Why I believe in God?

[JacobF]

There are a number of historical events that were prophetically predicted by the Bible. The life of Jesus Christ - who was a real historical figure - fulfills at least 8 prophecies made in the Old Testament (the last book of which dates about 400 years before his birth) - including such impossible to manipulate things as birthplace (Bethlehem - see Micah 5:2) and that Jesus' hands and feet would be pierced (see Psalms 22:16). There are plenty of others in the Books of Ezekiel and Daniel. Every year, archeological evidence surfaces that verifies locations and people mentioned in the Bible.

The bible has gone through countless revisions. Plus, even if the old testament did prophecize events in Jesus' life, that's like prophecizing something that was most likely made up. I'll repeat: no record from the time Jesus lived indicates that he existed.

This is the part that is tiresome to keep reading. Our eyes ARE open - you make the assumption that you're the one who sees clearly. The Bible makes it clear that the condition of those who don't know God is one of blindness. Fear is - IMO - what actually drives people to deny the existence of God - because if He is real - then the lives we're living will get us into A LOT of trouble. It's easier to continue living life in whatever way we please once we pretend that there is no real cosmic justice out there in the form of an omniscient and holy God.

I do see clearly, because I don't see a man in the sky named god, nor have I ever claimed to have experienced him with any of my senses. That's not an assumption on my part. Fear doesn't drive me to do this, at all. If I was afraid of god, I would worship him and go to church every Sunday. The worship of god is self-serving and totally fear-based -- people are afraid of death and hell, thus they want to go to heaven. People only say it makes their lives better because 1) they have the false comfort of knowing they are a 'good person' who is going to heaven and 2) ignorance is bliss. As an atheist, I do not fear death, and I'm happy for this. I know I'm not going to "get in trouble" when I die.

Besides, things created out of fear do not change people's lives; the Bible and Christianity have changed many, many people's lives for the better. Fear hasn't that power - it can only destroy - not recreate.

Um, fear can only destroy? No. Fear is why we walk on the side-walk instead of on the street. Fear is why we pour money into insurance. Fear is why we protect ourselves. That's why the bible and Christianity were conjured: to protect us from god. But, of course, he is as loving as he is vengeful. Makes sense.

Jesus' crucifixion is an actual historical event confirmed by non-Christian sources. It is ironic that you use the very argument that works against abiogenesis - there's no real way to prove where life came from because you can't "go back" and see it.

Well, those sources aren't contemporary to the time-period when he was crucified, are they? If so, please direct me to them. And as for the "go back and see it" thing, it was a response to skasian asking me if I went back to see the religions originating, which I found to be ironic on her part too.

Believers cannot "prove" God exists anymore than evolutionists can prove that life came from nothing. The logical fallacy that atheists make is in claiming that God doesn't exist: to make that claim (that something doesn't exist) presumes an exhaustive knowledge of all that exists. That is plainly impossible. How can atheists claim such a thing with a straight face? And we're the ones who need to "open our eyes"?

You are straw-manning me here. I don't, nor does any atheist in the right mind, claim that I have an 'exhaustive knowledge of all that exists.' We don't know all that exists, and we probably won't anytime soon. But, to say that all things were created by god is a cop-out. I myself find it ironic that you are trying to use logic to support god's existence.

1. Religion does not exist to explain the scientific origins of anything. It provides a pathway to a relationship with God.

2. Some science is "hard" (like mathematics) - there is no interpretation involved; some science, however, is "soft" in that it requires the "evidence" to be interpreted. Since evidence can be interpreted in more than one way, not all "evidence" in support of evolution is undeniably irrefutable. Sorry.

1. So the book of genesis, where the world was created in 7 days wasn't trying to explain the scientific origins of Earth? Right...

2. Again, you misrepresent what I say. I said in my very post that no evidence is irrefutable. But, empiricism appeals to rationality, while the belief in god appeals to faith. The former is more rational to believe as a physical being with senses and logic.

Science can't discover God - all it can do is keep uncovering evidence of His handiwork and then come up with absurd explanations as to how it developed all by itself through random chance and lots o' time.

Science doesn't try to discover god. It doesn't try to discover what is not there. And the 'absurd explanations' are a lot better than what religion has to offer. "God did it" is an absurd explanation to me.

Explain to me this, though: Who says the norse god Odin doesn't exist? What about all the Hindu gods? What makes the bible more correct than norse mythology or the Rig Veda or even Scientology?
That's why I don't get theism. You worship one god, but then another god doesn't allow you to do that. Then when you worship that god, another set of gods scolds you for that. And so on and so forth. Logically, no religion is correct, because they all contradict the existence of one another.

[Redzeppelin]

The bible has gone through countless revisions. Plus, even if the old testament did prophecize events in Jesus' life, that's like prophecizing something that was most likely made up. I'll repeat: no record from the time Jesus lived indicates that he existed.

I won't bore you with the details, but textual studies of the Bible reveal that both the New and Old Testament are higly reliable in terms of consistency in what they say. The accuracy level is actually quite high. In the case of the New Testament, the 5300 extant copies in original language (dating from AD 70 - 120) show a 99.5% accuracy when compared to each other.

As far as no record of Jesus' life, here you go:

1. Josephus - Jewish Historian (AD 37 - 100): "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man..."

2. Tacitus - Roman Historian (AD 55 - 117): Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, call Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate..."

Both of these men were neutral parties - neither one having anything to gain by writing that which was untrue - and if they had, they would have been confronted as lies by other writers of the time.

Give it up - Jesus was a real person.

I do see clearly, because I don't see a man in the sky named god, nor have I ever claimed to have experienced him with any of my senses.

Well, I don't see any man in the sky either; I'm glad you don't - I might wonder about your sanity if you said you did.

That's not an assumption on my part. Fear doesn't drive me to do this, at all. If I was afraid of god, I would worship him and go to church every Sunday.

My supposition is as reasonable as yours; plenty of people go into denial to make unpleasant realities "disappear." I do not diagnose you in particular, but the process of denying that which we find unpleasant or frightening is well documented in the literature of psychology.

The worship of god is self-serving and totally fear-based -- people are afraid of death and hell, thus they want to go to heaven.

If the very real consequences of smoking, crack-cocaine use, and unprotected sex aren't enough to stop many people from still indulging, what makes you think the fear of hell is that effective either? Worshipping God is "self-serving"? Have you read the Bible? The Christian life is actually rather demanding because it requires one to work against our normally selfish human nature. There's not much of anything "self-serving" about putting others first, loving my enemies, and forgiving those that wrong me. You oversimplify why people believe.

People only say it makes their lives better because 1) they have the false comfort of knowing they are a 'good person' who is going to heaven and 2) ignorance is bliss. As an atheist, I do not fear death, and I'm happy for this. I know I'm not going to "get in trouble" when I die.

And exactly where did you get the divine/clairvoyant power to know why other people say Christianity has made their lives better? Or are you just assuming on a grand scale?

Christianity does not make one feel like a "good person" - the first step in becoming a Christian is realizing and accepting that we are sinners incapable of being "good" without the help of God in our lives. Atheists tend to thump their chests and talk about what "good" people they are - most Christians will tell you right off that they are sinners working on becoming better people.

My favorite part about talking to an atheist about death is this: if you are right, and God doesn't exist, neither you nor I will know it; if I'm right, and He does exist, then both of us will know it.

Um, fear can only destroy? No. Fear is why we walk on the side-walk instead of on the street. Fear is why we pour money into insurance. Fear is why we protect ourselves. That's why the bible and Christianity were conjured: to protect us from god. But, of course, he is as loving as he is vengeful. Makes sense.

You're straw-manning here. I spoke of "fear" in the context of your statement - of religion being based upon fear. A belief system based upon fear does not change lives for the better.

Non-believers like to complain that God doesn't stop all the suffering, and then turn around and complain that He is just and will eventually administer justice. You can't have it both ways, you know.

Well, those sources aren't contemporary to the time-period when he was crucified, are they? If so, please direct me to them. And as for the "go back and see it" thing, it was a response to skasian asking me if I went back to see the religions originating, which I found to be ironic on her part too.

I just quoted a couple above. Look up.

You are straw-manning me here. I don't, nor does any atheist in the right mind, claim that I have an 'exhaustive knowledge of all that exists.' We don't know all that exists, and we probably won't anytime soon. But, to say that all things were created by god is a cop-out. I myself find it ironic that you are trying to use logic to support god's existence.

To claim that something doesn't exist without being in possession of an exhaustive knowledge of all that exists is absurd. That's the point. You cannot say God does not exist unless you have a complete knowledge of all reality. Trust me, you don't.

Well, come on - if I didn't use logic you'd be nailing me there too - you can't have it both ways, you know.

1. So the book of genesis, where the world was created in 7 days wasn't trying to explain the scientific origins of Earth? Right...

No - because there is no "science" mentioned - God speaks and it exists. Genesis does explain the origin of the earth, but does not bother to give us the science of how God did it.

2. Again, you misrepresent what I say. I said in my very post that no evidence is irrefutable. But, empiricism appeals to rationality, while the belief in god appeals to faith. The former is more rational to believe as a physical being with senses and logic.

If one examines this world and the things in it closely enough, one realizes that only wishful and fanciful thinking can come up with explanations for the things that exist. I think evolution takes an incredible amount of faith.

Science doesn't try to discover god. It doesn't try to discover what is not there.

This strikes me as begging the question - you assume as truth something you have no empirical basis for.

And the 'absurd explanations' are a lot better than what religion has to offer. "God did it" is an absurd explanation to me.

Well, sure. You're entitled to your opinion on the matter.

Explain to me this, though: Who says the norse god Odin doesn't exist? What about all the Hindu gods? What makes the bible more correct than norse mythology or the Rig Veda or even Scientology?

Because the Bible features real people who actually were here on earth, and events that actually happened. Archeology continues to find things that confirm Biblical locations, people, and events. Scientology? That's funny.

That's why I don't get theism. You worship one god, but then another god doesn't allow you to do that. Then when you worship that god, another set of gods scolds you for that. And so on and so forth. Logically, no religion is correct, because they all contradict the existence of one another.

There's only one God. You're partially correct: either all religions are wrong, or one is right. I prefer the latter explanation.

[NikolaiI]

With all respect I disagree with you completely Jacob on several points. I was an atheist until I was 17... all my life I studied different philosophies and religions. You'd be surprised to find the similarities. For instance, Tukaram, a Hindu saint from the 17th century, wrote this:

Words are the only Jewels I possess
Words are the only Clothes that I wear
Words are the only food That sustains my life
Words are the only wealth I distribute among people
Says Tuka Witness the Word He is God
I worship Him With my words

So Tuka says the same thing which the Bible says in John, that the Word is God.

I guess the fundamental thing is, does God exist? That is what we are trying to figure out. So if God does exist, it is logical to believe in Him, and if He does not, then it is not.

Actually a lot of the arguments could be said for consciousness, for superconsciousness, for reality, for the universe... for all of these things. We all exist in God, and God exists in us. Similarly, we all exist in the universe, just as we all exist in reality.

Who can explain that they have seen reality? The most recent answer I got from an atheist on this was that everything they could see and touch was reality. I don't know what happened to this discussion with that person. My response to this I had intended to be - I am speaking of reality as a whole.

Reality is the whole reality. It cannot be seen or touched. When I am seeing a leaf, touching a leaf, I am not touching the Universe - well I am, but I am only touching a part. What I am asking about is the whole, the universe, and reality - the whole of reality. The whole of the universe, of reality, is inconceivable to us. But it is the most commonly accepted.

Understanding God is somewhat similar to this; except that God is the infinite. Einstein said one of the most fundamental questions everyone should answer is this; "is the universe a friendly or a hostile place?" Well, the answer of religion is that yes, it is. In fact, it is divine, because all belongs to the divine Lord.

[NikolaiI]

About seeing clearly. . . Jacob I am not saying you are not seeing clearly. But as the universe is infinite, as life is infinite, we are also rooted in that infinite. W. Blake said, "If the doors of perception were cleansed, then all would appear as it is, infinite."

You said Hindus believe in many Gods and some do, but every Hindu I have ever met speaks about God as One. In fact I have been studying different scriptures for a while now; Sri Isopanisad is a great one. But with the Vedas, there are many interpretations, ranging from atheist to impersonalist to theist. I myself am a theist. And in my understanding religions are not exclusive.

Actually what I believe is that we are part and parcel of God. So it's not that we go to hell or anything like that -- and I would please request that since there is one thread which is called "Christian Hell," and one which is called "Why I believe in God?" Let's let there be at least some difference between the two, as I have refrained from posting about God in the Christian Hell but more speaking about Christianity.

But we are part and parcel of God - there is no great substance to bodily identifications. Even the idea "I am human" is one coming from ignorance, because I am not this body, I am not a human body - I am a spirit soul. I saw you write you did not believe in the soul and I would discuss that if you wish. In fact every living entity is a soul. Not just humans but animals, plants, insects, all of these have - are - a soul. The body we take on simply due to our karma and our desires. But all souls are part of the Supreme soul. It is not a question of body. The only question is one of consciousness. I have the consciousness, the desires, and the karma of a human, and so I am in a human body. But I am related to every other living entity in this way; that I am part of God and they are as well.

Being part of God does not mean one is God. Actually to think that one is God is a very false idea. I am part of God just as my hand is part of me. My hand serves my will, but if it was cut off from me, it would no longer be a hand (since it does not perform what a hand does) though it might appear like one.

Now there are certain things which we disagree on. I am not close minded and neither are you. As I said I used to be an atheist. But now I am not. I would gladly explain why I believe in the soul, and God.

After all this thread was created and is titled "Why I believe in God," so hopefully it can continue in that vein.

[JacobF]

I won't bore you with the details, but textual studies of the Bible reveal that both the New and Old Testament are higly reliable in terms of consistency in what they say. The accuracy level is actually quite high. In the case of the New Testament, the 5300 extant copies in original language (dating from AD 70 - 120) show a 99.5% accuracy when compared to each other.

As far as no record of Jesus' life, here you go:

1. Josephus - Jewish Historian (AD 37 - 100): "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man..."

2. Tacitus - Roman Historian (AD 55 - 117): Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, call Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate..."

Both of these men were neutral parties - neither one having anything to gain by writing that which was untrue - and if they had, they would have been confronted as lies by other writers of the time.

Give it up - Jesus was a real person.

1. Weren't the writings of Flavius Josephus deemed to be forgery? http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...in/jesus.shtml

2. I admit I'm speaking out of hearsay for this one, but I'm pretty sure Tacitus' writings were deemed to be added in by Christian scholars as well. Plus, Jesus died around 30-35 A.D. That account is decades after the life of Jesus.

There really aren't enough records to deem Jesus as a real person. Even if Jesus was a real person, there is no evidence, not even after his time, that he performed miracles or was at all divine. His identity was formed by later Christian scholars.

Well, I don't see any man in the sky either; I'm glad you don't - I might wonder about your sanity if you said you did.

Interesting that you should say that...

My supposition is as reasonable as yours; plenty of people go into denial to make unpleasant realities "disappear." I do not diagnose you in particular, but the process of denying that which we find unpleasant or frightening is well documented in the literature of psychology.

The whole 'denying god out of fear' is ham-handed to me. People denying alcoholism because they don't want to quit. People deny their financial debt because they don't want to endure something that directly inconveniences them. The idea of god, however, is completely intangible, and really does not harness the immediate power to inconvenience someone enough to the point of denying god. If someone really was scared of god, there are churches and bibles everywhere. They could just get down on their knees and pray. In Islam for instance, all you have to do is say that you accept Allah and you are saved.

If the very real consequences of smoking, crack-cocaine use, and unprotected sex aren't enough to stop many people from still indulging, what makes you think the fear of hell is that effective either? Worshipping God is "self-serving"? Have you read the Bible? The Christian life is actually rather demanding because it requires one to work against our normally selfish human nature. There's not much of anything "self-serving" about putting others first, loving my enemies, and forgiving those that wrong me. You oversimplify why people believe.

In the grand scheme of things, people only carry out the tasks in the bible (well, ideally they do, but as history has shown that doesn't always happen) to get to heaven. There's no other motive. They only do it because god said so. I do good things in my life for others because I summon the motivation myself. The bible is altruistic.

As another side note, I don't see the goodness in 'loving your enemies.' How about just not having any enemies at all? I know I don't have any. We'd all be better off without holding grudges.

And exactly where did you get the divine/clairvoyant power to know why other people say Christianity has made their lives better? Or are you just assuming on a grand scale?

As I've already argued many times, Christianity is a remedy for fear. There's really nothing else to it. Sure, there's the allure of being closer to god, but that's only because when you are closer to god you won't go to hell. Here we see that "loving yet vengeful god" paradox again.

Sure, some people may enjoy Christianity for the aspect of community it provides, but that's a minor reason because community can be found in many other places.

Christianity does not make one feel like a "good person" - the first step in becoming a Christian is realizing and accepting that we are sinners incapable of being "good" without the help of God in our lives. Atheists tend to thump their chests and talk about what "good" people they are - most Christians will tell you right off that they are sinners working on becoming better people.

Perhaps I used the wrong term. I guess I meant 'better' person (even still the goal is to be good). When humanity subscribes to any organization that makes them feel better about themselves, doing the 'right thing,' they feel like they are a good person -- validated. As for sin, from a catholic perspective, all you have to do to rid yourself of your sins is go into the confession box X times per year. From a protestant perspective, you pray and go to church and read the bible. Isn't the only rule laid out by the New Testament "love god"? In the end, that's all it boils down to anyway. You can be a terrible person, commit horrible crimes yet when you 'accept god' you can still go to heaven.

And from my experience going to a protestant church for 13 years, Christians aren't all that modest. Some are I am sure, but a lot aren't. Even still, they're only sinners because God said so. A person should correct their faults because THEY think it's the right thing to do, not the bible.

My favorite part about talking to an atheist about death is this: if you are right, and God doesn't exist, neither you nor I will know it; if I'm right, and He does exist, then both of us will know it.

I guess the favourite part of talking to a theist is knowing that they wasted so much time by subscribing to antiquated and transparent beliefs.

You're straw-manning here. I spoke of "fear" in the context of your statement - of religion being based upon fear. A belief system based upon fear does not change lives for the better.

You said "things created out of fear do not change peoples' lives." You did mention the bible and christianity but you were talking about fear very generally.

Non-believers like to complain that God doesn't stop all the suffering, and then turn around and complain that He is just and will eventually administer justice. You can't have it both ways, you know.

When did I ever complain that god will stop all the suffering? When I referred to god being as loving as he is vengeful, I was poking at the paradox that Christianity seems to buy into.

To claim that something doesn't exist without being in possession of an exhaustive knowledge of all that exists is absurd. That's the point. You cannot say God does not exist unless you have a complete knowledge of all reality. Trust me, you don't.

The concept of god is based on faith and faith alone. There is no rationality to it. I'll assume for a second that god does exist -- if he does, he would be unfathomable. No human or being would be able to conceive of his existence. No scripture could outline what god really is. To claim that you are in possession of the knowledge of something that is divine -- beyond human comprehension -- is absurd. So, as beings who are governed by logic and rationality, atheism is the best choice.

Well, come on - if I didn't use logic you'd be nailing me there too - you can't have it both ways, you know.

Well, that's the thing about theism -- it's governed by faith, not logic.

No - because there is no "science" mentioned - God speaks and it exists. Genesis does explain the origin of the earth, but does not bother to give us the science of how God did it.

It didn't give us the science because the science has proven it wrong. We all know the world wasn't created in 7 days. They didn't know any better, so they just made it up.

If one examines this world and the things in it closely enough, one realizes that only wishful and fanciful thinking can come up with explanations for the things that exist. I think evolution takes an incredible amount of faith.

Well, evolution has evidence. No scientist really denies evolution because of the sheer amount of evidence behind it. The only thing in science that comes close to faith are hypotheses. But after the tests and observations, the hypothesis doesn't matter. I'm not saying evolution is completely true -- no theory is -- but at least it's not supported by faith and faith alone.

Because the Bible features real people who actually were here on earth, and events that actually happened. Archeology continues to find things that confirm Biblical locations, people, and events. Scientology? That's funny.

So? There's no evidence that points to Jesus being the son of god. There's nothing that says biblical locations actually hosted the events which happened. And as I've previously mentioned, a lot of the stuff is forgery. Christianity was a tool of authority in its birth, and history always 'edits' history to its own advantage. Yes, Scientology is funny, because it's probably about as true as Christianity is. Aliens coming here and implanting stuff in our minds, that's totally silly... but a virgin birth and a talking snake, that's believable.

There's only one God. You're partially correct: either all religions are wrong, or one is right. I prefer the latter explanation.

And this is what I hate most about religion. The fact that everyone thinks their own is right. Religion was necessary to expand empires and give people hope in antiquity, but now it really just causes more problems than it solves. We don't need it anymore; in my opinion, it's just holding back humanity.

And Nikolai, thank you for contributing to the argument, but I'm pretty tired now and am probably going to bed. I'll read/reply to your post tomorrow.

[WanderingGirl]

Well, I do believe in God. I'm not a strong believer or one of the most 'faithful', but I still believe because there is some things even science can't explain. Like what happens when you die, why did humans evolve the way they did (no scientist knows why we evolved the way we did because there was no factor to make us evolve), or what caused the big bang?

As humans we are the only creatures on planet Earth that has been given the ability to think or to see the Earth as we can see it. Also, we are the only animal on the earth that is aware of death. So why us out of billions of species that are alive or extinct are we able to do this or know this? And even the chances of us evolving the way we did is very slim. Really, there was a better chance of dinosaurs to be still alive now, then us being here. All these reasons make me believe there is some kind of 'outside' guidance.

And what is the point of life at all if everything just lives for a while and then dies? It makes me feel depressed at the thought of thinking that, not just humans, but everything from the smallest things like insects to the huge universe will just die and then there will be nothing left. What is the point of life at all if there is just that? Except maybe, there is something better out there after we die, which I believe there is. And in believeing that, I believe in God.

[billyjack]

Well, I do believe in God. I'm not a strong believer or one of the most 'faithful', but I still believe because there is some things even science can't explain. Like what happens when you die, why did humans evolve the way they did (no scientist knows why we evolved the way we did because there was no factor to make us evolve), or what caused the big bang?

we know what happens when we die. you rot in a casket, get all ashy in an urn, or get churned through another animals digestive track.

we evolved like we did because it was copacetic with our environment. banana and the human hand argument anyone?

not knowing why or how things got put in motion isnt an excuse for superstition

Also, we are the only animal on the earth that is aware of death.

na. replace "aware?" with "repress" and you've hit the nail on the head

And what is the point of life at all if everything just lives for a while and then dies?

ah, to live and then die. if you can't find a point between these two then perhaps a renegotiation of world views is in order

It makes me feel depressed at the thought of thinking that, not just humans, but everything from the smallest things like insects to the huge universe will just die and then there will be nothing left.

this reasoning doesnt correspond to reality. we know that when someone dies the rest of the world keeps on living. so goes with the universe when a star dies out. even if the universe ends up eventually becoming nothing again, you can be sure that it will eventually find its way towards something eventually. if its happened once, it can happen again.

What is the point of life at all if there is just that? Except maybe, there is something better out there after we die, which I believe there is. And in believeing that, I believe in God.

speak of heaven, ye disgrace earth (walden)--my favorite quote

[Pewnut]

As humans we are the only creatures on planet Earth that has been given the ability to think or to see the Earth as we can see it.

Because we can't communicate with other animals as well as we can amongst ourselves, we don't really know how they "think" or "see the Earth". But that doesn't mean their experience in this world is any less complex to them. If you really think about it, we don't get to experience what it feels like to have an innate ability to fly like a bird or run like a cheetah. So essentially all living creatures experience the world in a limited way.

Also, we are the only animal on the earth that is aware of death.

I beg to differ.

[skasian]

The bible is not evidence. It is not contemporary to the period in which it was writing about, nor does it have any proven events within it. The big bang for instance is closer to fact than the bible because we actually have research to back up that it may have happened.



I don't think I need to form an argument for this. You're just regurgitating the same thing as you have in your previous posts and I've countered it numerous times.



I think this is the part in the argument where I have to simply say 'open your eyes.' Fear has been and always will be the main motive for humanity's actions. Religion is a textbook example of creating something out of fear.

Have you been back thousands of years to see Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection? Have you been back thousands of years to see Moses part the red sea?

And also, as a little side note, why must the burden of proof lay on me? If someone claimed that UFOs existed, you'd think the person making that claim would have to prove it, right? Then why must it be atheists having to disprove god rather than theists proving it? And by proving it, I don't mean pointing to the bible, because that is just words. Anyone could have written the bible.



Uh, but science DOES have solid explanations pertaining to the development of nature. I never said science is 100% certain (in fact, I'm pretty sure I previously said it wasn't) but science has more merit explaining how natural occurrences happen than religion does. Empirical merit: something that the bible doesn't have.




Science hasn't discovered something yet... so it must be god, right? If this was 1000 years ago, you would be saying that the sun revolves around the earth, and god put us in the center of the cosmos. But, today we know that is incorrect with scientific research. Coincidence? Highly unlikely.







We humans are not imaginary because we have senses. We are physical entities. God, however, does not fit into any of those categories.

I have to correct on your opening paragraph. The bible accually do hold some contemporary evidences, such as the place where Jesus spent his life, Noah's remaining wooden pieces of the arh deep under the sea. Now let me ask you how does researching back up the big bang theory. Dont you realise new discovery hinders and alters each theories or articles and that every few years and then, researching on a common subject becomes different? Let me give you an example, food science, where in one time scientist declare something is bad for your health, and in another time that same food is good for you. Overall the judgement on that particular food is tossed around from being good and bad.

Sorry,but religion is not created out of fear. Let me say one thing. Religion is created for serving and following God or for self enlightment. It is true that religion helps followers to fight away from fear, however that is not the motive of having a religion.

The Bible made be made up by words, but its not just ordinary words. It holds the Words of God, and holds powerful wisdom and knowledge. It hold the Words that is like a guide to life. People who arent Christian read the Bible for self enlightment, and I dont see how they will be bothered to read "just words".

Acutally some science does appear in the Bible, like personal hygene, which appears in the Laws of moses. God forbids people to do certain things because it is considered as "unclean" for example drink blood from animals. Even though people back then wouldnt be able to come up with a reason why, modern science reveals that drinking animal blood should be avoided because it contains antibodies that affects our bodies, and it is concentrated from toxic wastes contained in plasmas.

Also, bible contains more merit than science that how we should live our lives. Science, especially in the medical field does help us to be our best in health, however the bible helps more as it shows the way of healthy spirit = healthy mind = healthy body. Because now in university I will be studying in the medical field, I will be able to fully appreciate God's Words and His intentions.

We being centre of the cosmos.. science doesnt reveal that to the full extent. What if we are centre of the universe, astromony havent discovered the beginning or the end of the universe, therefore it hasnt discovered the our position of the universe. Science hasnt discovered something yet? Other than God, the possibilities of being that something is infinite.

"We humans are not imaginary because we have senses. We are physical entities."
Rocks do not have senses yet they arent imaginary. You say to your pencil " you aint imaginary!" just because it doesnt have senses? Interesting.

[skasian]

so you know the unknowable via the bible. white noise

Depends what you kind of knowledge you are thinking about. Knowledge can be grasping 100% about a subject but also as knowing only a small partial.

Knowledge of the unknowable can be like understanding a very insignificant small piece about God. However when knowledge is knowing 100% about the subject, we have no knowledge about the unknowable because we can never know 100% about God.

[WanderingGirl]

Because we can't communicate with other animals as well as we can amongst ourselves, we don't really know how they "think" or "see the Earth". But that doesn't mean their experience in this world is any less complex to them. If you really think about it, we don't get to experience what it feels like to have an innate ability to fly like a bird or run like a cheetah. So essentially all living creatures experience the world in a limited way.

You are talking about experiences, and I'm thinking about actual thinking. Like you were thinking about what you were going to say when you wrote above, and like I'm thinking about what I'm going to write now. A bird or a cheetah couldn't have have a conversation like this because their brains aren't as developed as ours, so they couldn't think about things like this.

I beg to differ

.

I didn't mean what I said like that. You know that sometime in your life you are going to die, and I know that sometime I will die. An animal doesn't know that they can die. And when a child or a mate of an animal die that animal pokes or touches the animal that id dead, expecting it to wake. It doesn't realise that it wouldn't wake up, like that mother gorilla. While animals can feel the pain of someone they love dying, they have no idea that it will happen. They even have no idea that they, themselves, will die.

[skasian]

Hmm... I'm not swayed by this logic. If you know ("by His words") that God is infinitely righteous, good, etc. and you know His intentions and His will, then you have knowledge of some of His qualities. Meaning, He is not "unknowable", just "knowable to a certain limited extent".

In a way yes, but knowing something can imply understanding 100% about something, like for me when I learn about a particular subject of chemistry, to have a knowledge about that topic, I regard it as knowing 100%about that topic because when there is an aspect I dont understand, I regard that topic as having lack of knowledge. In this way, as God is 100% unknowable, we can never have full knowledge in the unknowable.

[Pewnut]

You are talking about experiences, and I'm thinking about actual thinking. Like you were thinking about what you were going to say when you wrote above, and like I'm thinking about what I'm going to write now. A bird or a cheetah couldn't have have a conversation like this because their brains aren't as developed as ours, so they couldn't think about things like this.

Let's not jump to conclusions.

Obviously they don't think like we do but it'll be quite remarkable for, say, bees to inhabit communities, build hives, distribute pollen, collect nectar, create honey etc. yet not have the ability to "think" in some rudimentary way. If humans behaved in such a way, we might call them communists.

I didn't mean what I said like that. You know that sometime in your life you are going to die, and I know that sometime I will die. An animal doesn't know that they can die. And when a child or a mate of an animal die that animal pokes or touches the animal that id dead, expecting it to wake. It doesn't realise that it wouldn't wake up, like that mother gorilla. While animals can feel the pain of someone they love dying, they have no idea that it will happen. They even have no idea that they, themselves, will die.

Animals may not have the ability to worry about or fear death like we do but if they don't know that they will die, they wouldn't protect themselves or their offspring from predators.

[Ohmyscience]

I don't understand why anyone of faith would need their scripture validated. It's faith. Whatever says in the book is infallible regardless of empirical evidence against it. So in my opinion treading the waters of whether holy books are verifible only hurts the believers. What can a religious person gain by offering scripture up to scrutiny?

As many have expressed, being conscious is living with angst. It is unbearable at times to know your existence and to understand that it has to end. Many brilliant minds have investigated and anyone remotely interested will engage in it as well. If its any consolation. instead of finding god, find peace and comfort at the fact that we all have to face it.

Another point that someone brought up was Pascal's wager. If you prescribe to god merely for a chance at redemption, isn't that cowardly. As Bertrand Russell said wouldn't god respect those that have integrity to just not believe due to the lack of evidence? If heaven exists surely a just god would not punish someone for having the rationale and conviction to believe what they think is correct rather than to do so only to gain passage to heaven.

To sum it up I think belief in god is just a mechanism to feel comfortable; the feeling that some intelligence in the universe cares about him or her. But consider this, why would a just god care about you more than those billions who suffer needlessly? I know some religious people would say that its gods plan or that its to test their faith but that is just degrading to humanity. Imagine a child suffering and your best answer is that its god's plan for him/her. Why can't we just be honest and say that there is no agent behind the suffering. Its a circumstance of luck and distribution and we should best try to alleviate it.

Thats the thing that bothers me the most about religion: solipsism. It isn't about you get it over your head.

[Pewnut]

In a way yes, but knowing something can imply understanding 100% about something, like for me when I learn about a particular subject of chemistry, to have a knowledge about that topic, I regard it as knowing 100%about that topic because when there is an aspect I dont understand, I regard that topic as having lack of knowledge. In this way, as God is 100% unknowable, we can never have full knowledge in the unknowable.

See, I used the words "knowable to a certain limited extent" for a reason. You can have partial knowledge of X and the remainder will remain unknowable to you but X itself is not unknowable. If God is 100% unknowable, then you cannot possibly know anything about Him.