Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

To theists: Why should we believe in gods?

god atheism history evolution psychology

  • Please log in to reply
69 replies to this topic

#46    The Silver Thong

The Silver Thong

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,258 posts
  • Joined:02 Dec 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Calgary Alberta Canada

Posted 03 October 2012 - 03:59 AM

View PostHabitat, on 03 October 2012 - 03:46 AM, said:

Where is the "evidence" that science is the only portal to knowledge ? That is just an assumption on your part, and one I am satisfied is wrong. But I don't expect you to believe that, nor should you. And neither should you expect that others submit to your insistence on science as the "one true way". That is just dogma.

Can you post something that science has not touched on that could possibly leed to a god figure.

Sittin back drinkin beer watchin the world take it's course.


The only thing god can't do is prove he exists ?

#47    Vatic

Vatic

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 227 posts
  • Joined:06 May 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North American Continent

Posted 03 October 2012 - 04:08 AM

I see a couple of pointless hecklers have entered the thread.

There is a point made about believing in God until proven wrong.

That wasn't what was being put forward.What was put forward was that personal experiences needed answers, and God became the best working model to reconcile those personal experiences. I can relate to what Setton is saying. I have written a book about one year of my personal experiences when I was 18 years old. For me, the events I experienced were utterly mind blowing and I had no answers from anyone about what was taking place. But God came unto my awareness and I also resorted to the Bible. It was the answer, and I found the Bible itslef was the only source which described in detail the exact same things I was experiencing. The certainty that God was the HIT to answer my experiences is unquestionable. It was God. My knowledge of God has great basis in personal experiences and there really is nothing which refutes my knowledge oreven comes close. As a working paradigm, it is safe to say it is proven. That is reasonable altogether.

Now that I have had proof of God, the crux of the problem is that others haven't had the benefit of such proofs as I have had. But it is inane for the atheist to assert that belief is baseless. it is also inane for the atheist to assert there is "no proof". All he is stating is that he is personally ignorant of proofs, rather than that proofs don't exist.

Indeed there are many forms of proof of God, some of which are even apprehendable to the spiritually challenged atheist. One of the best is the examination of prophecy (stated intention) vis a vis known history. If the atheist were to study this form of evidence he would find premeditated statements of a God, along with the outcomes of history. Such a proof would be sufficient in a court of law to get a criminal convicted of being the perpetraitor of some events. It is also a proof of God which even the atheist could understand if he had the initiative to learn about such things.

But the usual response fromthe atheist is to say prophecy is ambiguous and he won't even try to learn about it. Arguement from intellectual laziness and ignorance is the fallacy of the atheist when he starts complaining about proofs of God which are offered. My experience with atheist is that at some point the close their eyes, cover their ears, and scream to not allow evidence to come into their awareness. It is a psychological break point for many atheist, because they actually have such a revulsion to God that they can't endure proofs. And that is a deeper personal issue manifesting, when you encounter this kind of atheist.


#48    Habitat

Habitat

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,387 posts
  • Joined:07 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 03 October 2012 - 04:12 AM

View PostThe Silver Thong, on 03 October 2012 - 03:59 AM, said:

Can you post something that science has not touched on that could possibly leed to a god figure.

No, I can't post the "evidence". But it is seared into my memory.


#49    The Silver Thong

The Silver Thong

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,258 posts
  • Joined:02 Dec 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Calgary Alberta Canada

Posted 03 October 2012 - 04:21 AM

View PostVatic, on 03 October 2012 - 04:08 AM, said:

I see a couple of pointless hecklers have entered the thread.

There is a point made about believing in God until proven wrong.

That wasn't what was being put forward.What was put forward was that personal experiences needed answers, and God became the best working model to reconcile those personal experiences. I can relate to what Setton is saying. I have written a book about one year of my personal experiences when I was 18 years old. For me, the events I experienced were utterly mind blowing and I had no answers from anyone about what was taking place. But God came unto my awareness and I also resorted to the Bible. It was the answer, and I found the Bible itslef was the only source which described in detail the exact same things I was experiencing. The certainty that God was the HIT to answer my experiences is unquestionable. It was God. My knowledge of God has great basis in personal experiences and there really is nothing which refutes my knowledge oreven comes close. As a working paradigm, it is safe to say it is proven. That is reasonable altogether.

Now that I have had proof of God, the crux of the problem is that others haven't had the benefit of such proofs as I have had. But it is inane for the atheist to assert that belief is baseless. it is also inane for the atheist to assert there is "no proof". All he is stating is that he is personally ignorant of proofs, rather than that proofs don't exist.

Indeed there are many forms of proof of God, some of which are even apprehendable to the spiritually challenged atheist. One of the best is the examination of prophecy (stated intention) vis a vis known history. If the atheist were to study this form of evidence he would find premeditated statements of a God, along with the outcomes of history. Such a proof would be sufficient in a court of law to get a criminal convicted of being the perpetraitor of some events. It is also a proof of God which even the atheist could understand if he had the initiative to learn about such things.

But the usual response fromthe atheist is to say prophecy is ambiguous and he won't even try to learn about it. Arguement from intellectual laziness and ignorance is the fallacy of the atheist when he starts complaining about proofs of God which are offered. My experience with atheist is that at some point the close their eyes, cover their ears, and scream to not allow evidence to come into their awareness. It is a psychological break point for many atheist, because they actually have such a revulsion to God that they can't endure proofs. And that is a deeper personal issue manifesting, when you encounter this kind of atheist.


Must feel pretty good to have god give you personal proof but negleglected the rest. Remember most of the planet does not believe in your god so what does that say. If there was one true god and he was a jelouse god why 7 billion people and yet, it , god can not get more then 1 quarter to follow his one true self.

Did Jesus not promise his return within the lifetime of the people he told that to. Prophecy really or just really holding out.

Sittin back drinkin beer watchin the world take it's course.


The only thing god can't do is prove he exists ?

#50    csspwns

csspwns

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 642 posts
  • Joined:07 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Francisco, CA

  • "Give a man a fish, and you'll feed him for a day; give him a religion, and he'll starve to death while praying for a fish."

Posted 03 October 2012 - 04:31 AM

View Postand then, on 30 September 2012 - 11:45 AM, said:

The one universal truth is that no one knows.  Everyone finds what comfort they can in their own minds and this is all that really matters.  I've seen discussions on this here that have gone page after endless page and it always amounts to the same truth.  We live, we die and no one's talking from the "other side".  Every religion says it has the answers but as far as I know only one can be proven through it's predictive writings.  But only those willing to submit to the constraints of that religion are willing to admit these prophecies are true.  Everyone else finds some flaw that releases them from any dissonance about belief.  To believe means to be responsible to something other than the god of self and THAT is something most here on this globe can never do.  Abraham believed God - and it was accounted to him as righteousness.
abraham believed in god and then he got a face full of lead

"If god doesn't like the way I live, let him tell me, not you." "A believer is not a thinker and a thinker is not a believer." - Marian Noel Sherman, M.D.

"Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned."

#51    csspwns

csspwns

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 642 posts
  • Joined:07 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Francisco, CA

  • "Give a man a fish, and you'll feed him for a day; give him a religion, and he'll starve to death while praying for a fish."

Posted 03 October 2012 - 04:37 AM

View PostVatic, on 03 October 2012 - 04:08 AM, said:

I see a couple of pointless hecklers have entered the thread.

There is a point made about believing in God until proven wrong.

That wasn't what was being put forward.What was put forward was that personal experiences needed answers, and God became the best working model to reconcile those personal experiences. I can relate to what Setton is saying. I have written a book about one year of my personal experiences when I was 18 years old. For me, the events I experienced were utterly mind blowing and I had no answers from anyone about what was taking place. But God came unto my awareness and I also resorted to the Bible. It was the answer, and I found the Bible itslef was the only source which described in detail the exact same things I was experiencing. The certainty that God was the HIT to answer my experiences is unquestionable. It was God. My knowledge of God has great basis in personal experiences and there really is nothing which refutes my knowledge oreven comes close. As a working paradigm, it is safe to say it is proven. That is reasonable altogether.

Now that I have had proof of God, the crux of the problem is that others haven't had the benefit of such proofs as I have had. But it is inane for the atheist to assert that belief is baseless. it is also inane for the atheist to assert there is "no proof". All he is stating is that he is personally ignorant of proofs, rather than that proofs don't exist.

Indeed there are many forms of proof of God, some of which are even apprehendable to the spiritually challenged atheist. One of the best is the examination of prophecy (stated intention) vis a vis known history. If the atheist were to study this form of evidence he would find premeditated statements of a God, along with the outcomes of history. Such a proof would be sufficient in a court of law to get a criminal convicted of being the perpetraitor of some events. It is also a proof of God which even the atheist could understand if he had the initiative to learn about such things.

But the usual response fromthe atheist is to say prophecy is ambiguous and he won't even try to learn about it. Arguement from intellectual laziness and ignorance is the fallacy of the atheist when he starts complaining about proofs of God which are offered. My experience with atheist is that at some point the close their eyes, cover their ears, and scream to not allow evidence to come into their awareness. It is a psychological break point for many atheist, because they actually have such a revulsion to God that they can't endure proofs. And that is a deeper personal issue manifesting, when you encounter this kind of atheist.
Posted Image
Posted Image

"If god doesn't like the way I live, let him tell me, not you." "A believer is not a thinker and a thinker is not a believer." - Marian Noel Sherman, M.D.

"Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned."

#52    seishin

seishin

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 179 posts
  • Joined:20 Feb 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois

  • The irrationality of a thing is no argument against its existence, rather a condition of it.
    -Friedrich Nietzsche

Posted 03 October 2012 - 04:53 AM

The real question is, do we depend on God/gods/etc... OR do they depend on us?

I am having flashbacks of Imagination Land from South Park lol

Crush the industry, No security
Capital is worthless now
Your life I inside trade

#53    Likely Guy

Likely Guy

    Undecided, mostly.

  • Member
  • 5,318 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Likely, Canada

  • I might have been born yesterday but, I've been up all night.

Posted 03 October 2012 - 05:03 AM

"To theists: Why should we believe in gods?
When all the religions in the world was created by mortal humans?"

Humanity cannot know the answer because we can't conceive the question, "Why?".

i.e. "Why are we here?" We know we are here, but we'll never be able to answer, "why".

Edited by Likely Guy, 03 October 2012 - 05:27 AM.


#54    Vatic

Vatic

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 227 posts
  • Joined:06 May 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North American Continent

Posted 03 October 2012 - 05:28 AM

View Postcsspwns, on 03 October 2012 - 04:37 AM, said:

Posted Image
Posted Image

Vatic: A troll has entered the thread.


#55    Setton

Setton

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,551 posts
  • Joined:05 Feb 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Durham, England

Posted 03 October 2012 - 07:18 AM

View PostKazoo, on 03 October 2012 - 03:38 AM, said:

And thats barely any at compared to the amount on this forum.

But it is some. So you were wrong to say that all theists would just skip over this thread.

View PostKazoo, on 03 October 2012 - 03:53 AM, said:

Anyway "I don't know" is a better answer then making up a story. I could say our world was created by a giant hamster. I had a personal experience with this giant hamster and I do infact believe he is real. This giant hamster makes more sense to me then scientific data.

You coulde. And I wouldn't try to interfere. I would privately think you a bit stupid but that's all. If however, there was no scientific evidence that contradicts what you say, then I would accept that you had found something that made you happy. None of my business beyond that.

Quote

I'm sure whatever "phenomenon" you faced could be explain threw science.

Once again, conclusion without considering evidence. Amazing how many people here claim that science is the only answer

Quote

You saying that you have a person experience with god while NO ONE ELSE did is not arrogance? Sounds a lot more arrogance then science....

You mean aside from the other 70-90% of the world's population?

Quote

I honestly wanted to let you continue with your delusion at first....But then I had to say something useful.

Hmm...again we seem to have different definitions of a word.

'Good' is not the same as 'nice'.
'No, murder is running your broadsword through someone because he worships a different God to you... Or is that evangelism? I get confused.'
When they discover the centre of the universe, a lot of people are going to be disappointed - They are not it.
I don't object to the concept of a deity but I'm baffled by the notion of one that takes attendance.

#56    Mr Walker

Mr Walker

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 15,746 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Australia

  • Sometimes the Phantom leaves the jungle, and walks the streets of the city like an ordinary man.

Posted 03 October 2012 - 12:57 PM

View PostArbenol68, on 03 October 2012 - 03:17 AM, said:

No, it hasn't. You can keep on claiming this but it doesn't make it true.

A review of the literature shows that people who are actively involved with a religious institution will generally live longer. Incidentally, this also applies to atheists who attend church regularly, for example (unlikely sounding, I know, but there are those that go regularly if their partner is religious). So it's pretty clear from this that the important factor here is not faith in itself, but going to church.

What has been shown is that faith and member of a religion can be associated with a reduced incidence of depression and anxiety-related disorders. There are modest associations with some other disorders too.

Basically, the evidence suggests that religious affiliation and belief may have some effect on health related issues - but that this is far from being "proof". For example, if you attend a church then statistically you're less likely to smoke (as well as other health threatening behaviours). It's very difficult to pick out if faith in itself is the important variable, or whether faith is simply associated with a healthier lifestyle.
Statistical correlation is proof  of effect, but not of cause.The reasons why are irrelevant to the facts, and to the claim i made. It could be placebo. It very likely is, in large part, the fact tha t stress and anger or fear have physical effects on people  and religious/ spiritual people have less stress anger and fear, for obvious reasons. They also have a very strong sense of community and belonging, which is also known to be beneficial.

As i pointed out, belief affects life style choices, and those in turn have an effect on health, happiness, and longevity. But it is the faith which causes the lifestyle choices, and in turn the physical effects. Without the faith those people would have the same indicators as the rest of their "non faithful" cohort.

The blue zone research proves that, without a religious/spiritual elementm other factors are much less noticeable especially in longevity and health in old age. It is specificaly religiousity and spirituality within a cohort which confers advantages, whatever the reasons for those advantages.

The evidences are growing in many areas, in modern studies. Most scientists do not deny this effect and many are actively seeking its scientific causes. To me it doesnt matter. If taking the blue pill makes you happy, healthy, and longer living, then shut up and take it. Its common sense.

PS i do take your point that some people gain the benefits of regimes created through faith  without the faith because they have partners who draw them into that regime. I am in that boat. I am mostly vegetarian because my wife is. But i do know spirituallyand physiclaly that vegetarianism is better for me. It i s the same with drinking and smoking. I know what is better for me, but if i was married to some other woman who was a drinker and a smoker, i might still drink and smoke.

  In general, however, people act on their  beliefs Not many people can sustain a lifstyle they do not believ e in, jus t to keep a partner happy. I believ in the lifestlye but my wife keeps me disciplined and on track.

Edited by Mr Walker, 03 October 2012 - 01:13 PM.

You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be, and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul.

With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world..

Be cheerful.

Strive to be happy.

#57    Mr Walker

Mr Walker

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 15,746 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Australia

  • Sometimes the Phantom leaves the jungle, and walks the streets of the city like an ordinary man.

Posted 03 October 2012 - 01:04 PM

View PostThe Silver Thong, on 03 October 2012 - 03:36 AM, said:

Probably due to the myth god will provide that eases some stress on the death process.  Believers have less to worry about leaving behind loved ones.
Myth or not, that is absolutely true, and one of the most probable causes for benefits from faith. Stress, worry, etc even fear and griet reduce both life quality and expectancy. Anything, true or false / real or imaginary, which allieviates those things will improve the human condition. Hence the success of religion and of faith. It works whether it is based on a truth, or not.

You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be, and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul.

With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world..

Be cheerful.

Strive to be happy.

#58    Alienated Being

Alienated Being

    Government Agent

  • Banned
  • 4,163 posts
  • Joined:03 Sep 2006

  • "The best way to predict the future is by inventing it."

    "Record

Posted 03 October 2012 - 02:07 PM

View PostSetton, on 02 October 2012 - 11:08 PM, said:

I actually said it's the only explanation I've heard that fits. And without knowing my experiences, you cannot, as a 'scientist' dismiss them as misinterpretation.
If that is the only explanation that you've heard that fits, perhaps you may want to do more research.



Quote

That is not what I have asserted. I have said that it is the explanation I have been offered that makes most sense. Which is what science is all about. You consider evidence available and make a conclusion based on your observations. The only difference here is that my evidence cannot be reproduced. That is why I would not present it to others or as scientific fact. It is a belief. With as much or little validity as your belief that there cannot be a god.
To make a claim with confidence and assurance is an assertion, and that is exactly what you have done.

Also, science is about considering evidence that can be reproduced, observable and can be tested empirically.

What you have is a very weak hypothesis.


Quote

I notice you have still given nothing to support your statement that the uncaused cause idea is illogical. And yet you have the nerve to call me fickle. At least I will always stand by what I say and support it rather than avoiding difficult questions. This is the last time I'm asking. If you won't back up your statements, I will have to assume you are only here to bash others ideas and not answer comments on your own. In which case, we have nothing more to discuss.
While it is difficult, I have been hardly avoiding it. I will address it right now, actually.

The uncaused cause, essentially known as "the cosmological argument", postulates that everything has a cause; everything has a beginning. In order for there to be a beginning, it requires change - in order for change to occur, it requires time. Nothing can exist outside of time, or before time. There are theories that suggest that the universe has always been here, but rather existed as a singularity until it expanded.

Mathematical modeling shows that the universe is finite, not infinite.. which takes me back to the cosmological argument. "Everything finite has a cause, has a beginning". It is a bit of a paradox, no? In order for beginning to occur, there requires time - outside of time, nothing can exist... so, how did time come into being, if the change that stimulated the beginning of time could not have existed outside of it? It is very complex and mind-boggling.

In essence, the uncaused cause is illogical in the respect that you cannot have a beginning if there is no time, and nothing can exist outside of time - there can be NO beginning if time does not exist.

Hence the theory that the universe has always existed, but in an extremely compressed state (i.e., singularity). We also know that matter is neither created, or destroyed. It has always existed. If "god" created us, something had to have had created him.

To assume that a being existed outside of time is nothing short of illogical. Nothing can exist outside of time.

I apologize if any of what I have said appears to be confusing. I am tired, and have been stressed out as of late, so my arguments may come across as being weak, or simply... vague. I have a lot on my plate.

Edited by Alienated Being, 03 October 2012 - 02:17 PM.


#59    Mr Walker

Mr Walker

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 15,746 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Australia

  • Sometimes the Phantom leaves the jungle, and walks the streets of the city like an ordinary man.

Posted 03 October 2012 - 09:42 PM

Actually I'm not sure your above explanation does fit  the most modern scientific  theoretical "understandings" of the universe. It now appears that the universe may have automatically/autonomously sprung into existence from a state of non existence. There is some scientific evidence to suggest tha t a state of nothingness is inherently unstable and will automatically and inherently  "collapse/expand" into a "state of something."

But the issue of time is separate Time can be seen as measurable only by a change in state. eg via entropy.  In that case, time only began when the universe changed state from nothing to something. But in another model/definition of time, (That time is a human concept  constructed and used for human purposes) time would exist all the while the universe was in a state of nothingness. We would have nothing to measure it by, but it would exist.

Another issue is the definition of universe. It now seems probable that the universe as we know it is only a part of a wider "entity". That our universe may come and go while a wider one evolves/ changes  beyond it.  It now appears likely that wormholes connect not just points within our universe, but  our universe to other universes. Multi brane theory is another serious possibilty. Even the concept of a multi verse is given serious consideration among scientists In the multi brane concept, while time and change might not exist within our universe while it was in a state of nothingness, there might be time and eve observeres outside our universe. Such observers could measure the passageof time which did not exist from with the perspective of our universe  Of course, even if real, such potentialities only delay the ultimate questions, not set them aside.

One possibility, hard for humans to accept, is that everthing came spontaneously from nothing, in a purely natural fashion. Another is that, in essence something has always existed. I mean always infinitely. Not just trillions of years but ALWAYS. Thats a hard concept to get ones head around, but there is no material problem with it  if we understand tha tentropy wil not cause an ultimate destruction of everything. Ultimately, except for the satisfaction of knowing. none of this matters. It is how we use what we believe to be true, that counts.This has always been the case in the human condition.

Edited by Mr Walker, 03 October 2012 - 09:58 PM.

You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be, and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul.

With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world..

Be cheerful.

Strive to be happy.

#60    Alienated Being

Alienated Being

    Government Agent

  • Banned
  • 4,163 posts
  • Joined:03 Sep 2006

  • "The best way to predict the future is by inventing it."

    "Record

Posted 03 October 2012 - 10:36 PM

View PostMr Walker, on 03 October 2012 - 09:42 PM, said:

One possibility, hard for humans to accept, is that everthing came spontaneously from nothing, in a purely natural fashion.

That is simply impossible. Something can not spontaneously generate from nothing.

Quote

Another is that, in essence something has always existed. I mean always infinitely. Not just trillions of years but ALWAYS.

I don't think you read my entire post. If you did, you would realize that you've done nothing more than regurgitate what I had already said.






Also tagged with god, atheism, history, evolution, psychology

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users