Are you a believer? If so, why?

[AGGAMEMNON66]

I have my beliefs, yes.

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

Yes

Cause I saw her face

Haha

 

[colby25]

If people innately know there is a God, which one? Were the people before Jesus or the myths of the old testament certain there was a false God, considering Yahweh didn't exist to anyone yet?

And if you can't see a way humans are here on earth without a god, I would recommend biology, genetics and evolution through natural selection.

Hey thats for you to find out which God. Im just saying people innately know their created.

Even scientist have no explanation as to why or how we are here. They will actually go so far out of their way to avoid the topic of God and come up with a theory that is unlikely to happen. If the science community were 100% open to all truths than the topic of God would not be taboo correct?

But the mere fact that speaking of a creator in the science community automatically discredits a person would seem to indicate that much of the science community is open to finding the truth as long as it doesn't venture down the road or point to a creator. Don't you think that in itself is limiting themselves to the truth? When automatically assumes such a thing is not possible?

 

[ToxicShocker]

Thank you for reminding me of this song

 

[BearGrounds]

Observe closely enough and you'll see the design.

The problem is that once you see it, the real questions begin.

 

[hillelslovak87]

Hey thats for you to find out which God. Im just saying people innately know their created.

Even scientist have no explanation as to why or how we are here. They will actually go so far out of their way to avoid the topic of God and come up with a theory that is unlikely to happen. If the science community were 100% open to all truths than the topic of God would not be taboo correct?

But the mere fact that speaking of a creator in the science community automatically discredits a person would seem to indicate that much of the science community is open to finding the truth as long as it doesn't venture down the road or point to a creator. Don't you think that in itself is limiting themselves to the truth? When automatically assumes such a thing is not possible?

It's not that scientists go out of their way to not discuss God, it's that God provides nothing to their work. Implying creation, or God doing something does no explanatory work toward finding out how or why something happens.

Scientists have demonstrated, for about 150 years, how humans and other life reproduce, evolve and adapt through natural selection.

Saying God did something is the end of the discussion. One can imply a supernatural cause to literally anything in the natural world, for precisely the reason the supernatural requires no justification or proof of any kind. Scientists, on the other hand, have been working on explaining the how and why of our origins and our evolution. If their hypothesis does not work, it has to be discarded, and one always must be willing to be proven wrong. Faith does precisely the opposite. It answers the question without information, cutting off inquiry.

In the God vs. Science debate, I think Occum's razor cuts decisively.

 

[colby25]

It's not that scientists go out of their way to not discuss God, it's that God provides nothing to their work. Implying creation, or God doing something does no explanatory work toward finding out how or why something happens.

Scientists have demonstrated, for about 150 years, how humans and other life reproduce, evolve and adapt through natural selection.

Saying God did something is the end of the discussion. One can imply a supernatural cause to literally anything in the natural world, for precisely the reason the supernatural requires no justification or proof of any kind. Scientists, on the other hand, have been working on explaining the how and why of our origins and our evolution. If their hypothesis does not work, it has to be discarded, and one always must be willing to be proven wrong. Faith does precisely the opposite. It answers the question without information, cutting off inquiry.

In the God vs. Science debate, I think Occum's razor cuts decisively.

I disagree. What if the science community said they discovered that we were created by someone so much greater wouldn't that flip the world on its head? How would that not add to their findings?

Shouldn't we and wouldn't we as a whole species want to know? Instead the science community does the exact opposite.... Say it adds nothing to their findings... Wait a minute? No- thats a huge finding.

 

[JabToucher]

I'm a belieber yes

 

[hillelslovak87]

I disagree. What if the science community said they discovered that we were created by someone so much greater wouldn't that flip the world on its head? How would that not add to their findings?

Shouldn't we and wouldn't we as a whole species want to know? Instead the science community does the exact opposite.... Say it adds nothing to their findings... Wait a minute? No- thats a huge finding.

Well, first off, the scientific community does not announce anything. The heads of a study who discover whatever it may be do so, and submit their findings to peer review and publication.

If a scientist found proof of a creative cosmic entity, that would be earth shattering, somewhat less considering many already have a confirmation bias towards any number of ancient and newer Gods. If a scientist found a God created the universe, this would pose the infinite regress: What or who created this entity? And on and on it goes, doing no explanatory work here, in the natural world in which we inhabit.

As of yet, there is no proof of any kind to suggest a creative deity. Not in the cosmos, not on earth, and not in us. All the evidence points towards a gradual process of selection taking place over time scales that boggle the mind of human beings.

In short, if there was proof of a creative entity, this entity would be explained in the only way we know how to explain the natural world: science. If such an entity impacts this universe in any meaningful way, it would be observable in the laws of nature. Instead, the religious must resort to faith and doubt of scientific finding no matter how much it improves our world taking evolution for granted 100%.

 

[colby25]

Well, first off, the scientific community does not announce anything. The heads of a study who discover whatever it may be do so, and submit their findings to peer review and publication.

If a scientist found proof of a creative cosmic entity, that would be earth shattering, somewhat less considering many already have a confirmation bias towards any number of ancient and newer Gods. If a scientist found a God created the universe, this would pose the infinite regress: What or who created this entity? And on and on it goes, doing no explanatory work here, in the natural world in which we inhabit.

As of yet, there is no proof of any kind to suggest a creative deity. Not in the cosmos, not on earth, and not in us. All the evidence points towards a gradual process of selection taking place over time scales that boggle the mind of human beings.

In short, if there was proof of a creative entity, this entity would be explained in the only way we know how to explain the natural world: science. If such an entity impacts this universe in any meaningful way, it would be observable in the laws of nature. Instead, the religious must resort to faith and doubt of scientific finding no matter how much it improves our world taking evolution for granted 100%.

Dont the very laws of nature point to an order?

If everything was random happenstance why is there an order? Why have we come up with verifiable cause and effect that we clearly state that there are laws in the universe enstated that we are governed by?

Wouldn't it make more sense that if we were created from chaos that the exact opposite is true? Instead we see a perfect machine that is governed by law and order.

So who or what created the laws of nature?

 

[hillelslovak87]

Dont the very laws of nature point to an order?

If everything was random happenstance why is there an order? Why have we come up with verifiable cause and effect that we clearly state that there are laws in the universe enstated that we are governed by?

Wouldn't it make more sense that if we were created from chaos that the exact opposite is true? Instead we see a perfect machine that is governed by law and order.

So who or what created the laws of nature?

The laws of nature are an order, but they in no way point towards a supernatural creator. And nature is not a perfect machine. It is constantly destroying and rebuilding according to natural, not supernatural, laws. Our very world is hostile to life on mass portions of it's surface. We live on a climactic knife edge as it is, on the surface of our planet, and on a planetary scale.

Explain what you mean created out of chaos. This seems an explanation void of any meaning whatsoever. If you are going to use a word like "chaos", you have to be able to qualify it, and on top of that you must show it is even a thing in existence within nature. Otherwise, it is to speak of phantasms and ghosts; nothings as it were.

 

[THEfightsAREfixed]

The dichomoty of science and spirituality is a relatively new thing, the Big Bang theory was invented by a catholic priest, Newton translated the emerald tablets of Thoth. Shit Anaximander came up with most of the basic principles we see modern science laid down on and he was essentially just making stuff up from some logical axioms. He still believed in everything coming and going from some infinite source.

Science starts with a hypothesis, that's just a random guess, or a belief, and you go from there.

I believe many things because it's how brains work, you have to believe something.

As far as a creator, higher dimensional force or hierarchy of spiritual being like neo-platonic thought, I think something like that is going on for sure but I can't put my finger on exactly what the deal is yet.

 

[BisexualMMA]

 

[JoshTehV]

I am just sort of in that place in like wanting to find a reason to believe. though I don't really think that it would be rational thing to do. If you are a believer, why?

One time I fucked with a Ojui board and my buddy tried to stab me with a kitchen knife and yelled at me that he was tired of my ducking questions. Then I started having really crazy dreams but then some shit happened

 

[colby25]

The laws of nature are an order, but they in no way point towards a supernatural creator. And nature is not a perfect machine. It is constantly destroying and rebuilding according to natural, not supernatural, laws. Our very world is hostile to life on mass portions of it's surface. We live on a climactic knife edge as it is, on the surface of our planet, and on a planetary scale.

Explain what you mean created out of chaos. This seems an explanation void of any meaning whatsoever. If you are going to use a word like "chaos", you have to be able to qualify it, and on top of that you must show it is even a thing in existence within nature. Otherwise, it is to speak of phantasms and ghosts; nothings as it were.

Well i guess thats where we differ.

When we look at things such as "coincidence" or "blind luck" and A LOT of them at that i start to wonder if there's something bigger.

When you see that we are on earth that just so happens to be in the perfect position to sustain life- any closer to the sun were dead, any further were dead- i ser a creator.

When the moon and the sun are placed in a PERFECT position to eclipse the sun- you see coincidence i see a creator.

Scientist state this:

is an interesting coincidence that the Moon should so nearly perfectly blot out the Sun, since there is really no physical reason why this has be the case. The Moon happens to be about 400 times smaller than the Sun, but the Sun happens to be about 400 times further from the Earth than the Moon is. So simple geometry tells us that the apparent disk of the Moon is almost exactly the size of the apparent disk of the Sun.

I mean we already see a TON of coincidences that really dont make sense. For instance the science community really have no explanation what the heck or how the moon is where it is.

There's a lot of unanswered questions and too many coincidences to be ignored in my opinion. But that is my belief as to why we are without excuse to know we are created.

 

[hillelslovak87]

Well i guess thats where we differ.

When we look at things such as "coincidence" or "blind luck" and A LOT of them at that i start to wonder if there's something bigger.

When you see that we are on earth that just so happens to be in the perfect position to sustain life- any closer to the sun were dead, any further were dead- i ser a creator.

When the moon and the sun are placed in a PERFECT position to eclipse the sun- you see coincidence i see a creator.

Scientist state this:

is an interesting coincidence that the Moon should so nearly perfectly blot out the Sun, since there is really no physical reason why this has be the case. The Moon happens to be about 400 times smaller than the Sun, but the Sun happens to be about 400 times further from the Earth than the Moon is. So simple geometry tells us that the apparent disk of the Moon is almost exactly the size of the apparent disk of the Sun.

The moon is the size it is due to gravitation from the earth, and from the sun as well. I don't know why you think this does not make sense. 400x isn't some magic number for the relation of an earth's satellite moon and the sun the earth orbits. Other planets in our solar system have numerous moons of different shapes and orbits. They don't strive for any particular magic number either.

I mean we already see a TON of coincidences that really dont make sense. For instance the science community really have no explanation what the heck or how the moon is where it is.

There's a lot of unanswered questions and too many coincidences to be ignored in my opinion. But that is my belief as to why we are without excuse to know we are created.

Coincidence and blind luck might seem like they have a supernatural effect because human beings are not always conscious of all the sensory variables around us. If you were someone uneducated in Sri Lanka, for example, you might hear devilish noises coming from a cave, and heed the warnings of your elders when they say the devil resides there. And then you discover it was an Ulama, the so called devil bird, and there is nothing to fear.

You can't go "I can't explain what just happened" and then honestly leap to "Well, I know how it happened." that is what this miracles talk leads to.

Our planet resides within the goldilocks zone of our solar system. But again, most of this planet is not habitable, and most of the planet seems absolutely hostile to life, at least human. Within our own galaxy alone, there are untold other planets within their own goldilocks zone.

We are not likely unique, and to think some entity created it all for us, given our knowledge of how tiny our solar system is within our own galaxy, much less the observable universe. And it's some design that will cause our sun to engulf our planet in 6 billion years, even though humans will have either moved to other solar systems, or destroyed ourselves in all likelihood.

When I see an eclipse, I see the laws of nature acting upon physics, as men like Albert Einstein laid out quite clear, with no reference or need for a creator. Also, the moon was not always it's current distance from the sun. It was not tuned and affixed into place by a God, and certainly not affixed into a pillar as a light, as Genesis says.

If there was a creative entity that created all of life, and it was not the cause of a pitiless and unbelievably long period of adaptation and selection, we wouldn't see some humans born with tales, or type 1 diabetes, or webbed feet, or any number of genetic mutations. Natural selection easily explains these genetic regressions clearly.

 

[hillelslovak87]

Is that Mad Sax from the Porn Parody of Mad Max, Mad Ass?

 

[Joe265]

I am just sort of in that place in like wanting to find a reason to believe. though I don't really think that it would be rational thing to do. If you are a believer, why?

You have all the proof you need if you look within. All your emotions, all your reactions, and all you life history can be summed up in terms of light and dark. That is what connects all religions. That is what each human being can sense for themselves. We each choose light and dark. We each choose to open our hearts or close it. This is not a figurative. That old Disney movie about always letting your conscience be your guide... Yeah, that’s actually your connection to the wisdom and truth given to guide you towards light.

 

[Joe265]

It's not that scientists go out of their way to not discuss God, it's that God provides nothing to their work. Implying creation, or God doing something does no explanatory work toward finding out how or why something happens.

Scientists have demonstrated, for about 150 years, how humans and other life reproduce, evolve and adapt through natural selection.

Saying God did something is the end of the discussion. One can imply a supernatural cause to literally anything in the natural world, for precisely the reason the supernatural requires no justification or proof of any kind. Scientists, on the other hand, have been working on explaining the how and why of our origins and our evolution. If their hypothesis does not work, it has to be discarded, and one always must be willing to be proven wrong. Faith does precisely the opposite. It answers the question without information, cutting off inquiry.

In the God vs. Science debate, I think Occum's razor cuts decisively.

The original truth seekers were people of faith.

 

[Te Huna Matata]

I'm kind of at the point in life where I really have no idea. I can't say I believe and I can't say I don't. Science answers a lot of questions but there are too many that they can't at this stage of development.

At about 27-28, I started realizing my own mortality and it scares the piss out of me. I really do everything I can to avoid thinking about it. That and the concept of time really make my stomach uneasy.