Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
TheDarkEnergy

To theists: Why should we believe in gods?

70 posts in this topic

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.

128899201500846727.jpg

faithpalm-jesus-god-facepalm-bible-faithpalm-fail-religion-c-demotivational-poster-1271278061.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

128899201500846727.jpg

faithpalm-jesus-god-facepalm-bible-faithpalm-fail-religion-c-demotivational-poster-1271278061.jpg

Vatic: A troll has entered the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[/sub][/size]

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

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.

Science is beginning to suspect and indicate/demonstrate., that something CAN spontaneously generate from nothing Not only so, but that this is probably inevitable and natural. Your statement is one of belief logically predicated on present understandings. New knolwedge must inform reality knowledge and belief. If something is demonstrated to be the case, then it can no longer be considered impossible.

To your second point. I wasnt setting out to disagree with you on this, merely adding some comments. I agreed with all your post except the bolded paragraph. There, i dont know any more than you, except what i have read in recent times . That opens my mind to doubt, and to other potentialities

Given that you do not believe in god, how do you logicaly reconcile the present nature of the universe with its beginnings. I am an evolutionist who suspects that god is a natural evolutionary product of the universe, as we are. But that leaves open the natural processes by which the universe began, or whether, in fact, it ever had a true beginning in our terms, or will ever have an end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science is beginning to suspect and indicate/demonstrate., that something CAN spontaneously generate from nothing Not only so, but that this is probably inevitable and natural. Your statement is one of belief logically predicated on present understandings. New knolwedge must inform reality knowledge and belief. If something is demonstrated to be the case, then it can no longer be considered impossible.

To your second point. I wasnt setting out to disagree with you on this, merely adding some comments. I agreed with all your post except the bolded paragraph. There, i dont know any more than you, except what i have read in recent times . That opens my mind to doubt, and to other potentialities

Given that you do not believe in god, how do you logicaly reconcile the present nature of the universe with its beginnings. I am an evolutionist who suspects that god is a natural evolutionary product of the universe, as we are. But that leaves open the natural processes by which the universe began, or whether, in fact, it ever had a true beginning in our terms, or will ever have an end.

Give me the sources to reinforce your claims that science is accepting the possibility of something coming from nothing, Mr. Walker.

EDIT: And don't provide me with any pseudo-scientific metaphysical, philosophical mumbo jumbo, either. I want numbers. I want evidence. I have conducted a search on Google, but to no avail. I am very curious as to how science postulates that something can spontaneously generate from absolutely nothing.

That is probably the most ridiculous thing that I have ever heard.

Edited by Alienated Being

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Give me the sources to reinforce your claims that science is accepting the possibility of something coming from nothing, Mr. Walker.

EDIT: And don't provide me with any pseudo-scientific metaphysical, philosophical mumbo jumbo, either. I want numbers. I want evidence. I have conducted a search on Google, but to no avail. I am very curious as to how science postulates that something can spontaneously generate from absolutely nothing.

That is probably the most ridiculous thing that I have ever heard.

I read the new scientist magazine that puts many modern scientific researchers and understandings into terms which an educated layman can understand.There was one whole edition on the nature of the universe time etc.

This subject was discussed in depth. The top scientists in the field are finding (through mathematical modelling, observation and exerimentation) that a state of nothingness is unsustainable. It is inherenlty non sustainable because of its nature. It defaults within a relatively short time to a state of something.

Now definitions of nothing and something are arguable, but this is NOT the classic argument that the universe existed in a tiny compressed 'ball" of matter which exploded in the big bang, and rapidly changed its own nature as it did so, creating the present universe and our current physical state/laws.

It demonstrrates that the universe can physicaly translate from nothing to something, by natural physical means, and will do so because of the comparative nature of nothingess and of something ness. Some physical property of nothing ness "drives it" to become something. The scientists expounded on the scientific nature of that property or properties, but I cant rememember exactly what it/they were.

it is, if you will, the scientific response to 'first cause". Ther is no first cause other than a natural spontaneous and self contained process. To science and scientists of course this is a natural and expected finding. I suspect it is at least in part true. If the universe has not existed forever, it must have come into being at some time. Given that god did not create it, it must have an explanation. the big bang only takes us back so far How did tha t compressed energy/material, in whatever form it existed as a singularity, come into existence.?

To me, natural physics- driven evolution of process, such as this, is the most likely way our unverse began, prior to the big bang. It is just hard for our minds, conditioned as they are, to accept. That is why you find the concept ridiculous and impossible. Explain to me, in scientific terms, why it is impossible for something to come from nothing, without using belief driven/ prejudiced concepts.

Remember that current laws of physics are a product of the way matter and energy "worked out" during the big bang, and hence how our universe is NOW, and are not absolutes.

2 minutes on google

http://www.bbc.co.uk...rammes/b01gf5w7

http://arstechnica.c...e-from-nothing/

http://whywontgodhea...p?topic=18660.0

http://blogs.discove...e-from-nothing/

Plenty more by just googling "nothingness inherently unstable" this does not include the new scientist articles which discussed these matters and talked to/ quoted, some of the scientists involved.

It is perhaps ironic that as a non believer you havent heard of a concept expounded in a book referred to by the Richard Dawkins as, "Potentially the most important scientific book with implications for atheism since Darwin".

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science is not relevant to this kind of discussion. I could say meat inspectors can't prove God, and then turn around and say meat inspectors can't disprove God. Either way it isn't relevant. Science just isn't relevant since those who refer to it are largely relics of the materialist enlightment era anyhow, and that kind of science doesn't address spiritual existence. It's just as meaningless to the question of God as reliance upon meat inspectors to decide on God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science is not relevant to this kind of discussion. I could say meat inspectors can't prove God, and then turn around and say meat inspectors can't disprove God. Either way it isn't relevant. Science just isn't relevant since those who refer to it are largely relics of the materialist enlightment era anyhow, and that kind of science doesn't address spiritual existence. It's just as meaningless to the question of God as reliance upon meat inspectors to decide on God.

and yet you post your gods belief-needs useing science to explain your god. If god was a real thing would it need mans science to prove it as you are attempting.

Edited by The Silver Thong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole process of formation of life and religion can be described in the below

Number 9 in your description is a complete assumption, no one knows how the first life started on earth. Currently we are not able to reproduce it.

Your entire description of the formation of religion is built upon a premise that is not accurate. The latter part of it looks fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Give me the sources to reinforce your claims that science is accepting the possibility of something coming from nothing, Mr. Walker.

EDIT: And don't provide me with any pseudo-scientific metaphysical, philosophical mumbo jumbo, either. I want numbers. I want evidence. I have conducted a search on Google, but to no avail. I am very curious as to how science postulates that something can spontaneously generate from absolutely nothing.

That is probably the most ridiculous thing that I have ever heard.

Happens all the time. Virtual particles & quantum fluctuations. If hawking radiation is true, then a virtual particle literally pops in existence exactly on the event horizon of a singularity. It's twin falls in and it escapes. It's considered to have been created from nothing.

I do have reservations about that the laws of thermo dynamics were created studying steam engines, they are not quite the same in a quantum universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a circular debate that will never be fully answered by either science or religion. No matter what anyone, skeptic or religiously inclined, says, folk of the opposing camp will always refute it.

I will say this, although I have no intention of "defending" my position because I don't believe anyone can--or should--have to explain their belief system (unless you are asked out of a desire to learn about your point of view rather than to tear your beliefs to shreds and make you feel like a fool): I believe there is room for both faith and science in the human mind. I believe that many (probably most) things can be explained by science, but I also believe that there are some things that are just too huge for human comprehension. And that's fine, as far as I'm concerned. I don't spend my time asking "Why" (although I spent much of my life doing so) about things that just...well, just happen. I want to learn as much as I can absorb but I'm content in knowing that I am not capable of knowing everything.

I leave "knowing it all" to wiser heads than my own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Whatch "transcendent man". If there is no god, there will be, if there will be and existence is infinite, then there already is. Can't really escape it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason you posted this is so that you can look at our theological and/or philosophical answers and bolster your own opinion. You want to prove yourself right. You clearly already have your opinion, why post it other than to force it upon us and/or strengthen your own opinion? You haven't started a debate, you declared yourself the winner before you even posted what you'd written--nay, before you'd even written it I'd bargain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.