactly as described in the holy writings/stories of whichever cult you adhere to. I'm simplifying, but you get the idea. Perhaps I can take a step of faith, but I can't jump down an entire staircase.The Bible is not evidence. The Bible is a book written thousands of years ago when people were even more ignorant than they are now. Just because you want to believe it is the most perfect word of god directly from the man himself, doesn't make it so. Just because you want it to be flawless doesn't mean that it withstands the rigors of science and rational thought. Many of the ideas for living within the Bible and other religious scripture are quite good. If everyone lived by the most salient teachings, the world would be a better place. Just don't make the mistake that any religion has all the answers, that any person has all the answers, or that faith is rooted in anything but yourself.

So you are saying that it takes no faith to believe in whatever you believe? "What you consider evidence is not evidence." That is awesome. I said the problem is NOT with the evidence; the problem is with how we interpret it. Hence, your assumptions will not allow you to interpret anything in such a way as to be "evidence" for God, yet I see no reason why I should follow your assumptions...it seems somewhat arbitrary just to say, "Your 'evidence' isn't really evidence."If the Bible is not evidence, there is no reason to trust any ancient writings at all. It is a fact that there are over 5,000 at least partial copies of the NT. What other writings can you say that about? Most have 10 or 12, maybe, yet they are perfectly "reliable" to the world. Once again, the problem is not with the evidence. The problem is willful rejection of the evidence. Just because you don't want to believe it is not the Word of God doesn't make it so.All I see is arbitrary assumptions over and over again that will not allow you to see things in any other way than you already do. Don't get me wrong, I have my assumptions also. The question is which assumptions are correct and justified...I see it taking just as much faith to believe in evolution as it does to believe the Bible.

like what?

If you simply look around, it is evident to me that things did not just evolve. There is order and intelligibility, as well as certain laws that we all live by, such as the laws of logic, laws of morality, etc. These types of things do not come from an impersonal force. Intelligibility does not come from non-intelligibility. Morality does not come from non-morality. Life does not come from non-life. Order does not come from disorder. These things come from a absolute personal God.Obviously, you will disagree, but I suppose that is what this forum is for....

[timwakefield 68]

If you simply look around, it is evident to me that things did not just evolve.

This is the worst possible argument against naturalism; just because you yourself consider it self-evident that the universe was created by God does not make it true. What do we see when we simply look around?

Intelligibility does not come from non-intelligibility.

Then where, pray tell, did God come from?

Order does not come from disorder.

Yes it does. Rocks, pebbles, and sand on a beach are sorted by the crashing of waves.

[MDXS 0]

So you are saying that it takes no faith to believe in whatever you believe? "What you consider evidence is not evidence." That is awesome. I said the problem is NOT with the evidence; the problem is with how we interpret it. Hence, your assumptions will not allow you to interpret anything in such a way as to be "evidence" for God, yet I see no reason why I should follow your assumptions...it seems somewhat arbitrary just to say, "Your 'evidence' isn't really evidence."If the Bible is not evidence, there is no reason to trust any ancient writings at all. It is a fact that there are over 5,000 at least partial copies of the NT. What other writings can you say that about? Most have 10 or 12, maybe, yet they are perfectly "reliable" to the world. Once again, the problem is not with the evidence. The problem is willful rejection of the evidence. Just because you don't want to believe it is not the Word of God doesn't make it so.All I see is arbitrary assumptions over and over again that will not allow you to see things in any other way than you already do. Don't get me wrong, I have my assumptions also. The question is which assumptions are correct and justified...I see it taking just as much faith to believe in evolution as it does to believe the Bible.

I may be sacrificing clarity for expediency here. I'm drunk, so while the ideas have force behind them, you may have to unravel a tangle of words before you can get to them. Or maybe not. I'm curious to see how this turns out. It takes no faith to believe what I believe because I try not to take anything on faith. I have no religion because it's unnecesary...a useless, archaic middleman to an entity that may or may not care if it exists, which it probably doesn't. It isn't arbitrary to say that what you consider evidence isn't evidence for the simple reason that it isn't. A book of stories coming down from thousands of years ago collecting an oral tradition cannot be considered reliable. Consider: In my drunken state, I entertain my friends by regaling them with a fascinating, far-fetched, facitious, fairly fatuous fable about a badass in the sky. They enjoy it, but it lacks something, so they liven it up in the retelling. And so it goes for hundreds of years with every teller leaving their mark on the tale. Eventually someone decides that it's good enough to write down, so they do. Not wanting to deprive future readers of this far-out tale, they lock it in a time capsule and stash it in the earth. Now, if you found this thousands of years later, would you consider this absolute truth? I'm getting a ways from what I'm actually trying to say, but I spent the time typing it and there's no way I'm going to delete it. Ignore everything after "consider" and let's move ahead. "If the Bible is not evidence, there is no reason to trust any ancient writings at all. It is a fact that there are over 5,000 at least partial copies of the NT. What other writings can you say that about? Most have 10 or 12, maybe, yet they are perfectly "reliable" to the world. "Why the **** would we trust any ancient writings? Even the histories contain bias, and it's a bias that was purposely included. There's no such thing as objective reporting in the ancient world. If I remember correctly, and I probably do, the Aeneid has the second most surviving copies of its text. So what? No one believes Aeneas decended into the underworld, or battled Turnus, or escaped Troy with his father on his back. These are just interesting stories...along with most all other ancient texts. Until you hit the Bible and everyone gets all huffy when you suggest that maybe it should be taken too literally. And speaking of evidence...where's your evidence. You've mentioned nothing other than the Bible. If the Bible counts, then I'm entering Hesiod's Theogyny as evidence. There. Your creation story is refuted. So where's your evidence? Give me one scrap of anything tangible and I'll reconsider. Unfortunately, you can't.See, this isn't a willful rejection, because I'd just be shooting myself in the foot, right? Why reject evidence of a god showing interest in humanity with extreme conssequences for disbelievers? It'd be stupid and couterproductive.Above all else, I think I value truth the most. This aspect of personality led to me casting aside my Christian roots. Once I reached the age of reason, and outgrew the fairy tales, I had no use for the religion.The difference between evolution and the Bible is that the Bible is a bunch of interesting stories and evolution is immutable science fact that only small-minded wackos who are too threatened by even the suggestion that everything they base their entire life upon may not be 100% correct reject. Why not ague the Earth is flat? Or that the sun revolves around the Earth? Or that the stars are a few miles above the suface of the planet, ready to be plucked from the sky? It's all the same. There are reasons to be Christian, and more reasons to be spiritual, but no reason to accept the Bible as fact and no evidence to suggest that gods exists/gives a crap. There's no reason at this time to think that evoltuion doesn't happen in one form or another. Apologies for the length, malice, and potential unreadability. I'm drunk and I warned you.

[natewood3 0]

There have been many objections to the Bible already, as well as to God. "Where did God come from?" "How can we really trust the Bible as fact or inerrant?" I could go on. The problem is these things don't make sense in your worldview, not mine. Your presuppositions rule out in advance the biblical claim to inspiration. You formulate arguments that already presuppose the impossibility of what you are arguing against (known as begging the question)! The fact that God is eternal is consistent with my worldview, as is the fact that the Bible is inspired and inerrant. Your worldview will not allow you to accept these things as fact.My contention would be that the main "proof" for Christianity is that without the Christian God, the God of the Bible, there is no intelligibility. I see no other worldview that can make sense of reality, morality, logic, order, etc.For example:"If the mind of God does not sovereignly determine the relationship of every event to every other event according to His wise plan, then the way things are in the world and what happens there are random and interdeterminate. In that case, there is no intelligible basis for holding that any experience is like any other experience, there is nothing objectively common to the two of them, and there is no causal connection between any two events--and thus they are meaningless and indescribable."If all there is is matter and motion, everything in our brain is just the result of chemistry, biology, and physics, as well as everything that happens in the world. Everything is just the result of chance. You cannot make sense of reality in a world of chance. You completely destroy knowledge and intelligibility. These things are not a problem in my worldview. If your worldview cannot explain how we know what we know, how you are able to make moral judgments, how there is such a thing as 'truth', how it is that you are able to maintain laws of logic, such as the law of contradiction, which are universal and unchanging, then you definitely are not able to argue about the Christian worldview because you have just destroyed your ability to discuss anything at all. Your reasoning against Christianity could only be intelligible if what you are trying to disprove is true.

[crowTrobot 2]

There is order and intelligibility, as well as certain laws that we all live by, such as the laws of logic, laws of morality, etc.

de facto "laws" of morality don't exist. our developing human concept of morality is just what is beneficial for the survival of our species - evolved common sense in other words. likewise there aren't necessarily set "laws" of logic. our sense of logic is just derived from what has worked - axioms that have led to successful testable predictions.

These types of things do not come from an impersonal force.

why not? (other than it would hurt your ego in the freudian sense).

Life does not come from non-life.

prove it.

These things come from a absolute personal God.

even if you invoke god to explain order how do you get to the "personal" part? what empirical evidence is there that god cares? i don't see any.

[theresa113 0]

How do I know God exist? A good orgasm. I always seem to screem out God when I am having a really good orgasm. OK.. tasteless, I know. Sorry. I couldn't help myslef. Anyway, I do believe that there is a God and God has a sense of humor. I think their are universal truths. I am not a theologin nor am I going to pull out the many books I read 10-20 years ago debating the correlation between many faiths. I really could care less if or what someone believes. Really, the only thing I care about about is to treat yourself and others well and with love. Have respect for this planet and the living organism on this planet. Follow rules of civility and pretty much what happens is you live the lifestyle of the majority of religions out there. Beyond that, spirituality is a personal experience (kind of like the orgasm) and can only be define for oneself. At least, this is how I see things.

[crowTrobot 2]

Follow rules of civility and pretty much what happens is you live the lifestyle of the majority of religions out there.

i disagree - fundamentalism does not typically lead to civility. it tends to lead to dogma, anti-intellectualism, and social boundaries.

[theresa113 0]

i disagree - fundamentalism does not typically lead to civility. it tends to lead to dogma, anti-intellectualism, and social boundaries.

First of all, I said majority not all. Second, fundamentalism is an interpretation but I guess some will argue it is an actual faith or religion. My point was just treat others with goodness in your heart. Anyway, I decided to look up civility and check out these points of civility by George Washington

[Loismustdie 0]

My post was in no way meant to make fun of your beliefs or to convince you to do anything other than what you are already doing, of course. It was merely stating how I think about God.I have read many parts of the bible: most of the first 5 books of the Old Testament, a few others including job, the gospels, and all of Paul's letters. I was raised a catholic and attended Sunday school when I was quite young.I find the gospels to be the most interesting parts. I read them as works of philosophy and of poetry. I believe that if everybody on earth followed precisely philosophy that Jesus Christ preached (simply for moral reasons rather than religious ones), the world would be a much better place. It astounds me sometimes that certain people can claim to hold so dearly to some parts of the bible's teachings and yet ignore the parts that are most obvious and the parts that are brought up the most.If Jesus asked nothing else of us, he asked us to give all of our money to the poor and to live our lives as simple people devoted to helping others. In many ways, the core of his philosophy mirrors many eastern religions. It also mirrors the philosophies of many great minds such as Kant (categorical imperative = golden rule). So, I agree that there is a lot to get out of the bible even if one doesn't necessarily believe in the religious aspects of it.

Yorke, this is about as on target as I have ever seen you. The truth is that most, and I mean the overwhelming majority of, christians or supposed followers of Christ disregard a good portion of the bible blatantly and in doing so the ideas lose their power, too the point that christianity as is is unrecognizable- it's no longer biblical. In all seriousness, great post.