Thread: Why do you believe in God?

Ok, I'll play it your style, Evangel.

Faith can of course be a way of knowing truth, but that also applies to Hope, Doubt, even the slightest hunch...

So... what are you actually saying Evangel?

Let's hear your side of the story..

(let me see this one without the qoutes, the highly irrelevant comments and the references to epistemologic language and "experts")

I'm actually sorry if I'm being too aggressive, but I get easily carried away...

(but I'm not getting rid of the "highly irrelevant" anyway, as you have made a couple of those..)


Thanks for the tip Placebo

Common, TRUTH as in TRUTH!!! How hard can it be? It is a goddamn FACT! *
THAT IS THE \"NORMAL\" UNDERSTANDING OF TRUTH. *
And FAITH would be TRUTH if it didn't have that element of uncertainty in it, wich makes it: FAITH!!! [/b]

Whoa, cowboy. Part of thr problem of why I don't understand you is because you are assuming that there is some kind of universal definition of truth that everybody is holding to. Obviously I do not agree with your version of truth. I don't know what planet you are living on if you believe that I should conform to your belief just because you insist that \"It is a goddamn FACT.\"

TRUTH as in the way a 5- year old would know it, Try hard to figure that one out. Then make one simple argument, as I haven't heard any yet.[/b]

What \"truth are you talking about Inferno? The truth of Santa Claus? The truth that you make babies are made by rubbing mommy's belly button? To most five year olds, these things ARE TRUTH. You have not defined what you mean by truth. Are you talking about truth that is verified by science? By the five senses? Historical truth (which is verified by text, archaelogical evidence, etc.). I acknowledge that spiritual truth is under a whole different realm and demands faith in order for it to be understood. But this does not make it any less true or valid as a means of understanding truth. Part of my reason for mentioning that the majority of people adhere to or utilize a faith-based way of viewing the world (WORLDVIEW) is that many people such as yourself tend to hold a very narrow view of what is \"true.\" (i.e. that which can be \"verified\" materially or scientifically). does that help, dude?

Wow, can you believe how hard Evangel is trying to not understand this? [/b]

I understand you, esse. But what is your point. That does nothing to answer the question of why you (don't) believe in God. Just because you demand that I prooveide facts that you agree with to be facts does not mean that I am under any obligation to do so, especially since I disagree with your assessment of what truth is.

Hehe, forget it man....

You are really incredible...

Originally posted by Inferno
Hehe, forget it man....
You are really incredible...

AYeeet, yo. Take it easy.

Truth is something that is, false is something that isn't. There aren't different types of truth. However, it's possible to believe something is the truth and then have it turn out to be false, in which case it was never the truth to begin with (like kids believing in Santa). Problem is, you might be able to continually prove accepted truths to be false for nearly infinity, so it's hard to know what is truth and what isn't.

Just to be clear: I meant incredible as in incredibly hopeless...

You have been in a different world throughout our whole discussion...

If this discussion had been in real- life, you would have known your superior. (that would be me, thank you)

What? Another landmine thread?

*tiptoes away a bit faster this time*

Originally posted by Inferno
Just to be clear: I meant incredible as in incredibly hopeless...

If this discussion had been in real- life, you would have known your superior. (that would be me, thank you)

I'm ALL about hope, my friend!




bow... bow...! to the superior infernal one:

Let me qualify my statements before. I believe that there is objective truth, but that we, unless our very nature changes, can't know it(except for a very few things about ourselves). Everything that we claim to know is just our subjective opinion, just because more people are expressing it or they're more highly educated doesn't change this. Indeed even the topic of this thread is our subjective opinion, as for all we know our monitors could be displaying it wrong, or we could be seeing it wrong, or remembering it wrong, the list goes on. To say that you see the title, "Why do you believe in God?" is true because you are directly experiencing it, but you can't justifiably infer the cause of that sight without it becoming subjective opinion.

Stevehattan is on to something, if there is a possibility that what we accept as true will be proven false, then we can't hold it as known truth, because it isn't known, it is infered, and hence, subjective opinion.

What can we know? We can know that we perceieve(see, hear, remember, taste, feel), and that we exist. We can identify things that we see, but cannot define their nature beyond what we can immediately see. We can also have knowledge based on if then statements, but ultimately we do not know the if so all we can know is if then. We can also know what we don't percieve(which I think I am basing this on). There may be a few more things that can be known based on these others, but I haven't explored them yet.

Don't make knowledge your life's goal, because if you read my post you've already attained it.

Belisarius: How old are you?

And how much does the fact that you can not obtain objective truth interfere with your general "thinking about things"?

Originally posted by Inferno


You have been in a different world throughout our whole discussion...

Inf, our belief may seem foolish to you, but do not automatically assume that we are the fools. I stand firmly in my faith, because I cannot in good judgement deny God's existance. If you wish, I will gladly tell you of my conversion.

To all, I must appologize for my outburst a few weeks ago. I lost my patience and it was not my intention to offend. So I do appologize. But I still stand firm in what I believe.

Originally posted by FaatFaat
The reason why I have asked 'What do you like most about the fact that God exists?' and 'Why do you want to believe in God?' is because neither party can convince the other side, and also because the answers to these types of beliefs are the foundation for why you believe them in the first place.

The reason I did not answer those questions is because I believe they are irrelevant, and loaded...

Regardless of "what I like the most about the fact that God exists..." God still exists. Regardless of "WHY I want to believe in God..." HE STILL EXISTS. God is not dependent on someone's faith in him or someone's view of who he is to exist. HE IS GOD

I will agree that neither "side" can convince the other. Some are equally as strong in their "anti-faith" as people are in their faith. That is also why I believe that it takes outside influence (specific divine intervention) for one to see God for who he is and to thus believe in him. I guess this is kind of like resurrecting the horse that was beaten to death, then beaten after death but oh well. Hasta la pasta!

I found an interesting article.

It was written in 1927 by Bertrand Russell. Thought I would share it with you all. I don't really want to stir anything up again so take this at face value.

He offers a paradox for the first-cause argument.

The First-cause Argument

Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the First Cause. (It is maintained that everything we see in this world has a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the name of God.) That argument, I suppose, does not carry very much weight nowadays, because, in the first place, cause is not quite what it used to be. The philosophers and the men of science have got going on cause, and it has not anything like the vitality it used to have; but, apart from that, you can see that the argument that there must be a First Cause is one that cannot have any validity. I may say that when I was a young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day, at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill's Autobiography, and I there found this sentence: \"My father taught me that the question 'Who made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question `Who made god?'\" That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, \"How about the tortoise?\" the Indian said, \"Suppose we change the subject.\" The argument is really no better than that. There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the argument about the First Cause. *
[/b]

Another paradox for natural law.

The Natural-law Argument

Then there is a very common argument from natural law. That was a favorite argument all through the eighteenth century, especially under the influence of Sir Isaac Newton and his cosmogony. People observed the planets going around the sun according to the law of gravitation, and they thought that God had given a behest to these planets to move in that particular fashion, and that was why they did so. That was, of course, a convenient and simple explanation that saved them the trouble of looking any further for explanations of the law of gravitation. Nowadays we explain the law of gravitation in a somewhat complicated fashion that Einstein has introduced. I do not propose to give you a lecture on the law of gravitation, as interpreted by Einstein, because that again would take some time; at any rate, you no longer have the sort of natural law that you had in the Newtonian system, where, for some reason that nobody could understand, nature behaved in a uniform fashion. We now find that a great many things we thought were natural laws are really human conventions. You know that even in the remotest depths of stellar space there are still three feet to a yard. That is, no doubt, a very remarkable fact, but you would hardly call it a law of nature. And a great many things that have been regarded as laws of nature are of that kind. On the other hand, where you can get down to any knowledge of what atoms actually do, you will find they are much less subject to law than people thought, and that the laws at which you arrive are statistical averages of just the sort that would emerge from chance. There is, as we all know, a law that if you throw dice you will get double sixes only about once in thirty-six times, and we do not regard that as evidence that the fall of the dice is regulated by design; on the contrary, if the double sixes came every time we should think that there was design. The laws of nature are of that sort as regards a great many of them. They are statistical averages such as would emerge from the laws of chance; and that makes this whole business of natural law much less impressive than it formerly was. Quite apart from that, which represents the momentary state of science that may change tomorrow, the whole idea that natural laws imply a lawgiver is due to a confusion between natural and human laws. Human laws are behests commanding you to behave a certain way, in which you may choose to behave, or you may choose not to behave; but natural laws are a description of how things do in fact behave, and being a mere description of what they in fact do, you cannot argue that there must be somebody who told them to do that, because even supposing that there were, you are then faced with the question \"Why did God issue just those natural laws and no others?\" If you say that he did it simply from his own good pleasure, and without any reason, you then find that there is something which is not subject to law, and so your train of natural law is interrupted. If you say, as more orthodox theologians do, that in all the laws which God issues he had a reason for giving those laws rather than others -- the reason, of course, being to create the best universe, although you would never think it to look at it -- if there were a reason for the laws which God gave, then God himself was subject to law, and therefore you do not get any advantage by introducing God as an intermediary. You really have a law outside and anterior to the divine edicts, and God does not serve your purpose, because he is not the ultimate lawgiver. In short, this whole argument about natural law no longer has anything like the strength that it used to have. I am traveling on in time in my review of the arguments. The arguments that are used for the existence of God change their character as time goes on. They were at first hard intellectual arguments embodying certain quite definite fallacies. As we come to modern times they become less respectable intellectually and more and more affected by a kind of moralizing vagueness. [/b]

Of intelligent design he points to evolution. It is not the environment that was designed for the organism, it was the organism that adapted to the environment.

The Argument from Design

The next step in the process brings us to the argument from design. You all know the argument from design: everything in the world is made just so that we can manage to live in the world, and if the world was ever so little different, we could not manage to live in it. That is the argument from design. It sometimes takes a rather curious form; for instance, it is argued that rabbits have white tails in order to be easy to shoot. I do not know how rabbits would view that application. It is an easy argument to parody. You all know Voltaire's remark, that obviously the nose was designed to be such as to fit spectacles. That sort of parody has turned out to be not nearly so wide of the mark as it might have seemed in the eighteenth century, because since the time of Darwin we understand much better why living creatures are adapted to their environment. It is not that their environment was made to be suitable to them but that they grew to be suitable to it, and that is the basis of adaptation. There is no evidence of design about it.

When you come to look into this argument from design, it is a most astonishing thing that people can believe that this world, with all the things that are in it, with all its defects, should be the best that omnipotence and omniscience have been able to produce in millions of years. I really cannot believe it. Do you think that, if you were granted omnipotence and omniscience and millions of years in which to perfect your world, you could produce nothing better than the Ku Klux Klan or the Fascists? Moreover, if you accept the ordinary laws of science, you have to suppose that human life and life in general on this planet will die out in due course: it is a stage in the decay of the solar system; at a certain stage of decay you get the sort of conditions of temperature and so forth which are suitable to protoplasm, and there is life for a short time in the life of the whole solar system. You see in the moon the sort of thing to which the earth is tending -- something dead, cold, and lifeless. *

I am told that that sort of view is depressing, and people will sometimes tell you that if they believed that, they would not be able to go on living. Do not believe it; it is all nonsense. Nobody really worries about much about what is going to happen millions of years hence. Even if they think they are worrying much about that, they are really deceiving themselves. They are worried about something much more mundane, or it may merely be a bad digestion; but nobody is really seriously rendered unhappy by the thought of something that is going to happen to this world millions and millions of years hence. Therefore, although it is of course a gloomy view to suppose that life will die out -- at least I suppose we may say so, although sometimes when I contemplate the things that people do with their lives I think it is almost a consolation -- it is not such as to render life miserable. It merely makes you turn your attention to other things. [/b]

He describes another paradox for morality.

The Moral Arguments for Deity

Now we reach one stage further in what I shall call the intellectual descent that the Theists have made in their argumentations, and we come to what are called the moral arguments for the existence of God. You all know, of course, that there used to be in the old days three intellectual arguments for the existence of God, all of which were disposed of by Immanuel Kant in the Critique of Pure Reason; but no sooner had he disposed of those arguments than he invented a new one, a moral argument, and that quite convinced him. He was like many people: in intellectual matters he was skeptical, but in moral matters he believed implicitly in the maxims that he had imbibed at his mother's knee. That illustrates what the psychoanalysts so much emphasize -- the immensely stronger hold upon us that our very early associations have than those of later times. *

Kant, as I say, invented a new moral argument for the existence of God, and that in varying forms was extremely popular during the nineteenth century. It has all sorts of forms. One form is to say there would be no right or wrong unless God existed. I am not for the moment concerned with whether there is a difference between right and wrong, or whether there is not: that is another question. The point I am concerned with is that, if you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, then you are in this situation: Is that difference due to God's fiat or is it not? If it is due to God's fiat, then for God himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good. If you are going to say, as theologians do, that God is good, you must then say that right and wrong have some meaning which is independent of God's fiat, because God's fiats are good and not bad independently of the mere fact that he made them. If you are going to say that, you will then have to say that it is not only through God that right and wrong came into being, but that they are in their essence logically anterior to God. You could, of course, if you liked, say that there was a superior deity who gave orders to the God that made this world, or could take up the line that some of the gnostics took up -- a line which I often thought was a very plausible one -- that as a matter of fact this world that we know was made by the devil at a moment when God was not looking. There is a good deal to be said for that, and I am not concerned to refute it. [/b]

For injustice he gives an analogy: \"Supposing you got a crate of oranges that you opened, and you found all the top layer of oranges bad, you would not argue, 'The underneath ones must be good, so as to redress the balance.' You would say, 'Probably the whole lot is a bad consignment'; and that is really what a scientific person would argue about the universe.\"

The Argument for the Remedying of Injustice
Then there is another very curious form of moral argument, which is this: they say that the existence of God is required in order to bring justice into the world. In the part of this universe that we know there is great injustice, and often the good suffer, and often the wicked prosper, and one hardly knows which of those is the more annoying; but if you are going to have justice in the universe as a whole you have to suppose a future life to redress the balance of life here on earth. So they say that there must be a God, and there must be Heaven and Hell in order that in the long run there may be justice. That is a very curious argument. If you looked at the matter from a scientific point of view, you would say, \"After all, I only know this world. I do not know about the rest of the universe, but so far as one can argue at all on probabilities one would say that probably this world is a fair sample, and if there is injustice here the odds are that there is injustice elsewhere also.\" Supposing you got a crate of oranges that you opened, and you found all the top layer of oranges bad, you would not argue, \"The underneath ones must be good, so as to redress the balance.\" You would say, \"Probably the whole lot is a bad consignment\"; and that is really what a scientific person would argue about the universe. He would say, \"Here we find in this world a great deal of injustice, and so far as that goes that is a reason for supposing that justice does not rule in the world; and therefore so far as it goes it affords a moral argument against deity and not in favor of one.\" Of course I know that the sort of intellectual arguments that I have been talking to you about are not what really moves people. What really moves people to believe in God is not any intellectual argument at all. Most people believe in God because they have been taught from early infancy to do it, and that is the main reason. *

Then I think that the next most powerful reason is the wish for safety, a sort of feeling that there is a big brother who will look after you. That plays a very profound part in influencing people's desire for a belief in God. [/b]

He also questions the character of Jesus.

The Character of Christ

I now want to say a few words upon a topic which I often think is not quite sufficiently dealt with by Rationalists, and that is the question whether Christ was the best and the wisest of men. It is generally taken for granted that we should all agree that that was so. I do not myself. I think that there are a good many points upon which I agree with Christ a great deal more than the professing Christians do. I do not know that I could go with Him all the way, but I could go with Him much further than most professing Christians can. You will remember that He said, \"Resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.\" That is not a new precept or a new principle. It was used by Lao-tse and Buddha some 500 or 600 years before Christ, but it is not a principle which as a matter of fact Christians accept. I have no doubt that the present prime minister [Stanley Baldwin], for instance, is a most sincere Christian, but I should not advise any of you to go and smite him on one cheek. I think you might find that he thought this text was intended in a figurative sense. *

Then there is another point which I consider excellent. You will remember that Christ said, \"Judge not lest ye be judged.\" That principle I do not think you would find was popular in the law courts of Christian countries. I have known in my time quite a number of judges who were very earnest Christians, and none of them felt that they were acting contrary to Christian principles in what they did. Then Christ says, \"Give to him that asketh of thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.\" That is a very good principle. Your Chairman has reminded you that we are not here to talk politics, but I cannot help observing that the last general election was fought on the question of how desirable it was to turn away from him that would borrow of thee, so that one must assume that the Liberals and Conservatives of this country are composed of people who do not agree with the teaching of Christ, because they certainly did very emphatically turn away on that occasion. *

Then there is one other maxim of Christ which I think has a great deal in it, but I do not find that it is very popular among some of our Christian friends. He says, \"If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that which thou hast, and give to the poor.\" That is a very excellent maxim, but, as I say, it is not much practised. All these, I think, are good maxims, although they are a little difficult to live up to. I do not profess to live up to them myself; but then, after all, it is not quite the same thing as for a Christian. *


Defects in Christ's Teaching

Having granted the excellence of these maxims, I come to certain points in which I do not believe that one can grant either the superlative wisdom or the superlative goodness of Christ as depicted in the Gospels; and here I may say that one is not concerned with the historical question. Historically it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if He did we do not know anything about him, so that I am not concerned with the historical question, which is a very difficult one. I am concerned with Christ as He appears in the Gospels, taking the Gospel narrative as it stands, and there one does find some things that do not seem to be very wise. For one thing, he certainly thought that His second coming would occur in clouds of glory before the death of all the people who were living at that time. There are a great many texts that prove that. He says, for instance, \"Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of Man be come.\" Then he says, \"There are some standing here which shall not taste death till the Son of Man comes into His kingdom\"; and there are a lot of places where it is quite clear that He believed that His second coming would happen during the lifetime of many then living. That was the belief of His earlier followers, and it was the basis of a good deal of His moral teaching. When He said, \"Take no thought for the morrow,\" and things of that sort, it was very largely because He thought that the second coming was going to be very soon, and that all ordinary mundane affairs did not count. I have, as a matter of fact, known some Christians who did believe that the second coming was imminent. I knew a parson who frightened his congregation terribly by telling them that the second coming was very imminent indeed, but they were much consoled when they found that he was planting trees in his garden. The early Christians did really believe it, and they did abstain from such things as planting trees in their gardens, because they did accept from Christ the belief that the second coming was imminent. In that respect, clearly He was not so wise as some other people have been, and He was certainly not superlatively wise. *
*

The Moral Problem

Then you come to moral questions. There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christ's moral character, and that is that He believed in hell. I do not myself feel that any person who is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment. Christ certainly as depicted in the Gospels did believe in everlasting punishment, and one does find repeatedly a vindictive fury against those people who would not listen to His preaching -- an attitude which is not uncommon with preachers, but which does somewhat detract from superlative excellence. You do not, for instance find that attitude in Socrates. You find him quite bland and urbane toward the people who would not listen to him; and it is, to my mind, far more worthy of a sage to take that line than to take the line of indignation. You probably all remember the sorts of things that Socrates was saying when he was dying, and the sort of things that he generally did say to people who did not agree with him. *

You will find that in the Gospels Christ said, \"Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of Hell.\" That was said to people who did not like His preaching. It is not really to my mind quite the best tone, and there are a great many of these things about Hell. There is, of course, the familiar text about the sin against the Holy Ghost: \"Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven him neither in this World nor in the world to come.\" That text has caused an unspeakable amount of misery in the world, for all sorts of people have imagined that they have committed the sin against the Holy Ghost, and thought that it would not be forgiven them either in this world or in the world to come. I really do not think that a person with a proper degree of kindliness in his nature would have put fears and terrors of that sort into the world.

Then Christ says, \"The Son of Man shall send forth his His angels, and they shall gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity, and shall cast them into a furnace of fire; there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth\"; and He goes on about the wailing and gnashing of teeth. It comes in one verse after another, and it is quite manifest to the reader that there is a certain pleasure in contemplating wailing and gnashing of teeth, or else it would not occur so often. Then you all, of course, remember about the sheep and the goats; how at the second coming He is going to divide the sheep from the goats, and He is going to say to the goats, \"Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire.\" He continues, \"And these shall go away into everlasting fire.\" Then He says again, \"If thy hand offend thee, cut it off; it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into Hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched; where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched.\" He repeats that again and again also. I must say that I think all this doctrine, that hell-fire is a punishment for sin, is a doctrine of cruelty. It is a doctrine that put cruelty into the world and gave the world generations of cruel torture; and the Christ of the Gospels, if you could take Him as His chroniclers represent Him, would certainly have to be considered partly responsible for that. *

There are other things of less importance. There is the instance of the Gadarene swine, where it certainly was not very kind to the pigs to put the devils into them and make them rush down the hill into the sea. You must remember that He was omnipotent, and He could have made the devils simply go away; but He chose to send them into the pigs. Then there is the curious story of the fig tree, which always rather puzzled me. You remember what happened about the fig tree. \"He was hungry; and seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, He came if haply He might find anything thereon; and when He came to it He found nothing but leaves, for the time of figs was not yet. And Jesus answered and said unto it: 'No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever' . . . and Peter . . . saith unto Him: 'Master, behold the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered away.'\" This is a very curious story, because it was not the right time of year for figs, and you really could not blame the tree. I cannot myself feel that either in the matter of wisdom or in the matter of virtue Christ stands quite as high as some other people known to history. I think I should put Buddha and Socrates above Him in those respects. [/b]

It then goes on to say that the church has consistently opposed a humanistic view and promoted a culture of fear, hatred, and intolerance. I hardly think that, for the most part, anyone can argue against this. Crusades, inquisition, wars in the name of God, promotion of slavery, and the more recent expressions of disgust and enmity towards homosexuals and arabs.

I don't have a problem with religion, I have a problem with the way religion conducts itself.

I think the only true reason someone should believe in God is their FAITH. Science cannot prove or disprove his existance... Hope is insignificant, because an atheist may believe in no God, but he also may believe he has an afterlife or a peace in death... so heaven really isn't a hope.

Faith should be the only reason... and with that I say this:

Faith is essentially the belief in God, only because you have the hope that you will one day go to heaven and that God will save you. Faith is believing without any rational thought behind it... It's so irrational and quick minded to have faith.

Faith only makes sense if there is only one faith.

If the choice was: Have faith or have no afterlife... then faith makes sense, because its always better to have false hope then no hope at all.

However there are several faiths... How can one say that one is right over another? When there is one faith, one can argue it is better than other means, but when there are several... they all become meaningless.

I'm Agnostic, so I tend to believe that none of us know much of anything about after we die. Why do so many of us claim that we do? Why can't someone just say, "I DON'T KNOW"

And what about those who are ignorant? Do we have to go to hell too? Is there really a choice in believing in something?

I mean can anyone of us say that we could "CHOOSE" to believe in Santa Clause (Not the spirit but actual ho ho ho man, who comes down your chimmany?)

I sure as hell know that even if I really wanted to believe in Santa, I couldn't... there simply is no way my mind would let me.. unless I brainwashed myself..

So I'm putting up the arguement: Is there really a choice when it comes to believing in something your not fully equipped or informed enough to answer? Why can't you just say "I don't know?" doesn't that make more sense then saying your opinion is true no matter what?


-Daniel

Originally posted by Inferno
Belisarius: How old are you?

And how much does the fact that you can not obtain objective truth interfere with your general \"thinking about things\"?

I'm 15.

That's a good question. I suppose I think about radical possibilities alot more(it's always good to think) especially when confronted with less than ideal outlooks on reality. I never intellectually believe in anything, always doubting it, but I do act in accordance with scientific and to a lesser extent moral principles that are common in society. This dissappoints me for some reason, but as far as I can tell I don't really have much of a choice.

Any half normal half intelligent person will admit that he simply does not know if there is a god or not.

Some believe and some dont believe but neither of them know.

But logically it makes more sense that there is a creator. As we see in this world exquisite architecture for example... http://www.aviewoncities.com/building/stpa...kscathedral.htm . These wonderfully crafted assemblages all have architects who originally conceived and designed them...

So logically its much more reasonable to suggest that something as beautifully and perfectly put together as the cosmic creation has an intelligent source and didnt haphazardly and accidently come about...
How many ornate cathedrals did you ever see accidentally form themselves out of a falling meteor??

Originally posted by jags
But logically it makes more sense that there is a creator.

No, it dosen't.

So logically its much more reasonable to suggest that something as beautifully and perfectly put together as the cosmic creation has an intelligent source and didnt haphazardly and accidently come about...
How many ornate cathedrals did you ever see accidentally form themselves out of a falling meteor??[/b]

Beauty is subjective, but what do you mean by perfectly put together? The universe is a gigantic cluster of disorganized clouds of gas, stars and rock that lacks any real pattern or symmetry that would indicate that anything half-intelligent put it together. Galaxies aren't to be confused with cathedrals or any other manmade structures, even if they can be considered beautiful. The laws of the universe make it easy for one of those things to form by itself, and the other nearly impossible.

Anyway, my latest reason not to believe in god: Assuming god is both loving, and a perfect being. For god to allow any form of suffering to exist would be a mistake, and perfect beings aren't capable of making mistakes (nore the word perfect). So god either isn't there or doesn't give a crap about us.

Ah the argument from design, what a wonderfully illogical argument that is...

Here's why it doesnt work:

Originally posted by In another thread@ I
Moving on, you present the Teleological argument, aka. the Intelligent design or argument from design theory. Here's the more logical, step-by-step presentation of the argument:
1. It is extremely implausible that living things could have come to exist by mere chance.
2. Living things exist.
3. Therefore, probably, living things did not come to exist by mere chance.
4. If living things did not come to exist by mere chance, then living things were designed.
5. Therefore, living things were designed.

It is very difficult to understand how the first premise is justified. What is the basis for the claim that a chance-origination of living things is implausible? More significantly, why should it be any more plausible that a supernatural being exists who is responsible for the creation/design of living things? Furthermore, the 3rd premise is extremely tenuous at best. It provides no assurance that living things in fact did not arise from chance. It is simply an assumption and a poor one at that. Read on to find out why.

Recent studies indicate the first single celled organisms could have arisen much more easily than previously thought. A very unique type of clay has been discovered deep underwater near thermal vents in the ocean. When free nucleic acid molecules (quite common in nature) are mixed with the clay, the spontaneous formation of a primitive type of ribonucleic acid (RNA, a key part of most living cells) occurs. Even more surprisingly, when fatty acids are added to this mixture, they spontaneously form hollow spheres with the primitive RNA locked inside. These are the first steps toward creating a living cell. This clay proves that the formation of extremely complex molecules (like RNA) is not only possible but, in fact, relatively probable.

However, Stevehatton, you're response was partially flawed. You stated that the universe exhibits no symmetry or order of any kind. In reality, the universe is stunningly uniform in its makeup (ie. the amount of of matter and energy are extremely homogenous through all large sectors of the universe.) However, this still does not indicate the presence of a divine creator. In fact, during the inflationary period shortly after the Big Bang, driven by a negative vacuum energy density (positive vacuum pressure), the universe was actually expanding faster than the speed of light (this does not conflict with Relativity because it was not only matter that was expanding but space itself) the properties of the universe were driven towards this uniform consistency. The reasons for this are actually quite complex and difficult to break down into layman's terms. Basically this period of extreme growth "smoothed out" any "clumps" of energy and subatomic particle that existed (There were no such things as atoms at this point). Then later obviously this matter coalesced into the planets and such that we observe today.

The individual unconsciously chooses his own sufferiing...you have free will...

God is perfect but when a person gets covered with the external bewildering potency it makes him forget that there is a god which is exactly the desired effect...

Originally posted by jags
The individual unconsciously chooses his own sufferiing...you have free will...

God is perfect but when a person gets covered with the external bewildering potency it makes him forget that there is a god which is exactly the desired effect...

I cannot make heads or tails of what you are trying to say here. Please rephrase it.

I agree with jags that it is more logical to believe in a Creator.
It also seems like there are many who try to argue that faith and reason oppose each other and have bought into a myth of false dichotomy...

For those who think that faith and reason have "nothing to do with one another, take a gander...

Logic And God
One of the objections to studying logic most often cited is that logic does not apply to God or to any of the mysteries of the Christian faith, such as the Trinity or the Incarnation. If that were true, then logic might be of use in natural science and things in this world, but it would be useless in finding the truth about God. In other words, logic would apply to temporal, finite reality, but not to ultimate reality. Some Christians really believe this. We don't. Why? Because even those who claim, \"Logic does not apply to God,\" use logic in that very statement. Logic is unavoidable.

Theology is a logos about the theosthe logic of God. Theology is a rational discourse about God. The Gospel of John begins with the statement, \"In the beginning was the Logos.\" The basis of all logic is that some statements are true and others are false. If this word about God is not a logical word, then what is it? The whole idea of theology is that rational statements can be made about God. Even someone who says the opposite has just made a rational (although untrue) statement about God. Logic is undeniable.

Logic is built on four undeniable laws. There is no \"getting behind\" these laws to explain them. They are self-evident and self-explanatory. There is also no way around them. In order to reject any of these statements, one must assume the very principle he seeks to deny. But if you must assume that something is true to say that it is false, you haven't got a very good case, have you?

For example, the law of non-contradiction (A is not non-A) says that no two contradictory statements can both be true at the same time and in the same sense. Now, if someone tried to deny this and said, \"The law of non-contradiction is false,\" he would have a problem. Without the law of noncontradiction, there is no such thing as true or false, because this law itself draws the line between true and false. So we can't call it false without assuming that it is true. The same thing happens when someone tries to deny the other laws: the law of identity (A is A), the law of excluded middle (either A or non-A), and the law of rational inference.

Theological method builds on the foundation of these elementary laws of logic. If logic is a necessary precondition of all thought, then it must also be necessary for all thought about God.

If the law of noncontradiction were not true, then theological paradox would be inevitable. We would never be able to say about God, \"This is true and that is false.\" Our thoughts about him would be a continuous series of contradictions without any real affirmations. Without the law of identity, theological unity would be unachievable. We would wrangle forever without realizing that we already had agreement.

Unless valid inferences can be made from what is known to what is unknown, there can be no theological argumentation. Whether in a discussion between Christians on a matter of interpretation or in a debate with a non-Christian, no one could prove any point without the laws of rational inference. These tools of the theologian are all kept in the logician's toolbox.

From the standpoint of reality, we understand that God is the basis of all logic. As the ultimate reality, all truth is ultimately found in him. He has created the reality that we know and in which we have discovered the laws of logic. Even Jesus said, \"I am the truth\" (John 14:6). He has structured the world in such a way that these laws cannot be denied; however, we did not know God first and then learn logic from him. He exists as the basis of all logic (in reality), but we discovered logic first and came to know God through it. This is true even if we came to know God through his revelation, because we understood the revelation through logic. In the order of being, God is first; but in the order of knowing, logic leads us to all knowledge of God. God is the basis of all logic (in the order of being), but logic is the basis of all knowledge of God (in the order of knowing).

(Geisler, N. L., & Brooks, R. M. 1990. Come, let us reason : An introduction to logical thinking . Baker Book House: Grand Rapids, Mich.)[/b]

Just a few Christians and Theists who have contributed to modern science (which purportedly utilizes logic as its chief means of arriving at WHAT WE KNOW TO BE TRUE...

1. Johann Kepler (1571-1630) was the founder of physical astronomy. Kepler wrote \"Since we astronomers are priests of the highest God in regard to the book of nature, it befits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God.

2. Robert Boyle (1627-1691) is credited with being the father of modern chemistry. He also was active in financially supporting the spread of Christianity through missions and Bible translations.

3. Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) was one of the greatest early mathematicians, laid the foundations for hydrostatics, hydrodynamics, differential calculus, and the theory of probability. To him is attributed the famous Wager of Pascal, paraphrased as follows: \"How can anyone lose who chooses to be a Christian? If, when he dies, there turns out to be no God and his faith was in vain, he has lost nothing--in fact, has been happier in life than his nonbelieving friends. If, however, there is a God and a heaven and hell, then he has gained heaven and his skeptical friends will have lost everything in hell!\"

4. John Ray (1627-1705) was the father of English natural history, considered the greatest zoologist and botanist of his day. He also wrote a book, \"The wisdom of God Manifested In The Works of Creation.\"

5. Nicolaus Steno (1631-1686) was the father of Stratigraphy. He believed that fossils were laid down in the strata as a result of the flood of Noah. He also wrote many theological works and late in his life took up religious orders.

6. William Petty (1623-1687) helped found the science of statistics and the modern study of economics. He was an active defender of the Christian faith and wrote many papers sharing evidence of God's design in nature.

7. Isaac Newton (1642-1727) invented calculus, discovered the law of gravity and the three laws of motion, anticipated the law of energy conservation, developed the particle theory of light propagation, and invented the reflecting telescope. He firmly believed in Jesus Christ as his Savior and the Bible as God's word, and wrote many books on these topics.

8. Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778) was the father of biological taxonomy. His system of classification is still in use today. One of his main goals in systematizing the varieties of living creatures was an attempt to delineate the original Genesis \"kinds.\" He firmly believed in the Genesis account as literal history.

9. Michael Faraday (1791-1867) was one of the greatest physicists of all time, developed foundational concepts in electricity and magnetism, invented the electrical generator, and made many contributions to the field of chemistry. He was active in the various ministries of his church, both private and public, and had an abiding faith in the Bible and in prayer.

10. Georges Cuvier (1769-1832) was the founder of the science of comparative anatomy and one of the chief architects of paleontology as a separate scientific discipline. He was a firm creationist, participating in some of the important creation/evolution debates of his time.

11. Charles Babbage (1792-1871) was the founder of computer science. He developed information storage and retrieval systems, and used punched cards for instruction sets and data sets in automated industrial controls. He was also a Christian with strong convictions and wrote an important book defending the Bible and miracles.

12. John Dalton (1766-1844) was the father of atomic theory, which revolutionized chemistry. He was an orthodox, Bible-believing Christian.

13. Matthew Maury (1806-1873) was the founder of oceanography. He believed that when Psalm 8:8 in the Bible talked about \"paths in the seas,\" that there must therefore be paths in the seas. He dedicated his life to charting the winds and currents of the Atlantic and was able to confirm that the sea did indeed have paths, just as spoken of in the Bible.

14. James Simpson (1811-1879) discovered chloroform and laid the foundation for anesthesiology. He said his motivation to perform the research leading to this discovery was a fascination in the book of Genesis with Adam's deep sleep during the time in which Eve was fashioned from his side. He said his biggest discovery was finding Jesus Christ as Savior.

15. James Joule (1818-1889) discovered the mechanical equivalent of heat, laying the foundation for the field of thermodynamics. Joule also had a strong Christian faith.

16. Louis Agassiz (1807-1873) was the father of glacial geology and a great paleontologist. He believed in God and in His special creation of every kind of organism. When Darwin's Origin began to gain favor, Agassiz spoke out strongly against it.

17. Gregory Mendel (1822-1884) was the father of genetics. He had strong religious convictions and chose the life of a monk. He was a creationist and rejected Darwins's ideas, even though he was familiar with them.

18. Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) was the father of bacteriology. He established the germ theory of disease. His persistent objections to the theory of spontaneous generation and to Darwinism made him unpopular with the scientific establishment of his day. He was a Christian with extremely strong religious convictions.

19. William Thompson, Lord Kelvin (1824-1907) is considered one of the all-time great physicists. He established thermodynamics on a formal scientific basis, providing a precise statement of the first and second laws of thermodynamics. Lord Kelvin was a strong Christian, opposing both Lyellian uniformitarianism and Darwinian evolution. In 1903, shortly before his death, he made the unequivocal statement that, \"With regard to the origin of life, science...positively affirms creative power.\"

20. Joseph Lister (1827-1912) founded antiseptic surgical methods. Lister's contributions have probably led to more lives being saved through modern medicine than the contributions of any one else except Pasteur. Like Pasteur, Lister was also a Christian and wrote, \"I am a believer in the fundamental doctrines of Christianity.\"

21. Joseph Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) developed a comprehensive theoretical and mathematical framework for electromagnetic field theory. Einstein called Maxwell's contributions \"the most profound and most fruitful that physics has experienced since the time of Newton.\" Maxwell rejected the theory of evolution and wrote that God's command to man to subdue the earth, found in the first chapter of the book of Genesis in the Bible, provided the personal motivation to him for pursuing his scientific work. He acknowledged a personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

22. Bernhard Riemann (1826-1866) developed the concept of non-Euclidian geometry, which was used by Einstein in his development of the theory of relativity. Riemann was also a Christian and had hoped to go into the ministry until he got sidetracked by his interest in mathematics. He apparently made several efforts to prove the validity of the book of Genesis using mathematical principles.

23. Joseph Henry Gilbert (1817-1901) was a chemist who developed the use of nitrogen and superphosphate fertilizers for farm crops and co-developed the world's first agricultural experimental station. He thus laid the foundations for the advances in agricultural science which have provided the means for farmers to feed the large populations in the world today. Gilbert is yet another scientist with a strong faith and demonstrated this by signing the Scientist's Declaration, in which he affirmed his faith in the Bible as the Word of God and expressed his disbelief in and opposition to Darwin's theories.

24. Thomas Anderson (1819-1874) was one of the initial workers in the field of organic chemistry, discovering pyridine and other organic bases. Like Gilbert, he also signed the Scientist's Declaration, in which he affirmed his faith in the scientific accuracy of the Bible and the validity of the Christian faith.

25. William Mitchell Ramsay (1851-1939) was among the greatest of all archeologists. He acquired \"liberal\" theological beliefs during his days as a university student. However, as he began to make various archaeological discoveries in Asia Minor, he began to see that archaeology confirmed the accuracy of the Bible and as a result he became converted to Christianity.

26. John Ambrose Fleming (1849-1945) was the inventor of the Fleming valve which provided the foundation for subsequent advances in electronics. He studied under Maxwell, was a consultant to Thomas Edison, and also for Marconi. He also had very strong Christian beliefs and acted on those beliefs by helping found an organization called the \"Evolution Protest Movement.\" He wrote a major book against the theory of evolution.

27. Werner Von Braun (1912-1977) was the father of space science. He wrote, .\"..the vast mysteries of the universe should only confirm our belief in the certainty of its Creator. I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science.\"

28. Albert Einstein (1879-1955), formulator of the theory of relativity, which is one of the single greatest intellectual accomplishments in the history of man. Einstein was Jewish and thus did not follow in the Christian tradition of Newton or Faraday. He did not believe in a personal God, such as is revealed even in the Jewish Bible. Yet, he was overwhelmed by the order and organization of the universe and believed this demonstrated that there was a Creator.

Many of the major fields of science were founded by Christians. This information was taken from the book Men of Science, Men of God by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.[/b]

So in short, don't make the mistake in assuming that reason and faith are somehow isolated from one another or that they are opposing. That is nothing short of FALSE.

So in short, don't make the mistake in assuming that reason and faith are somehow isolated from one another or that they are opposing. That is nothing short of FALSE.[/b]

I don't believe I did. Or did I.

Rosie: I originally was going to reply to that quote, but found another way to communicate my point.... thus you can see the appropriate changes. In other words, I did not mean to reply only or directly to you Kaniaz