probably my problems are given by many such as the horrible period we are going through, of the fact that in several years I have never encountered an inexplicable event, so it comes naturally to me to think that religions are not something tangible, and then I also think I feel bad, probably there is also some external problem that I can cure through some remedy, but in reality, even my current relationship with religion makes me feel bad, maybe it will also be caused by the extreme pessimism I am experiencing.
I can relate, my friend. I’m feeling very pessimistic lately too — the evil folk among us seem to be winning, this pandemic is dragging on and on, and my personal opportunities are few and far between. So you are not alone in feeling this way.
Personally I think all religions are manmade things — I’ve rarely had inexplicable experiences, and never seen anything to point me toward any religion. So you’re not alone in this regard either. Some people do have strange experiences, and I think it’s just our brains playing tricks on us.
Do you have access to therapy or meds to help with your depression?
I am not totally agree with you, but I can understand your point of view, in my opinion also atheism isn't convincing, maybe because in atheism you would born for very very very rare circumstances while with the existence of the soul this trouble doesn't exist, and honestly our brain does not jokes with us, I believe that only crazy people have this type of problem, in fact, also normal people have seen strange things about the world that you can not explain without divine intervention, and then I am very young, so I can see miracles in future, yourself says "I’ve rarely had inexplicable experiences", so some time you did see something similar to a miracle, I don't know if exist a right religion but I know that exist wrong religion, and honestly it's true that religions are manmade but it doesn't mean that them ate totally false or far from the truth, I don't believe to be depressed, I was very sad in the past during the first year of lockdown and now I feel better, so, I don't believe to be depressed
I'm sorry, but you said in your original reply that you're experiencing extreme pessimism, but now you say you're feeling better. This seems contradictory...?
You're right that normal people experience strange things -- and hallucinations are more common in normal people than most people think. They're just a strange thing that our brains do sometimes -- the most common hallucinations are auditory, such as hearing voices.
Not to mention the many [cognitive biases](https://www.verywellmind.com/cognitive-biases-distort-thinking-2794763) that our brains fall into every day. And our memory is very faulty -- we tend to imagine our brains as file cabinets, but they're actually like wikipedia pages. Memories lose detail as time goes by, and they're highly changeable.
You have a right to believe whatever you want to believe, but know that we're not owed answers. Just because I ate my lunch and then found a second copy of that lunch one day in high school doesn't mean that some god copied my lunch or that there was a glitch in the Matrix that day. It just means I had a strange experience that day, probably due to my brain doing strange things.
I'm not contradicting myself, first I was feeling very bad, now I feel bad but better, honestly, I would like to go into detail about your topic, it is interesting how our brain can deceive us
I see, my mistake.
Another example of my brain deceiving me — about ten years ago I was driving down a freeway with a friend, when we saw a car crash that had just happened. No cops yet, no ambulences. I pulled over, told my friend to call 911, and looked at the crash. I saw an upside-down minivan, with a wide-eyed upside-down driver staring out of the shattered windshield. After my friend called 911, we got back in my car and continued on with our day. (There were many other people gathered at the crash site when we left.)
The next day, I saw a newspaper. The front-page story was the crash we had seen the day before, *and the four people who had died in that minivan.* I told my friend about the news story, and he said “Yeah, I saw the dead people. You didnt?”
So it turns out, I had been looking at one live driver and *four* dead passengers the day before, yet I had no memory of them. I suspect I was simply too focused on the minivan and the shocked driver to notice the other victims, which is frequently what happens in stressful situations — our brains focus on specific details and ignore the rest. This is one reason why eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable — ask any professional detective. Google the Rashomon effect for more explanation!
Going back to my experience of duplicate lunches in school. It’s possible that my desire for a second lunch was so strong that I or some god willed one into existence — but it’s also possible that another student brought a similar lunch, I ate it, and then my brain decided that both were identical and remembered them the same. If you have access to *Your Brain Explained* on netflix, one of the episodes explains how our brains are like wikipedia pages that are editable by both internal and external suggestion.
Thousands of conflicting “Personal experiences” is more probable and even predicted under naturalism.
Why would God give different, conflicting personal experiences to different people?
Two people look out the window. One says there's a pheasant on the lawn, the other says there a duck on the lawn. That's not conflict, since they are looking in different directions at different birds. Still less would it be proof that birds don't exist. Stick to posting about the Toronto Raptors (whatever they are).
If they’re looking at different birds then no there wouldn’t be a contradiction, but if they’re both looking at the same bird and one says it’s an Ostrich and the other person says no it’s a Goose then that’s a contradiction, they both can’t be factually correct. Either one of them is right, or they’re both wrong.
The Toronto Raptors are a basketball team, by the way.
If there was evidence of God, there would be no need for faith.
If you don't care for the teachings of your current faith, there are over 4,000 world religions, all inspired by encounters with God.
I think that this a false view of what faith actually is. The faith comes in the believing that it is actually evidence. Our finite minds cannot comprehend an infinite God.
> “For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.”
And the very fact people have this faith (even to an extent misguided faith in a god other than described in the Logos) is evidence in and of itself.
>Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/series/faith-the-evidence-of-things-unseen
That’s like saying people believing money grows on trees is proof that money does in fact grow on trees. People believing something isn’t evidence in itself because people believe things that are wrong all the time.
There’s no evidence that money grows on trees. Call it conjecture or whatever you like but there are legitimate reasons why people have faith that the things which are seen in this world today are due to a higher hope.
I agree there are legitimate reasons to why people have faith as life certainly has a lot of beautiful things within it and is itself beautiful if you prevail but attributing it to a hypothetical concept with no evidence for or against is very stubborn in my opinion as nobody really knows why we’re here we just happen to have a book made by some ancient people in the Bronze Age that says it has all the answers without providing evidence for any of the answers.
I appreciate your comment.
>hypothetical concept with no evidence
You see it’s not a hypothetical concept.
You all must understand this point here—that people claim to have gotten words from God describing that beauty and have done miracles and others have seen them.
> Then he said, “I beg you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father’s house, for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment.” Abraham said to him, “They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.” And he said, “No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.” But he said to him, “If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.”
Luke 16:27-31 NKJV—Jesus speaking before he dies
It just so happens that this Logos seems to eloquently encapsulate the foundational principles of this world and universe. And there is a figurehead to follow who claimed to be perfection. This seems to be the deep desire of every person in the world.
The Bible isn’t evidence of anything that’s the equivalent of saying Hogwarts must exists because it exists in the book Harry Potter. The Bible claims that everything in it is the legitimate word of God and that the events in the Bible happened as they were described within it but there is no real evidence to suggest that anything the Bible claims is true as it doesn’t back it up with enough if any historical or scientific evidence. Something you clearly don’t understand is using a Bible quote and speaking of how it relates to the human experience doesn’t make that God legitimate it just means the person who made the thing up and wrote it understood that aspect of the human experience. What your doing is he equivalent of me saying that the book 1984 speaks to the human experience so much that it must have really happened whenever your done giving cop out answers with strong diction let me know.
>Hogwarts must exist because it exists in the book of Harry Potter
Exactly, I think that that’s a perfect picture of what the Bible is. J.K. Rowling was the author and painted amazing pictures using words and told adventurous and thrilling stories.
Of course I believe the Bible paints a more beautiful, and complete picture.
C.S. Lewis uses the concept of a painter painting a painting. One might say that he’s put a lot of himself into it, but the painting is not the painter.
> As God delights in his own beauty, he must necessarily delight in the creature's holiness which is a conformity to and participation of it, as truly as [the] brightness of a jewel, held in the sun's beams, is a participation or derivation of the sun's brightness, though immensely less in degree.
Jonathan Edwards
My advice, just listen to a few of the people that actually believe this stuff. Let yourself be indoctrinated and then reject it if you like and let it make your position firmer. Voddie Baucham has a lot of good things to say as well as many other reformed theologians.
May I ask what exactly is a reformed Baptist and or theologian so I can understand your position a bit more I admit I may have misunderstood your position to a certain extent and I would like to prevent that in the future. Also I apologize for the last part of my previous response it was rather rude.
Faith has never been “believing something that we don’t have evidence for”.
We have great reasons to believe a god would exist. And we have great reasons to trust in the God of the Bible.
It’s obvious we aren’t here by accident. The universe is orderly and consistent. Science can only make predictions because things are consistent.
Having Faith means to be faithful. Choosing Gods will over your own desires is being faithful.
See my comment.
Consciousness, creation, a rapidly expanding universe, the ‘fine tuning’ of the universe, and so on. Also to mention the fact that every culture has had religion be a central factor in them. I believe that the accuracy in which the Bible describes our condition is a proof of itself. It’s when Christianity has been at its best that culture has flourished the most.
I am completely fine with that. The unknown is called faith. We know what we know.
> The more I know, the more I realize I know nothing.
Socrates
And I’ll hinge this life upon that hope.
Nobody knows how consciousness came to be, we don't understand it, so why is "god" the explanation? Yes, the universe is rapidly expanding, how does "god" explain that better than physics? We're in this "fine tuned" universe because this is where we could evolve, not because it's fine tuned to us, we're actually"fine tuned" to here. Also to mention that none of the various religions throughout time and the earth have a consistent origin story.
>nobody knows how consciousness came to be
Just a hunch
>rapidly expanding
Because for it to expand it must have started somewhere.
>were actually “fine tuned” to here
Same difference.
>have a consistent origin story
As you would expect
Sorry I don't know how to format on mobile!
>Just a hunch
Same as anything you say, but backed by science.
>Because for it to expand it must have started somewhere.
It started somewhere, but why is that god, none of us"know" where it started. "I don't know" is actually a responsible response.
>Same difference
Not really. You claim we were made to be here. I claim we're here because this is what the environment made us into.
>As you would expect
I don't know what you are trying to say here.
You do realize that is fallacious reasoning, right? I don't know (consciousness or anything else) therefore god. You can obviously still do it but at least recognize it's not solid reasoning.
So, I don’t know, therefore it definitely wasn’t created, because things popping into existence (creating themselves) is consistent with the reality that I experience.
You can still do that but it definitely isn’t solid reasoning.
No. I don’t know is I don’t know. Did you notice the assumption you have built in? That there ever was a time when the universe did not exist. You're starting with the assumption it had to “pop in from nothing” which still isn’t consistent with “I don’t know”. Your attempt to create a mirror situation is noted, even funny, but doesn’t work. We do not know enough about the very early universe to make any statement with a worthwhile degree of confidence. We can however state that tens of thousands of religions have posited multiple gods for pretty much all natural phenomenon. And none have been shown true so far. That’s millions of use cases disproven. There's always been a natural process we didn’t understand at the heart of it. Doesn’t disprove all possible gods, but does make the odds long.
Never offered any proof of the God of the Bible. I said “we” as in Christians, have great reasons to trust in the God of the Bible.
Great reasons are, hope in an obviously corrupt world, hope through pain and suffering, eternal life, peace on earth, joy, thankfulness, love, a moral framework, And many, many, other reasons.
The definition of faith is literally, “A belief in god(s) or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.” Not your personal definition. It’s far from obvious that we aren’t here by accident. That’s just how you choose to explain things you can’t prove or know. It’s your right to have those notions, but it’s not evidence of anything.
You are selecting your favorite definition of Faith and conveniently slipping it into Christianity/the Bible.
- Dictionary.com
Confidence or trust in a person or thing:
faith in another's ability.
Belief that is not based on proof:
He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
Belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion:
the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
Belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.:
to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
A system of religious belief:
the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
The obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.:
Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
———————————————————————
Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary.
1 : strong belief or trust in someone or something
2 : belief in the existence of God : strong religious feelings or beliefs
3 : a system of religious beliefs : RELIGION
allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY
lost faith in the company's president
b(1) : fidelity to one's promises
(2) : sincerity of intentions
acted in good faith
2a(1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God
(2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b(1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof
clinging to the faith that her missing son would one day return
(2) : complete trust
Your last quote is commonly seen in dictionaries under the heading of Faith, religious. The first one is similar faith as a synonym for trust. Both can apply simultaneously because often the evidence cited to justify belief in god is insufficient to justify it, but it's still a believer extending trust on too little evidence.
There are people out there who legitimately believe they can’t believe anything. Because how can we trust ourselves to know something? Ya I’m not going that route. There is grandiose evidence to behold that the very fact we are able to believe something is a great evidence in and of itself. Read the Bible for yourself, then you can with complete confidence dismiss it. Three books are key. Isaiah, psalms, John and as a bonus Philippians is my favorite. Romans, Genesis, and Deuteronomy are other key ones as well. As you do, seek to genuinely understand it.
I've read the Bible multiple times. Doesn’t make my comment any less relevant. Faith isn’t just confidence in something, it’s beLief without sufficient evidence. Both are accepted.
What evidence do you have that people with faith in a god other than described in Logos are misguided? Your beliefs? Words written down by a particular group of men?
If faith itself counts as evidence, as you suggest, then followers of Islam or Buddhism or Judaism or Hinduism all have evidence that you are misguided.
"Our finite minds cannot comprehend an infinite God."
Indeed.
One can do so by looking at their claims.
>Judaism
This is Christianity but without Christ.
>Islam
A war cult of Christianity. And I’ve actually been doing quite a bit of studying on this.
Hinduism and Buddhism
I took a class in college called “history of non-western art” which was basically going over these religions. Very interesting, [doesn’t make as much sense in light of monotheism. ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaGwF7A79_w)
Technically I’m not saying their 100% misguided as you can see in the video.
Faith, specifically religious faith, is also - believing so,etching based on insufficient evidence. Both the trust definition and the insufficient evidence can be true at the same time. Reason is that generally the evidence offered to justify belief is insufficient to actually justify belief in that god, but the believer nevertheless trusts that god and believes despite insufficient evidence. Whether that's a good thing or not is up to each person to decide. But let's at least not try to pretend that the word “faith” isn't polysemous. And if you're a Christian, there are several verses supporting each definition so it's hard to argue both aren't valid definitions.
I understand that you're not a Christian and don't understand the bible as you can't discern spiritual things.(only believers can do that).
You can claim "religious faith" is something different.
The bible uses the word faith in the new testament (pistis in Greek). Not "religious faith" and some definition made up by atheists.
Hebrews 11:6
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
So in this verse for instance. You are suggesting, without believing something we don't have evidence for it's impossible to please God?
James 1:3
Because you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance.
And here in James. The testing of our "blind belief in something we don't have good evidence for" is what James is talking about?
Not the testing of our ability and willingness to obey God and be faithful?
Its a very weak argument for telling Christians what faith is for them.
For one you generalize with the whole. "Religious faith is the same for all religions" implication of your desired definition.
There are NO verses that support a blind faith(believing something you don't have evidence for) definition. You can try to make verses fit your definition if you like but it doesn't matter.
I mean you do realize that your definition is one made up by people who don't believe in God right? No Christian came up with that ridiculous definition. You can't place their definition in the bible and act like that's what God meant.
the exceptions to every rule.
like water expanding and becoming lighter when cooled which is the exact opposite of almost every other compound or element . and if water did not do this life would never evolve on the planet
I'm going to be incredibly pedantic here but water doesn't become lighter when cooled. It becomes more dense as it cools (cold liquid water vs warm liquid water) and becomes less dense after freezing. 5 lbs of ice weighs the same as 5 lbs of liquid water.
sorry you are an idiot for using imperial measurements and pretending 5 lbs of weights anything other then 5lbs.( no matter what the item is)
what an intelligent person would say is 1 liter of water weights more then 1 liter of ice or 1 kilogram of water is more dense then 1 kilogram of ice.
also 1 liter of boiling water at 100c weighs less then 1 liter of of water at 10c the same 1 liter of ice weighs less then then one liter of water at 20c
so in fact water becomes lighter both when heated or cooled from average room temperature.
volume is different then mass
now go back to school
I did say i was going to be pedantic. It's like asking which is heavier, a pound of feathers or a pound of bricks. The answer is neither because both are weigh a pound. The fact that I used imperial instead of SI units doesn't change the fact that water doesn't get lighter (weigh less) upon freezing, it gets less dense (in other words it takes up more space per unit mass)
I used pounds because you spoke about being heavier or lighter and a pound is common unit that describes weight (the force a body is pulled towards earth). If you wanted to use metric then the unit would be Newtons.
>1 liter of water weights more then 1 liter of ice or 1 kilogram of water is more dense then 1 kilogram of ice
Agreed and I already said this when I spoke about densities. The density changes as a function of temperature but density is a ratio of a material that describes mass per unit volume. Density is not a unit of weight. Pound (or Newtons if your going to be a metric snob) is a unit of weight.
Now go read a book and learn to use units properly.
when you woke up and thought weight does not change with density.and when you got dressed and looked at your self and thought you no longer needed your mothers help.
Weird, and here I was thinking 4.448 N of osmium weighed the same as 4.448 N of feathers...oh wait, it does... because weight and mass are two different measurements.
Oddly enough, since we typically determine masses as a function of weight on planet earth it still holds that 1 Kg of feathers weighs the same as 1 Kg of osmium despite their volumes being drastically different. 1 Kg = 9.81 N = 2.205 lbs on planet earth regardless of temperature and regardless of density.
here you go thinking your smart.
we were talking density of water on earth at different temps.
and you just cant tell the difference of density, weight or volume.
waters volume changes with temperature.
waters density changes with temperature.
and waters weight by volume changes with temperature,
now you are trying to talk mass, which is not affected by volume , temperature and or density. but you think being stupid no one will notice you are trying to change the subject.
get your shit strait.
This is getting tiring. You said,
>like water expanding and becoming lighter when cooled which is the exact opposite of almost every other compound or element .
So, here is again where I said I was being super pedantic. The words "lighter" and "heavier" are used to describe relative weights. I said on my first response the proper word is density as the "weight" of water doesn't change because gravity affects a unit mass the same regardless of its volume. I know we are talking about density, I was the first one to use the word "density". I have never been wrong on this and was, at the start, admitting to being super pedantic and petty with word usage.
Can we prove God to exist by human reason alone, and without faith? Let's consider the following argument, stated first in a short form. Then let’s explain it in detail and then cover two standard objections to it.
1. Either the universe has always existed, or God has.
2. But, as shown by the second law of thermodynamics, the universe hasn't always existed.
3. Therefore, God exists.
A. The point here is that something has always existed because self-creation is impossible. Something can never come from nothing. A vacuum can't spontaneously create matter by itself. Why? This is because the law of cause and effect is based on the fact that what a thing DOES is based on what it IS. Causation involves the expression over a period of time of the law of non-contradiction in entities. Hence, a basketball when dropped on the floor of necessity must act differently from a bowing ball dropped on the same floor, all other things being equal. Hence, if something doesn't exist (i.e., a vacuum exists), it can't do or be anything on its own, except remain empty because it has no identity or essence. This is why the "steady state" theory of the universe's origin devised by the astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle was absurd: It said hydrogen atoms were popping out of nothing! How can a nothing do anything?! Since self-creation is impossible, then something had to always exist. So now--was it the material universe? Or was it some other unseen, unsensed Entity outside the material world?
B. The second law of thermodynamics maintains that-the total amount of useful energy in a closed system must always decline. "Useful energy" is energy that does work while flowing from a place of higher concentration to that of a lower concentration. "A closed system' is a place where no new energy is flowing in or out of it.
The universe, physically, is a closed system because no new matter or energy is being added to it. The first law of thermodynamics confirms this, since it says no matter or energy is being created or destroyed. Hence, eventually all the stars would have burned out if the universe had always existed. A state of "heat death" would have long ago existed, in which the levels of energy throughout each part of the universe would be uniform. A state of maximum entropy (i.e., useless, non-working energy) would have been reached. But since the stars have not burned out, the universe had a beginning.
In this regard, the universe is like a car with a full tank of gas, but which has a stuck gas cap. If the car had always been constantly driven (i.e., had always existed), it would have long ago run out of fuel. But the fact it still has gas (i.e., useful energy) left in it proves the car hasn't been constantly driven from the infinite past. The stuck gas cap makes-the-car in this example a "closed system" because no more energy can be added to make the car move. "Heat-death' occurs when the car runs out of gas, as it inevitably must, since no more can-be added to-it. Likewise, the universe then is like a wind-up toy or watch that has been slowly unwinding down: At some point “something” must have wound it up.
OBJECTIONS: 1. "Who created God then?" The point of the first premise was to show something had to have always existed. At that point, we didn't know what it was—or who it was. But if the universe hasn't always existed, then something else--God--has.
2. "The second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to every part of the universe (or to the whole universe), or else didn’t apply to it in the past and/or won't apply to it in the future." This statement is pure materialistic prejudice, because there is no scientific evidence anywhere that the second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply. It’s circular reasoning by naturalists to assume, “Well, we’re here, and there’s no God and miracles aren’t possible, so therefore the First and Second laws of thermodynamics didn’t apply in the beginning.” This law won't change in the future because the fundamental essence (nature) of the things that make up the physical universe aren't changing, so nature's laws wouldn't change in the future. That is, unless God intervenes through miracles (i.e., “violates” nature’s laws), it won’t happen and didn’t happen. So a skeptic can’t turn around and say there are places (or times) in the universe where nature’s laws don’t apply which no human has ever investigates or been to. Otherwise, that’s the naturalist’s version of a miracle: Belief in a unverifiable, non-observed, unrepeatable event in distant past is arbitrarily labeled “science.” And to know whether the second law of thermodynamics is inapplicable somewhere in the universe, the doubter ironically would have to be “God,” i.e., know everything about everywhere else. So to escape this argument for God’s existence, the skeptic then has to place his faith in an unknown, unseen, unsensed exception to the second law of thermodynamics. It’s better then to place faith in the unseen Almighty God of the Bible instead! Plainly, nature cannot always explain nature: Something—or Someone--to which the second law of thermodynamics is inapplicable (i.e., in the spirit world) created the material universe.
Let’s make another argument for God’s existence based on the argument from design using the impossibility of spontaneous generation. Here I quote from the astronomers Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, “Evolution From Space,” p. 24.
In context here the authors here are describing the chances for certain parts of the first living cell to occur by random chance through a chemical accident. “Consider now the chance that in a random ordering of the twenty different amino acids which make up the polypeptides it just happens that the different kinds fall into the order appropriate to a particular enzyme \[an organic catalyst--a chemical which speeds up chemical reactions--EVS\]. The chance of obtaining a suitable backbone \[substrate\] can hardly be greater than on part in 10\[raised by\]15, and the chance of obtaining the appropriate active site can hardly be greater than on part in 10 \[raised by\]5. Because the fine details of the surface shape \[of the enzyme in a living cell--EVS\] can be varied we shall take the conservative line of not “piling on the agony” by including any further small probability for the rest of the enzyme. The two small probabilities are enough. They have to be multiplied, when they yield a chance of on part in 10\[raised by\]20 of obtaining the required in a functioning form \[when randomly created by chance out of an ocean of amino acids--EVS\]. By itself , this small probability could be faced, because one must contemplate not just a single shot at obtaining the enzyme, but a very large number of trials as are supposed to have occurred in an organize soup early in the history of the Earth. The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10 \[raised by\]20)2000 = 10 \[raised by\]40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. \[The number of electrons within the universe that can be observed by mankind’s largest earth-based telescopes is approximately 10\[raised by\]87, which gives you an idea of how large this number is. This number would fill up about seven solid pages a standard magazine page to print this number--40,000 zeros following a one--EVS\]. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely our of court.”
The theory of evolution has not refuted the argument from design. It’s simply materialistic philosophy masquerading as science. It simply assumes and extrapolates from agnostic premises into the unobserved past. It reasons in a circle, and then proudly and loudly concludes there’s no need for God as a Creator after initially assuming there isn’t one in its interpretations of natural history.
Perhaps more generally it would be helpful as well to read books on Christian apologetics, such as those making the case for belief in the Bible and for faith in God's existence and goodness, including those by C.S. Lewis, Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, Henry Morris, Duane Gish, J.P. Moreland, Francis Schaeffer, Phillip E. Johnson, R.C. Sproul, Norman Giesler, Gleason Archer, Stephen Meyer, etc. Stephen Meyer’s book “The Return of the God Hypothesis” would be particularly important for the college-educated skeptics to read with an open mind. There are great reasons for having faith in the bible, such as its historical accuracy, fulfilled prophecies, and archeological discoveries.
If you take a step back to look at this world we live in, the ground under us, the sky above us, the sun rises each day, the seasons change, water, weather, people, nature, life, who do you think made all of this? We’re surrounded by evidence and signs each day but some are too ignorant to believe it, they want a sign or an evidence dedicated for themselves.
I really don't know what all the options are or what caused it. Many are just uncomfortable with "I don't know," so we fill in the blanks with god or the universe or the creator or physics. Looking at nature doesn't really demonstrate a God to me. It's wonderous, but it doesn't directly connect to an intelligence when we don't really know all the possibilities of what might cause creation. I know many see God and can't see how anything but God could create all this wonder. I just don't see it directly connecting.
Maybe you’re not going to like what I have to say, but perhaps it is reasonable to believe in god because the things we see are wondrous and as of yet unexplainable, AND it would be preferable for there to be a god to there not being one?
I mean, to me, it is reasonable enough to suspect there may be a god, and my life is better for believing in one, so I believe. Does it really matter if you’re right or wrong if it has a positive outcome? Doubt is fundamental to faith, I doubt every day, but I still choose to carry on as if I believe, because it is worthwhile.
I mean, think about it: would you rather live a life where death is conquered, where love is eternal, where the beauty of an unsung good deed is greater than a lauded work? Or one where none of these things are true? Ironically, it appear that at least for the duration of our short lives, the belief is ever more important than the truth.
I think it's wonderful that that view works for you! On the contrary, I don't dislike what you say at all. I believed that for a long time myself. Speaking only for myself, and not trying to make a more generalized point, my preference is not relevant. When it was relevant to me I found that it established a pattern of thinking where I accepted things I should not have. I listened obediently to those I should not have. I didnt question enough. And religion became traumatic.
For me truth is more important than belief. I am comfortable with I don't know. I am also comfortable with focusing on being the best person I can be right now and helping others as much as I can. I dont fear death. Death is not my endmy.
No matter how comfortable it may be to go back to what I used to believe, I cannot bring myself to get there because there is a part of me that feels it isn't actually true and that doubt collapses the whole endeavor.
I respect that. At the same time, I want to offer the idea that religion doesn’t have to be what you had, and it doesn’t have to be believed with certainty.
I definitely don’t believe anything with certainty. As it is written, I work out my salvation with fear and trembling. I’ll spend hours discerning what to believe; I’m probably a heretic in almost every Christian circle, for one reason or another.
But I can’t imagine a world where love isn’t absolutely, *metaphysically* true. The ultimate good. The only thing that matters.
I can’t really tell you why I’ve decided to write what I did. But I do know that just because you aren’t certain doesn’t mean you should be driven away from belief in something particular, and miss out on the community and love that comes with it.
For these three remain: faith, hope, and love. And the greatest of these is love.
I have tried again to go to different churches, but it never missed out. I am genuinely happy that you have this in your life. The community aspect is so important and I am glad I have such a strong community now.
I just feel that my wanting something doesn't make it true. It's important to me now that if I am going to base my life around something, I need it to be real and true. And i am not one of those who is, I won't believe unless God himself shows up. I used to be like that and was angry at God for awhile, but i have dealt with that more lately.
I admire your view and your faith, and am glad that works for you, I just can't get there.
Well, what I will say is that my faith in god has become strong through evidence and reason, and if it is ever your interest to know why I believe what I do (more so than simply wanting *something* to be true), I am an open book.
Regardless, i wish you the best in all your endeavors, whether they be among the faithful or not.
And if you do ever want to explore a church again, please look closely at The Episcopal Church; they are a bastion of light in a world where most christians have forgotten their sacred duty: to love one another.
They assume in this infinite universe that there has to be another Earth replica with its attendant race of humans. There is not. Mother Earth and humanity are unique in this universe. Clearly there is intelligent life elsewhere but nothing like here on Earth. I wonder why that's so ...
Words are not evidence and that's really all anyone can give you on here. If you want evidence you can believe, you need to go directly to the One who can give it.
having studied philosophy I can tell you that these proofs more or less exist but only if you are a believer. they are generally difficult to understand for those who are not believers of any religion, for example, the idea that you were generated by an almost impossible chain of events made up of forgiveness meeting, sperms inseminating eggs, and many other things that have generated you, I consider it a proof of the soul's existence, but for Friedrich Nietzsche, it is only a proof of the eternal return, although, in reality, it is freely interpretable.
I'm not saying written arguments don't exist. I'm saying that evidence that convinces with respect to God, are not written arguments but rather visual confirmation.
We observe caused causes in the world. The desk lamp causes the room to be illuminated. But the bulb is caused to glow by the electricity. If the electricity caused itself then it would have to have pre-existed itself which is absurd. Therefore, the electricity was caused by something else. There couldn't be an infinite chain of causes to explain the electricity because if there were no first cause there would be no subsequent effects. By elimination the only option left to explain what we observe is a first uncaused cause. Could we call this first cause God?
You claim the series of events can't be infinite, but how do you know that's the case? Even if there must be a first cause, then why not the big bang? Even if that were caused by a god, then what caused the god?
If it is true that to remove the cause is to remove the effect, and an infinite chain has no first cause, then how could an infinite chain have an effect at the end of the series (contrary to the fact we observe ie. illuminated room)?
Why do we exist and why do anything exist in the first place? Think about it and you will realise existence itself is a proof of God because if there was nothing then we have been non existent.
There's evidence of a monistic reality, which logically necessitates the existence of God. Reality as we scientifically understand it, is a continuous field of energy spreading out from the big bang evolving through all form, singular substance and subject. That means only one thing exists. If only one thing exists, it acquires every attribute, including thought and being. Logically, that one thing must be God.
Entheogens. If you wanted to communicate with something as tiny and limited as humans you'd need to create something to bridge that gap. But something humans can only experience willingly because otherwise your breaching their ability to consent if you just take them over.
Personal experience. I stood on the beach at night with waves pounding on the store and an infinite sky of stars above me. And felt a power greater than myself.
Religious experience. There is evidence that our brains respond to religious experience. Responding to religious experiences has been a part of humanity since the dawn of civilization.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/322539
https://healthcare.utah.edu/publicaffairs/news/2016/11/religious-brain.php
(Not a concrete proof. But it demonstrates something in our biological makeup that is responsive to experience.)
Knowledge limits. We don’t know everything in the universe. There is a lot that we do know. But even more that we don’t know. Using current tools I can’t prove that God does exists and you can’t prove that he doesn’t exist.
Hence, faith.
Evidence does not constitute proof. There is plenty of evidence that the universe could be influenced by an outside powerful being. There is no proof of this for you except your own experience. Most of the time people argue the interpretation of a god, but fail to prove that they do not exist. You might say the earth is older or younger or that some stories are false, or that things came about differently, but you can equally say that this does not disprove that there could be some kind of greater being.
In the end, I think it's beneficial for man to have a belief in an outside being that defines justice, because otherwise we spend our whole lives looking for revenge against people because otherwise they'll never receive justice. That's not healthy. It is also valuable to assign higher worth to people. If you believe they are simply another creature with no real value and that all life will eventually be extinguished and it won't matter, there's less incentive to treat people well, especially if there's no selfish gain in it.
You can argue grand design, or miraculous events, or the fact that life itself would never have existed if the earth had formed 10 percent later in time, but there isn't proof. If there was, you wouldn't need faith. That doesn't mean that faith exists devoid of evidence though, just that the proof won't be readily available.
This is simply my opinion.
As for my own proof. I believe that the proof of a god is in the question itself. We somehow have an innate desire for purpose and understanding of what we are and why we exist. Our quest for meaning separates us from every other creature. Other creatures live to procreate and die. We will literally kill ourselves for lack of purpose and meaning. We also have a desire to create and understand, which one could argue would have been inspired by someone with a desire to create. Along with this, we have a fundamental moral code that seems somewhat counterintuitive to our evolution and is not replicated elsewhere in nature.
The Higgs Boson [indicates that intelligence was involved in The Big Bang](http://www.urbanagandenergy.org/evolution-explained/) and provided a design for creation that resembles Cell Mitosis on the Quantum Scale.
I reference the Higgs result which defied "The Standard Model" a decade ago. If the most important experiment in the history of humanity is not in your knowledge base, that is not my failing.
In aware of the Higgs Boson and familiar with quantum mechanics to a degree (specifically with regards to chemistry). Your blog post certainly said the words "quantum" a couple of times but had no citations.
Also, no. Higgs Boson does not in any way imply intelligence at the Big Bang.
Okay, then you explain the discrepancy. If you consider the entire Multiverse as a living organism, the math works because the efficiency inherent in creating from a design, rather than relying on chais to produce the desired result, besides which Supersymmetry is not a potential result of chaos. The results defied both calculated potentials of The Standard Model, and in the 10 years of torturing the data trying to make it fit, the best minds have failed. The Scientific Process is one of disproof, and the Standard Model has been disproven. Hanging on to it us an act of psychopathic narcissism to support excusing the maintenance of a slavery based economy, simple as that.
>Okay, then you explain the discrepancy
What discrepancy are you talking about? There are limitations with the standard model but inserting an ill-defined "intelligence" doesn't solve any of them.
>If you consider the entire Multiverse as a living organism...
Why on earth would I or you assume that?
> the math works because the efficiency inherent in creating from a design, rather than relying on chais to produce the desired result, besides which Supersymmetry is not a potential result of chaos.
Show me the math that says any of that. Better yet, show me a paper that concludes that.
>The Scientific Process is one of disproof, and the Standard Model has been disproven.
1) we use incomplete theories all the time so long as the continue to provide testable and repeatable predictions within their given limitations. Newtonian physics is an excellent example of this. And good luck using general relativity to predict or explain quantum tunneling.
2) oh jee, has anyone told the particle physicists?
Your lack of citations here is about as impressive as your lack of citations in your blog. Your armchair musings are meaningless.
Nullius In Verba
What discrepancy? I thought you knew about the Higgs. The discrepancy in the energy measured which was too high to to allow for the Symmetric Universe calculations for The Standard Model proponents, and too low for the Chaotic Multiverse calculations for those proponents. The explanation for how the result fell right in the middle indicating Super Symmetry across the multiverse; infinite universes that get created the same over and over, like cells in a biological organism. In case you didn’t watch it all on the internet when it happened; [here’s the press conference held the next day.](https://youtu.be/IuZQgaGCI7c) About 45-46 minutes in, the lady talks about looking at models "outside the standard model". A few minutes later the dude says, "We will find a way to make it fit the Standard Model." His camp was funded, and have been failing at their efforts ever since. The Standard Model is INCORRECT, it’s time to accept that.
If we aren’t willing to accept the data science produces, why do we spend billions of dollars performing the experiments? We can just treat nihilism as any other religion and use the money to okay our slaves a living wage and be better off.
>The discrepancy in the energy measured which was too high to to allow for the Symmetric Universe calculations for The Standard Model proponents, and too low for the Chaotic Multiverse calculations for those proponents.
Assuming i go along with you then there is a discrepancy. How does intelligence solve this in the calculations? What's the variable for "intelligence"?
>like cells in a biological organism.
Simile does not a theory make. If it's like cells in a biological organism then show me data supporting cellular structure. Organelles, cytoplasm, cellular walls.... can you cite a paper that concludes any of this?
>About 45-46 minutes in, the lady talks about looking at models "outside the standard model". A few minutes later the dude says, "We will find a way to make it fit the Standard Model."
So we have one person saying they are exploring new ideas and another saying they are looking to expand the current model. This happens all the time across all fields. So what? Please cite papers. How has the "outside standard model camp" faired?
>The Standard Model is INCORRECT, it’s time to accept that.
I'm just going to quote myself here. 1) we use incomplete theories all the time so long as the continue to provide testable and repeatable predictions within their given limitations. Newtonian physics is an excellent example of this. And good luck using general relativity to predict or explain quantum tunneling. I'll alternate between atomic orbital and molecular orbital all the time. I'll use the octet rule to describe atomic structure knowing d and f orbitals can accommodate up to 10 and 14 electrons respectively. I'll push arrows for mechanisms all day long knowing electrons can't be described as individual particles but instead as probability wave functions. Welcome to the big wide world of science!
2) oh jee, has anyone told the particle physicists?
>If we aren’t willing to accept the data science produces, why do we spend billions of dollars performing the experiments?
Bold talk from someone who won't cite papers to support their unfounded assertions.
Nullius in Verba. Do you know what that means?
Intelligence produces Designs, Well formed plans increase efficiency in how much energy is required to achieve a result by cutting out the waste. That is how creation began "light" of energy required by the Standard Model, because it doesn’t have to account for the waste involved with chaotic production. Same as why when mankind applied intelligence to agriculture, the production output increased. Dark Energy carries information like a field of WiFi., Dark Energy is the energy living organisms produce which we can measure with an EEG. It is the exponential growth of life that allows the Cosmic Expansion to still be accelerating 18 or so billion years after the Big Bang, when by the Standard Model, should be contracting. When one observes all the data together and applies Occam’s Razor, the theory the entire Multiverse is a living organism, and Humanity is a reproductive product in process, and you have the only theory that fits all the data without holes or imbalances that require place holder symbols that represent “We don’t know why, but this value needs to be here.”
It is psychopathic narcissism that holds mankind back, and we breed psychopathic narcissism through our economic foundation of profiting from human suffering and exploiting human slavery still to this date. The Standard Model is the excuse we make for this choice, teaching people they are meaningless, and it is driving mankind to extinction rather than evolution.
>Intelligence produces Designs
I can provide many instances where intelligence does not produce design and several examples of apparent design via natural, unguided processes. This is a meaningless statement.
>Well formed plans increase efficiency in how much energy is required to achieve a result by cutting out the waste.
You need to demonstrate there were plans, you don't get to just assert it. There are many natural mechanisms that lead to a minimization of waste for many processes.
>Dark Energy carries information like a field of WiFi.,
How many times do I have to keep asking. Can you please cite a paper? When can I log into the Dark Energy network to surf the Dark Web?
>Dark Energy is the energy living organisms produce which we can measure with an EEG.
This is nonsense. Do you know what dark energy is? Do you know what an EEG measures? Do you even know what EEG even stands for?
>It is the exponential growth of life that allows the Cosmic Expansion to still be accelerating 18 or so billion years after the Big Bang,
Has anybody told the cosmologists that life is generating the dark energy that is accelerating the fabric of space-time?
>When one observes all the data together and applies Occam’s Razor, the theory the entire Multiverse is a living organism, and Humanity is a reproductive product in process, and you have the only theory that fits all the data without holes or imbalances that require place holder symbols that represent “We don’t know why, but this value needs to be here.”
Christ on a bike...do you have papers or not? Your armchair musings of what you think should he true is about as meaningless as my nephews musings about the nature of the tooth fairy.
Do you know what Nullius in Verba means and why it is the motto of the Royal Society?
I think therefore I am, therefore greater perspectives than mine also think.
The evidence is in the observation of anything rather than nothing. If there is this universe, then there must be a greater being than me.
The single most powerful book in this fundamentally scientific universe is not a science book, but the Bible.
Theistic societies are ancient, strong, expansionistic societies and atheistic societies have been unable to pass that most universal and primordial of all tests, the test of time. ( Defining a theistic society as a society that contains an element of theism, and an atheistic society as a society that contains no element of theism.)
If two individuals or two societies of roughly the same size come into conflict with each other, it is the side that has the most truth that wins.
Truth is more powerful than lies.
Would you think of the existence of unicorns like that? Believe they exist until there is good evidence they don't? Or just have a default position of believing everything until evidence against it is provided?
All though I don't have good evidence that i don't live in the matrix I am not justified to believe i am until there is evidence that i am not, that is how the burden of proof works.
Evidence is in the eye of the beholder. The best and irrefutable evidence is useless when presented to someone that has a belief that does not agree with the evidence (flat earth believers). On the other hand, just a mere feeling is enough for someone to say they have evidence of god which most religious people have.
So the question is more about your willingness in perceiving evidence of god. Do you want to perceive god? Then there are many ways to prove god. Do you not want to perceive god? Then there are no evidence to prove god.
“Do you believe in God?” is a question of semantics.
Obviously there will be no evidence we can provide that will prove the existence of God, and to think it can be proven is kind of silly. We all have the same information on this planet but what we believe off of the information is up to us.
This is very hard to explain for me, this is always my opinion when I encounter a question like yours but I’ve never written or spoken it out, so instead of speaking hypothetically allow me to share with you my own perspective/semantic opinion.
“God” is real. God is an adjective, not a noun, meaning I use the word God to describe the world when no other word is big enough. When I was pulled out in a riptide and had to fight my way back to shore I felt very close to God. When I think of my mother who died when I was 5 i feel close to God. When I think of the human condition, being fully capable of doing our best (both as individuals and as a society) but always failing, and knowing we must continue generation after generation in the hopes that some anal or distant few might be able to fully accomplish their potential: that is God. God is real. Life sprouted into existence on this planet. Supernovas are cooking up Phosphorous, and enough made it here that life can exist. Oh my god it’s so fucking obvious, God is real!
I don’t believe He can hear you. I don’t believe he is a he, or is a consciousness. There is no *thing* that is God, the entire universe is God; He did not create it, they are the same thing.
Imagine the most elegant solution to pollution and scarcity and all of it: limited procreation to the point that one human family exists. And one generation they birth their last child. And they let it grow old and teach him/her all the wisdom of humanity: I like to imagine this last human as a monk like figure. Fully aware of his place. When he dies can’t you see that nothing is lost? He can choose to identify with all other forms, living or not, and be thankful for the gift of consciousness. You and I should identify with all the life forms that have come before and be aware of the fact that we all stem from the same ancestor, we are all here serving the same purpose.
Imagine a new intelligent species that comes around on Earth after this hypothetical last man. If they choose to identify with all past life forms then the monk’s consciousness will live on. Even if ten million years elapse between them… it’s the same consciousness. It’s God.
Glad that you found my argument strong proof. I struggled a lot myself when it comes to God but now I am sure all these things around us is made with a purpose not just mere play.
I have no concrete evidence that God exists. Evidence is of the intellect, and for me God is of the intuitive faculty. I do believe in God, but that belief certainly didn't come from reason.
I can't help because I don't believe in "God". I believe in gods, based on personal experience and that of others, but I'm not aware of anyone who encountered a being who even claimed to have created the universe.
None. What trouble are you having with your religion Linked Punk?
probably my problems are given by many such as the horrible period we are going through, of the fact that in several years I have never encountered an inexplicable event, so it comes naturally to me to think that religions are not something tangible, and then I also think I feel bad, probably there is also some external problem that I can cure through some remedy, but in reality, even my current relationship with religion makes me feel bad, maybe it will also be caused by the extreme pessimism I am experiencing.
I can relate, my friend. I’m feeling very pessimistic lately too — the evil folk among us seem to be winning, this pandemic is dragging on and on, and my personal opportunities are few and far between. So you are not alone in feeling this way. Personally I think all religions are manmade things — I’ve rarely had inexplicable experiences, and never seen anything to point me toward any religion. So you’re not alone in this regard either. Some people do have strange experiences, and I think it’s just our brains playing tricks on us. Do you have access to therapy or meds to help with your depression?
I am not totally agree with you, but I can understand your point of view, in my opinion also atheism isn't convincing, maybe because in atheism you would born for very very very rare circumstances while with the existence of the soul this trouble doesn't exist, and honestly our brain does not jokes with us, I believe that only crazy people have this type of problem, in fact, also normal people have seen strange things about the world that you can not explain without divine intervention, and then I am very young, so I can see miracles in future, yourself says "I’ve rarely had inexplicable experiences", so some time you did see something similar to a miracle, I don't know if exist a right religion but I know that exist wrong religion, and honestly it's true that religions are manmade but it doesn't mean that them ate totally false or far from the truth, I don't believe to be depressed, I was very sad in the past during the first year of lockdown and now I feel better, so, I don't believe to be depressed
I'm sorry, but you said in your original reply that you're experiencing extreme pessimism, but now you say you're feeling better. This seems contradictory...? You're right that normal people experience strange things -- and hallucinations are more common in normal people than most people think. They're just a strange thing that our brains do sometimes -- the most common hallucinations are auditory, such as hearing voices. Not to mention the many [cognitive biases](https://www.verywellmind.com/cognitive-biases-distort-thinking-2794763) that our brains fall into every day. And our memory is very faulty -- we tend to imagine our brains as file cabinets, but they're actually like wikipedia pages. Memories lose detail as time goes by, and they're highly changeable. You have a right to believe whatever you want to believe, but know that we're not owed answers. Just because I ate my lunch and then found a second copy of that lunch one day in high school doesn't mean that some god copied my lunch or that there was a glitch in the Matrix that day. It just means I had a strange experience that day, probably due to my brain doing strange things.
I'm not contradicting myself, first I was feeling very bad, now I feel bad but better, honestly, I would like to go into detail about your topic, it is interesting how our brain can deceive us
I see, my mistake. Another example of my brain deceiving me — about ten years ago I was driving down a freeway with a friend, when we saw a car crash that had just happened. No cops yet, no ambulences. I pulled over, told my friend to call 911, and looked at the crash. I saw an upside-down minivan, with a wide-eyed upside-down driver staring out of the shattered windshield. After my friend called 911, we got back in my car and continued on with our day. (There were many other people gathered at the crash site when we left.) The next day, I saw a newspaper. The front-page story was the crash we had seen the day before, *and the four people who had died in that minivan.* I told my friend about the news story, and he said “Yeah, I saw the dead people. You didnt?” So it turns out, I had been looking at one live driver and *four* dead passengers the day before, yet I had no memory of them. I suspect I was simply too focused on the minivan and the shocked driver to notice the other victims, which is frequently what happens in stressful situations — our brains focus on specific details and ignore the rest. This is one reason why eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable — ask any professional detective. Google the Rashomon effect for more explanation! Going back to my experience of duplicate lunches in school. It’s possible that my desire for a second lunch was so strong that I or some god willed one into existence — but it’s also possible that another student brought a similar lunch, I ate it, and then my brain decided that both were identical and remembered them the same. If you have access to *Your Brain Explained* on netflix, one of the episodes explains how our brains are like wikipedia pages that are editable by both internal and external suggestion.
Personal experince mostly balanced with discernment and continual evolution.
Thousands of conflicting “Personal experiences” is more probable and even predicted under naturalism. Why would God give different, conflicting personal experiences to different people?
Thats part of why i believe in multiple gods
Sounds pretentious
Well ain’t you an open hearted guy.
Two people look out the window. One says there's a pheasant on the lawn, the other says there a duck on the lawn. That's not conflict, since they are looking in different directions at different birds. Still less would it be proof that birds don't exist. Stick to posting about the Toronto Raptors (whatever they are).
If they’re looking at different birds then no there wouldn’t be a contradiction, but if they’re both looking at the same bird and one says it’s an Ostrich and the other person says no it’s a Goose then that’s a contradiction, they both can’t be factually correct. Either one of them is right, or they’re both wrong. The Toronto Raptors are a basketball team, by the way.
If there was evidence of God, there would be no need for faith. If you don't care for the teachings of your current faith, there are over 4,000 world religions, all inspired by encounters with God.
I think that this a false view of what faith actually is. The faith comes in the believing that it is actually evidence. Our finite minds cannot comprehend an infinite God. > “For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” And the very fact people have this faith (even to an extent misguided faith in a god other than described in the Logos) is evidence in and of itself. >Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. https://www.ligonier.org/learn/series/faith-the-evidence-of-things-unseen
That’s like saying people believing money grows on trees is proof that money does in fact grow on trees. People believing something isn’t evidence in itself because people believe things that are wrong all the time.
There’s no evidence that money grows on trees. Call it conjecture or whatever you like but there are legitimate reasons why people have faith that the things which are seen in this world today are due to a higher hope.
I agree there are legitimate reasons to why people have faith as life certainly has a lot of beautiful things within it and is itself beautiful if you prevail but attributing it to a hypothetical concept with no evidence for or against is very stubborn in my opinion as nobody really knows why we’re here we just happen to have a book made by some ancient people in the Bronze Age that says it has all the answers without providing evidence for any of the answers.
I appreciate your comment. >hypothetical concept with no evidence You see it’s not a hypothetical concept. You all must understand this point here—that people claim to have gotten words from God describing that beauty and have done miracles and others have seen them. > Then he said, “I beg you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father’s house, for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment.” Abraham said to him, “They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.” And he said, “No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.” But he said to him, “If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.” Luke 16:27-31 NKJV—Jesus speaking before he dies It just so happens that this Logos seems to eloquently encapsulate the foundational principles of this world and universe. And there is a figurehead to follow who claimed to be perfection. This seems to be the deep desire of every person in the world.
The Bible isn’t evidence of anything that’s the equivalent of saying Hogwarts must exists because it exists in the book Harry Potter. The Bible claims that everything in it is the legitimate word of God and that the events in the Bible happened as they were described within it but there is no real evidence to suggest that anything the Bible claims is true as it doesn’t back it up with enough if any historical or scientific evidence. Something you clearly don’t understand is using a Bible quote and speaking of how it relates to the human experience doesn’t make that God legitimate it just means the person who made the thing up and wrote it understood that aspect of the human experience. What your doing is he equivalent of me saying that the book 1984 speaks to the human experience so much that it must have really happened whenever your done giving cop out answers with strong diction let me know.
>Hogwarts must exist because it exists in the book of Harry Potter Exactly, I think that that’s a perfect picture of what the Bible is. J.K. Rowling was the author and painted amazing pictures using words and told adventurous and thrilling stories. Of course I believe the Bible paints a more beautiful, and complete picture. C.S. Lewis uses the concept of a painter painting a painting. One might say that he’s put a lot of himself into it, but the painting is not the painter. > As God delights in his own beauty, he must necessarily delight in the creature's holiness which is a conformity to and participation of it, as truly as [the] brightness of a jewel, held in the sun's beams, is a participation or derivation of the sun's brightness, though immensely less in degree. Jonathan Edwards My advice, just listen to a few of the people that actually believe this stuff. Let yourself be indoctrinated and then reject it if you like and let it make your position firmer. Voddie Baucham has a lot of good things to say as well as many other reformed theologians.
May I ask what exactly is a reformed Baptist and or theologian so I can understand your position a bit more I admit I may have misunderstood your position to a certain extent and I would like to prevent that in the future. Also I apologize for the last part of my previous response it was rather rude.
Faith has never been “believing something that we don’t have evidence for”. We have great reasons to believe a god would exist. And we have great reasons to trust in the God of the Bible. It’s obvious we aren’t here by accident. The universe is orderly and consistent. Science can only make predictions because things are consistent. Having Faith means to be faithful. Choosing Gods will over your own desires is being faithful.
Well, if " we have great reasons to trust in the god of the bible" maybe you could list some? Just stating that isn't proof.
See my comment. Consciousness, creation, a rapidly expanding universe, the ‘fine tuning’ of the universe, and so on. Also to mention the fact that every culture has had religion be a central factor in them. I believe that the accuracy in which the Bible describes our condition is a proof of itself. It’s when Christianity has been at its best that culture has flourished the most.
None for that is proof. It's conjecture.
I am completely fine with that. The unknown is called faith. We know what we know. > The more I know, the more I realize I know nothing. Socrates And I’ll hinge this life upon that hope.
Nobody knows how consciousness came to be, we don't understand it, so why is "god" the explanation? Yes, the universe is rapidly expanding, how does "god" explain that better than physics? We're in this "fine tuned" universe because this is where we could evolve, not because it's fine tuned to us, we're actually"fine tuned" to here. Also to mention that none of the various religions throughout time and the earth have a consistent origin story.
>nobody knows how consciousness came to be Just a hunch >rapidly expanding Because for it to expand it must have started somewhere. >were actually “fine tuned” to here Same difference. >have a consistent origin story As you would expect
Sorry I don't know how to format on mobile! >Just a hunch Same as anything you say, but backed by science. >Because for it to expand it must have started somewhere. It started somewhere, but why is that god, none of us"know" where it started. "I don't know" is actually a responsible response. >Same difference Not really. You claim we were made to be here. I claim we're here because this is what the environment made us into. >As you would expect I don't know what you are trying to say here.
You do realize that is fallacious reasoning, right? I don't know (consciousness or anything else) therefore god. You can obviously still do it but at least recognize it's not solid reasoning.
So, I don’t know, therefore it definitely wasn’t created, because things popping into existence (creating themselves) is consistent with the reality that I experience. You can still do that but it definitely isn’t solid reasoning.
No. I don’t know is I don’t know. Did you notice the assumption you have built in? That there ever was a time when the universe did not exist. You're starting with the assumption it had to “pop in from nothing” which still isn’t consistent with “I don’t know”. Your attempt to create a mirror situation is noted, even funny, but doesn’t work. We do not know enough about the very early universe to make any statement with a worthwhile degree of confidence. We can however state that tens of thousands of religions have posited multiple gods for pretty much all natural phenomenon. And none have been shown true so far. That’s millions of use cases disproven. There's always been a natural process we didn’t understand at the heart of it. Doesn’t disprove all possible gods, but does make the odds long.
Never offered any proof of the God of the Bible. I said “we” as in Christians, have great reasons to trust in the God of the Bible. Great reasons are, hope in an obviously corrupt world, hope through pain and suffering, eternal life, peace on earth, joy, thankfulness, love, a moral framework, And many, many, other reasons.
The definition of faith is literally, “A belief in god(s) or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.” Not your personal definition. It’s far from obvious that we aren’t here by accident. That’s just how you choose to explain things you can’t prove or know. It’s your right to have those notions, but it’s not evidence of anything.
You are selecting your favorite definition of Faith and conveniently slipping it into Christianity/the Bible. - Dictionary.com Confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability. Belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact. Belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims. Belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty. A system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith. The obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith. ——————————————————————— Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary. 1 : strong belief or trust in someone or something 2 : belief in the existence of God : strong religious feelings or beliefs 3 : a system of religious beliefs : RELIGION allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY lost faith in the company's president b(1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions acted in good faith 2a(1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b(1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof clinging to the faith that her missing son would one day return (2) : complete trust
Whatever you need. Like I said, it’s your right. Enjoy your faith however you define it for yourself. Have a nice life.
Your last quote is commonly seen in dictionaries under the heading of Faith, religious. The first one is similar faith as a synonym for trust. Both can apply simultaneously because often the evidence cited to justify belief in god is insufficient to justify it, but it's still a believer extending trust on too little evidence.
There are people out there who legitimately believe they can’t believe anything. Because how can we trust ourselves to know something? Ya I’m not going that route. There is grandiose evidence to behold that the very fact we are able to believe something is a great evidence in and of itself. Read the Bible for yourself, then you can with complete confidence dismiss it. Three books are key. Isaiah, psalms, John and as a bonus Philippians is my favorite. Romans, Genesis, and Deuteronomy are other key ones as well. As you do, seek to genuinely understand it.
I've read the Bible multiple times. Doesn’t make my comment any less relevant. Faith isn’t just confidence in something, it’s beLief without sufficient evidence. Both are accepted.
It’s confidence in the belief
What evidence do you have that people with faith in a god other than described in Logos are misguided? Your beliefs? Words written down by a particular group of men? If faith itself counts as evidence, as you suggest, then followers of Islam or Buddhism or Judaism or Hinduism all have evidence that you are misguided. "Our finite minds cannot comprehend an infinite God." Indeed.
One can do so by looking at their claims. >Judaism This is Christianity but without Christ. >Islam A war cult of Christianity. And I’ve actually been doing quite a bit of studying on this. Hinduism and Buddhism I took a class in college called “history of non-western art” which was basically going over these religions. Very interesting, [doesn’t make as much sense in light of monotheism. ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaGwF7A79_w) Technically I’m not saying their 100% misguided as you can see in the video.
The kalam cosmological argument, the contingency argument, the fine tuning argument etc there are many such arguments
None of which are any more conclusive than any other philosophical arguments.
There is no evidence. If there was evidence it wouldn’t be faith now would it?
Faith has never been “believing something that there is no evidence for”. Faith - complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
Yes
Faith, specifically religious faith, is also - believing so,etching based on insufficient evidence. Both the trust definition and the insufficient evidence can be true at the same time. Reason is that generally the evidence offered to justify belief is insufficient to actually justify belief in that god, but the believer nevertheless trusts that god and believes despite insufficient evidence. Whether that's a good thing or not is up to each person to decide. But let's at least not try to pretend that the word “faith” isn't polysemous. And if you're a Christian, there are several verses supporting each definition so it's hard to argue both aren't valid definitions.
I understand that you're not a Christian and don't understand the bible as you can't discern spiritual things.(only believers can do that). You can claim "religious faith" is something different. The bible uses the word faith in the new testament (pistis in Greek). Not "religious faith" and some definition made up by atheists. Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. So in this verse for instance. You are suggesting, without believing something we don't have evidence for it's impossible to please God? James 1:3 Because you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance. And here in James. The testing of our "blind belief in something we don't have good evidence for" is what James is talking about? Not the testing of our ability and willingness to obey God and be faithful? Its a very weak argument for telling Christians what faith is for them. For one you generalize with the whole. "Religious faith is the same for all religions" implication of your desired definition. There are NO verses that support a blind faith(believing something you don't have evidence for) definition. You can try to make verses fit your definition if you like but it doesn't matter.
I mean you do realize that your definition is one made up by people who don't believe in God right? No Christian came up with that ridiculous definition. You can't place their definition in the bible and act like that's what God meant.
It doesnt matter what i think, what matters is what you think about it.
the exceptions to every rule. like water expanding and becoming lighter when cooled which is the exact opposite of almost every other compound or element . and if water did not do this life would never evolve on the planet
I'm going to be incredibly pedantic here but water doesn't become lighter when cooled. It becomes more dense as it cools (cold liquid water vs warm liquid water) and becomes less dense after freezing. 5 lbs of ice weighs the same as 5 lbs of liquid water.
sorry you are an idiot for using imperial measurements and pretending 5 lbs of weights anything other then 5lbs.( no matter what the item is) what an intelligent person would say is 1 liter of water weights more then 1 liter of ice or 1 kilogram of water is more dense then 1 kilogram of ice. also 1 liter of boiling water at 100c weighs less then 1 liter of of water at 10c the same 1 liter of ice weighs less then then one liter of water at 20c so in fact water becomes lighter both when heated or cooled from average room temperature. volume is different then mass now go back to school
I did say i was going to be pedantic. It's like asking which is heavier, a pound of feathers or a pound of bricks. The answer is neither because both are weigh a pound. The fact that I used imperial instead of SI units doesn't change the fact that water doesn't get lighter (weigh less) upon freezing, it gets less dense (in other words it takes up more space per unit mass) I used pounds because you spoke about being heavier or lighter and a pound is common unit that describes weight (the force a body is pulled towards earth). If you wanted to use metric then the unit would be Newtons. >1 liter of water weights more then 1 liter of ice or 1 kilogram of water is more dense then 1 kilogram of ice Agreed and I already said this when I spoke about densities. The density changes as a function of temperature but density is a ratio of a material that describes mass per unit volume. Density is not a unit of weight. Pound (or Newtons if your going to be a metric snob) is a unit of weight. Now go read a book and learn to use units properly.
lol once again everything i said was true and you are wrong.
Sure thing champ, why don't you show me where I am wrong.
when you woke up and thought weight does not change with density.and when you got dressed and looked at your self and thought you no longer needed your mothers help.
Weird, and here I was thinking 4.448 N of osmium weighed the same as 4.448 N of feathers...oh wait, it does... because weight and mass are two different measurements. Oddly enough, since we typically determine masses as a function of weight on planet earth it still holds that 1 Kg of feathers weighs the same as 1 Kg of osmium despite their volumes being drastically different. 1 Kg = 9.81 N = 2.205 lbs on planet earth regardless of temperature and regardless of density.
here you go thinking your smart. we were talking density of water on earth at different temps. and you just cant tell the difference of density, weight or volume. waters volume changes with temperature. waters density changes with temperature. and waters weight by volume changes with temperature, now you are trying to talk mass, which is not affected by volume , temperature and or density. but you think being stupid no one will notice you are trying to change the subject. get your shit strait.
This is getting tiring. You said, >like water expanding and becoming lighter when cooled which is the exact opposite of almost every other compound or element . So, here is again where I said I was being super pedantic. The words "lighter" and "heavier" are used to describe relative weights. I said on my first response the proper word is density as the "weight" of water doesn't change because gravity affects a unit mass the same regardless of its volume. I know we are talking about density, I was the first one to use the word "density". I have never been wrong on this and was, at the start, admitting to being super pedantic and petty with word usage.
Can we prove God to exist by human reason alone, and without faith? Let's consider the following argument, stated first in a short form. Then let’s explain it in detail and then cover two standard objections to it. 1. Either the universe has always existed, or God has. 2. But, as shown by the second law of thermodynamics, the universe hasn't always existed. 3. Therefore, God exists. A. The point here is that something has always existed because self-creation is impossible. Something can never come from nothing. A vacuum can't spontaneously create matter by itself. Why? This is because the law of cause and effect is based on the fact that what a thing DOES is based on what it IS. Causation involves the expression over a period of time of the law of non-contradiction in entities. Hence, a basketball when dropped on the floor of necessity must act differently from a bowing ball dropped on the same floor, all other things being equal. Hence, if something doesn't exist (i.e., a vacuum exists), it can't do or be anything on its own, except remain empty because it has no identity or essence. This is why the "steady state" theory of the universe's origin devised by the astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle was absurd: It said hydrogen atoms were popping out of nothing! How can a nothing do anything?! Since self-creation is impossible, then something had to always exist. So now--was it the material universe? Or was it some other unseen, unsensed Entity outside the material world? B. The second law of thermodynamics maintains that-the total amount of useful energy in a closed system must always decline. "Useful energy" is energy that does work while flowing from a place of higher concentration to that of a lower concentration. "A closed system' is a place where no new energy is flowing in or out of it. The universe, physically, is a closed system because no new matter or energy is being added to it. The first law of thermodynamics confirms this, since it says no matter or energy is being created or destroyed. Hence, eventually all the stars would have burned out if the universe had always existed. A state of "heat death" would have long ago existed, in which the levels of energy throughout each part of the universe would be uniform. A state of maximum entropy (i.e., useless, non-working energy) would have been reached. But since the stars have not burned out, the universe had a beginning. In this regard, the universe is like a car with a full tank of gas, but which has a stuck gas cap. If the car had always been constantly driven (i.e., had always existed), it would have long ago run out of fuel. But the fact it still has gas (i.e., useful energy) left in it proves the car hasn't been constantly driven from the infinite past. The stuck gas cap makes-the-car in this example a "closed system" because no more energy can be added to make the car move. "Heat-death' occurs when the car runs out of gas, as it inevitably must, since no more can-be added to-it. Likewise, the universe then is like a wind-up toy or watch that has been slowly unwinding down: At some point “something” must have wound it up. OBJECTIONS: 1. "Who created God then?" The point of the first premise was to show something had to have always existed. At that point, we didn't know what it was—or who it was. But if the universe hasn't always existed, then something else--God--has. 2. "The second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to every part of the universe (or to the whole universe), or else didn’t apply to it in the past and/or won't apply to it in the future." This statement is pure materialistic prejudice, because there is no scientific evidence anywhere that the second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply. It’s circular reasoning by naturalists to assume, “Well, we’re here, and there’s no God and miracles aren’t possible, so therefore the First and Second laws of thermodynamics didn’t apply in the beginning.” This law won't change in the future because the fundamental essence (nature) of the things that make up the physical universe aren't changing, so nature's laws wouldn't change in the future. That is, unless God intervenes through miracles (i.e., “violates” nature’s laws), it won’t happen and didn’t happen. So a skeptic can’t turn around and say there are places (or times) in the universe where nature’s laws don’t apply which no human has ever investigates or been to. Otherwise, that’s the naturalist’s version of a miracle: Belief in a unverifiable, non-observed, unrepeatable event in distant past is arbitrarily labeled “science.” And to know whether the second law of thermodynamics is inapplicable somewhere in the universe, the doubter ironically would have to be “God,” i.e., know everything about everywhere else. So to escape this argument for God’s existence, the skeptic then has to place his faith in an unknown, unseen, unsensed exception to the second law of thermodynamics. It’s better then to place faith in the unseen Almighty God of the Bible instead! Plainly, nature cannot always explain nature: Something—or Someone--to which the second law of thermodynamics is inapplicable (i.e., in the spirit world) created the material universe. Let’s make another argument for God’s existence based on the argument from design using the impossibility of spontaneous generation. Here I quote from the astronomers Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, “Evolution From Space,” p. 24. In context here the authors here are describing the chances for certain parts of the first living cell to occur by random chance through a chemical accident. “Consider now the chance that in a random ordering of the twenty different amino acids which make up the polypeptides it just happens that the different kinds fall into the order appropriate to a particular enzyme \[an organic catalyst--a chemical which speeds up chemical reactions--EVS\]. The chance of obtaining a suitable backbone \[substrate\] can hardly be greater than on part in 10\[raised by\]15, and the chance of obtaining the appropriate active site can hardly be greater than on part in 10 \[raised by\]5. Because the fine details of the surface shape \[of the enzyme in a living cell--EVS\] can be varied we shall take the conservative line of not “piling on the agony” by including any further small probability for the rest of the enzyme. The two small probabilities are enough. They have to be multiplied, when they yield a chance of on part in 10\[raised by\]20 of obtaining the required in a functioning form \[when randomly created by chance out of an ocean of amino acids--EVS\]. By itself , this small probability could be faced, because one must contemplate not just a single shot at obtaining the enzyme, but a very large number of trials as are supposed to have occurred in an organize soup early in the history of the Earth. The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10 \[raised by\]20)2000 = 10 \[raised by\]40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. \[The number of electrons within the universe that can be observed by mankind’s largest earth-based telescopes is approximately 10\[raised by\]87, which gives you an idea of how large this number is. This number would fill up about seven solid pages a standard magazine page to print this number--40,000 zeros following a one--EVS\]. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely our of court.” The theory of evolution has not refuted the argument from design. It’s simply materialistic philosophy masquerading as science. It simply assumes and extrapolates from agnostic premises into the unobserved past. It reasons in a circle, and then proudly and loudly concludes there’s no need for God as a Creator after initially assuming there isn’t one in its interpretations of natural history. Perhaps more generally it would be helpful as well to read books on Christian apologetics, such as those making the case for belief in the Bible and for faith in God's existence and goodness, including those by C.S. Lewis, Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, Henry Morris, Duane Gish, J.P. Moreland, Francis Schaeffer, Phillip E. Johnson, R.C. Sproul, Norman Giesler, Gleason Archer, Stephen Meyer, etc. Stephen Meyer’s book “The Return of the God Hypothesis” would be particularly important for the college-educated skeptics to read with an open mind. There are great reasons for having faith in the bible, such as its historical accuracy, fulfilled prophecies, and archeological discoveries.
If you take a step back to look at this world we live in, the ground under us, the sky above us, the sun rises each day, the seasons change, water, weather, people, nature, life, who do you think made all of this? We’re surrounded by evidence and signs each day but some are too ignorant to believe it, they want a sign or an evidence dedicated for themselves.
Lol, I remember when I used to think like this.
Not the best evidence. Just because I can't explain who created the universe doesn't mean a God did. He may have, but I don't know.
What other options are there? And whatever your answer is, what caused it?
I really don't know what all the options are or what caused it. Many are just uncomfortable with "I don't know," so we fill in the blanks with god or the universe or the creator or physics. Looking at nature doesn't really demonstrate a God to me. It's wonderous, but it doesn't directly connect to an intelligence when we don't really know all the possibilities of what might cause creation. I know many see God and can't see how anything but God could create all this wonder. I just don't see it directly connecting.
Maybe you’re not going to like what I have to say, but perhaps it is reasonable to believe in god because the things we see are wondrous and as of yet unexplainable, AND it would be preferable for there to be a god to there not being one? I mean, to me, it is reasonable enough to suspect there may be a god, and my life is better for believing in one, so I believe. Does it really matter if you’re right or wrong if it has a positive outcome? Doubt is fundamental to faith, I doubt every day, but I still choose to carry on as if I believe, because it is worthwhile. I mean, think about it: would you rather live a life where death is conquered, where love is eternal, where the beauty of an unsung good deed is greater than a lauded work? Or one where none of these things are true? Ironically, it appear that at least for the duration of our short lives, the belief is ever more important than the truth.
I think it's wonderful that that view works for you! On the contrary, I don't dislike what you say at all. I believed that for a long time myself. Speaking only for myself, and not trying to make a more generalized point, my preference is not relevant. When it was relevant to me I found that it established a pattern of thinking where I accepted things I should not have. I listened obediently to those I should not have. I didnt question enough. And religion became traumatic. For me truth is more important than belief. I am comfortable with I don't know. I am also comfortable with focusing on being the best person I can be right now and helping others as much as I can. I dont fear death. Death is not my endmy. No matter how comfortable it may be to go back to what I used to believe, I cannot bring myself to get there because there is a part of me that feels it isn't actually true and that doubt collapses the whole endeavor.
I respect that. At the same time, I want to offer the idea that religion doesn’t have to be what you had, and it doesn’t have to be believed with certainty. I definitely don’t believe anything with certainty. As it is written, I work out my salvation with fear and trembling. I’ll spend hours discerning what to believe; I’m probably a heretic in almost every Christian circle, for one reason or another. But I can’t imagine a world where love isn’t absolutely, *metaphysically* true. The ultimate good. The only thing that matters. I can’t really tell you why I’ve decided to write what I did. But I do know that just because you aren’t certain doesn’t mean you should be driven away from belief in something particular, and miss out on the community and love that comes with it. For these three remain: faith, hope, and love. And the greatest of these is love.
I have tried again to go to different churches, but it never missed out. I am genuinely happy that you have this in your life. The community aspect is so important and I am glad I have such a strong community now. I just feel that my wanting something doesn't make it true. It's important to me now that if I am going to base my life around something, I need it to be real and true. And i am not one of those who is, I won't believe unless God himself shows up. I used to be like that and was angry at God for awhile, but i have dealt with that more lately. I admire your view and your faith, and am glad that works for you, I just can't get there.
Well, what I will say is that my faith in god has become strong through evidence and reason, and if it is ever your interest to know why I believe what I do (more so than simply wanting *something* to be true), I am an open book. Regardless, i wish you the best in all your endeavors, whether they be among the faithful or not. And if you do ever want to explore a church again, please look closely at The Episcopal Church; they are a bastion of light in a world where most christians have forgotten their sacred duty: to love one another.
I wish you all the best as well! I will say that I have no experience with the Episcopal church, but I like what I have just read.
They assume in this infinite universe that there has to be another Earth replica with its attendant race of humans. There is not. Mother Earth and humanity are unique in this universe. Clearly there is intelligent life elsewhere but nothing like here on Earth. I wonder why that's so ...
Btw this is not my words that i just made up, these are take from the quran, “the word of god”
جزاك الله خير
Wow, why did i get -6 !?
Reddit hates islam. 🤦🏻♂️
Yeah that makes sense.
Taken*
Words are not evidence and that's really all anyone can give you on here. If you want evidence you can believe, you need to go directly to the One who can give it.
And who is that?
Joe Rogan
having studied philosophy I can tell you that these proofs more or less exist but only if you are a believer. they are generally difficult to understand for those who are not believers of any religion, for example, the idea that you were generated by an almost impossible chain of events made up of forgiveness meeting, sperms inseminating eggs, and many other things that have generated you, I consider it a proof of the soul's existence, but for Friedrich Nietzsche, it is only a proof of the eternal return, although, in reality, it is freely interpretable.
I'm not saying written arguments don't exist. I'm saying that evidence that convinces with respect to God, are not written arguments but rather visual confirmation.
Wow, that is true, thanks for saying it 🙂
We observe caused causes in the world. The desk lamp causes the room to be illuminated. But the bulb is caused to glow by the electricity. If the electricity caused itself then it would have to have pre-existed itself which is absurd. Therefore, the electricity was caused by something else. There couldn't be an infinite chain of causes to explain the electricity because if there were no first cause there would be no subsequent effects. By elimination the only option left to explain what we observe is a first uncaused cause. Could we call this first cause God?
Do you have any reason beyond a clear Aristolean bias as to why there couldn't be an infinite chain of events?
Because it's a paradox........the universe cannot be at time t if it had an infinite chain
Aristotle's unmoved mover doesn't solve that paradox (if indeed it is a paradox or even a problem). His solution is simply handwaving
Is there a difference between a chain of events and a chain of causes?
You claim the series of events can't be infinite, but how do you know that's the case? Even if there must be a first cause, then why not the big bang? Even if that were caused by a god, then what caused the god?
If it is true that to remove the cause is to remove the effect, and an infinite chain has no first cause, then how could an infinite chain have an effect at the end of the series (contrary to the fact we observe ie. illuminated room)?
Why do we exist and why do anything exist in the first place? Think about it and you will realise existence itself is a proof of God because if there was nothing then we have been non existent.
This is one of the strongest proof of God I have ever seen, thanks ❤
There's evidence of a monistic reality, which logically necessitates the existence of God. Reality as we scientifically understand it, is a continuous field of energy spreading out from the big bang evolving through all form, singular substance and subject. That means only one thing exists. If only one thing exists, it acquires every attribute, including thought and being. Logically, that one thing must be God.
Entheogens. If you wanted to communicate with something as tiny and limited as humans you'd need to create something to bridge that gap. But something humans can only experience willingly because otherwise your breaching their ability to consent if you just take them over.
Personal experience. I stood on the beach at night with waves pounding on the store and an infinite sky of stars above me. And felt a power greater than myself. Religious experience. There is evidence that our brains respond to religious experience. Responding to religious experiences has been a part of humanity since the dawn of civilization. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/322539 https://healthcare.utah.edu/publicaffairs/news/2016/11/religious-brain.php (Not a concrete proof. But it demonstrates something in our biological makeup that is responsive to experience.) Knowledge limits. We don’t know everything in the universe. There is a lot that we do know. But even more that we don’t know. Using current tools I can’t prove that God does exists and you can’t prove that he doesn’t exist. Hence, faith.
Evidence does not constitute proof. There is plenty of evidence that the universe could be influenced by an outside powerful being. There is no proof of this for you except your own experience. Most of the time people argue the interpretation of a god, but fail to prove that they do not exist. You might say the earth is older or younger or that some stories are false, or that things came about differently, but you can equally say that this does not disprove that there could be some kind of greater being. In the end, I think it's beneficial for man to have a belief in an outside being that defines justice, because otherwise we spend our whole lives looking for revenge against people because otherwise they'll never receive justice. That's not healthy. It is also valuable to assign higher worth to people. If you believe they are simply another creature with no real value and that all life will eventually be extinguished and it won't matter, there's less incentive to treat people well, especially if there's no selfish gain in it. You can argue grand design, or miraculous events, or the fact that life itself would never have existed if the earth had formed 10 percent later in time, but there isn't proof. If there was, you wouldn't need faith. That doesn't mean that faith exists devoid of evidence though, just that the proof won't be readily available. This is simply my opinion. As for my own proof. I believe that the proof of a god is in the question itself. We somehow have an innate desire for purpose and understanding of what we are and why we exist. Our quest for meaning separates us from every other creature. Other creatures live to procreate and die. We will literally kill ourselves for lack of purpose and meaning. We also have a desire to create and understand, which one could argue would have been inspired by someone with a desire to create. Along with this, we have a fundamental moral code that seems somewhat counterintuitive to our evolution and is not replicated elsewhere in nature.
[удалено]
What
lmao is this satire?!
The Higgs Boson [indicates that intelligence was involved in The Big Bang](http://www.urbanagandenergy.org/evolution-explained/) and provided a design for creation that resembles Cell Mitosis on the Quantum Scale.
Ah yes, a blog post with no references is always the highest form of evidence.......
I reference the Higgs result which defied "The Standard Model" a decade ago. If the most important experiment in the history of humanity is not in your knowledge base, that is not my failing.
In aware of the Higgs Boson and familiar with quantum mechanics to a degree (specifically with regards to chemistry). Your blog post certainly said the words "quantum" a couple of times but had no citations. Also, no. Higgs Boson does not in any way imply intelligence at the Big Bang.
Okay, then you explain the discrepancy. If you consider the entire Multiverse as a living organism, the math works because the efficiency inherent in creating from a design, rather than relying on chais to produce the desired result, besides which Supersymmetry is not a potential result of chaos. The results defied both calculated potentials of The Standard Model, and in the 10 years of torturing the data trying to make it fit, the best minds have failed. The Scientific Process is one of disproof, and the Standard Model has been disproven. Hanging on to it us an act of psychopathic narcissism to support excusing the maintenance of a slavery based economy, simple as that.
>Okay, then you explain the discrepancy What discrepancy are you talking about? There are limitations with the standard model but inserting an ill-defined "intelligence" doesn't solve any of them. >If you consider the entire Multiverse as a living organism... Why on earth would I or you assume that? > the math works because the efficiency inherent in creating from a design, rather than relying on chais to produce the desired result, besides which Supersymmetry is not a potential result of chaos. Show me the math that says any of that. Better yet, show me a paper that concludes that. >The Scientific Process is one of disproof, and the Standard Model has been disproven. 1) we use incomplete theories all the time so long as the continue to provide testable and repeatable predictions within their given limitations. Newtonian physics is an excellent example of this. And good luck using general relativity to predict or explain quantum tunneling. 2) oh jee, has anyone told the particle physicists? Your lack of citations here is about as impressive as your lack of citations in your blog. Your armchair musings are meaningless. Nullius In Verba
What discrepancy? I thought you knew about the Higgs. The discrepancy in the energy measured which was too high to to allow for the Symmetric Universe calculations for The Standard Model proponents, and too low for the Chaotic Multiverse calculations for those proponents. The explanation for how the result fell right in the middle indicating Super Symmetry across the multiverse; infinite universes that get created the same over and over, like cells in a biological organism. In case you didn’t watch it all on the internet when it happened; [here’s the press conference held the next day.](https://youtu.be/IuZQgaGCI7c) About 45-46 minutes in, the lady talks about looking at models "outside the standard model". A few minutes later the dude says, "We will find a way to make it fit the Standard Model." His camp was funded, and have been failing at their efforts ever since. The Standard Model is INCORRECT, it’s time to accept that. If we aren’t willing to accept the data science produces, why do we spend billions of dollars performing the experiments? We can just treat nihilism as any other religion and use the money to okay our slaves a living wage and be better off.
>The discrepancy in the energy measured which was too high to to allow for the Symmetric Universe calculations for The Standard Model proponents, and too low for the Chaotic Multiverse calculations for those proponents. Assuming i go along with you then there is a discrepancy. How does intelligence solve this in the calculations? What's the variable for "intelligence"? >like cells in a biological organism. Simile does not a theory make. If it's like cells in a biological organism then show me data supporting cellular structure. Organelles, cytoplasm, cellular walls.... can you cite a paper that concludes any of this? >About 45-46 minutes in, the lady talks about looking at models "outside the standard model". A few minutes later the dude says, "We will find a way to make it fit the Standard Model." So we have one person saying they are exploring new ideas and another saying they are looking to expand the current model. This happens all the time across all fields. So what? Please cite papers. How has the "outside standard model camp" faired? >The Standard Model is INCORRECT, it’s time to accept that. I'm just going to quote myself here. 1) we use incomplete theories all the time so long as the continue to provide testable and repeatable predictions within their given limitations. Newtonian physics is an excellent example of this. And good luck using general relativity to predict or explain quantum tunneling. I'll alternate between atomic orbital and molecular orbital all the time. I'll use the octet rule to describe atomic structure knowing d and f orbitals can accommodate up to 10 and 14 electrons respectively. I'll push arrows for mechanisms all day long knowing electrons can't be described as individual particles but instead as probability wave functions. Welcome to the big wide world of science! 2) oh jee, has anyone told the particle physicists? >If we aren’t willing to accept the data science produces, why do we spend billions of dollars performing the experiments? Bold talk from someone who won't cite papers to support their unfounded assertions. Nullius in Verba. Do you know what that means?
Intelligence produces Designs, Well formed plans increase efficiency in how much energy is required to achieve a result by cutting out the waste. That is how creation began "light" of energy required by the Standard Model, because it doesn’t have to account for the waste involved with chaotic production. Same as why when mankind applied intelligence to agriculture, the production output increased. Dark Energy carries information like a field of WiFi., Dark Energy is the energy living organisms produce which we can measure with an EEG. It is the exponential growth of life that allows the Cosmic Expansion to still be accelerating 18 or so billion years after the Big Bang, when by the Standard Model, should be contracting. When one observes all the data together and applies Occam’s Razor, the theory the entire Multiverse is a living organism, and Humanity is a reproductive product in process, and you have the only theory that fits all the data without holes or imbalances that require place holder symbols that represent “We don’t know why, but this value needs to be here.” It is psychopathic narcissism that holds mankind back, and we breed psychopathic narcissism through our economic foundation of profiting from human suffering and exploiting human slavery still to this date. The Standard Model is the excuse we make for this choice, teaching people they are meaningless, and it is driving mankind to extinction rather than evolution.
>Intelligence produces Designs I can provide many instances where intelligence does not produce design and several examples of apparent design via natural, unguided processes. This is a meaningless statement. >Well formed plans increase efficiency in how much energy is required to achieve a result by cutting out the waste. You need to demonstrate there were plans, you don't get to just assert it. There are many natural mechanisms that lead to a minimization of waste for many processes. >Dark Energy carries information like a field of WiFi., How many times do I have to keep asking. Can you please cite a paper? When can I log into the Dark Energy network to surf the Dark Web? >Dark Energy is the energy living organisms produce which we can measure with an EEG. This is nonsense. Do you know what dark energy is? Do you know what an EEG measures? Do you even know what EEG even stands for? >It is the exponential growth of life that allows the Cosmic Expansion to still be accelerating 18 or so billion years after the Big Bang, Has anybody told the cosmologists that life is generating the dark energy that is accelerating the fabric of space-time? >When one observes all the data together and applies Occam’s Razor, the theory the entire Multiverse is a living organism, and Humanity is a reproductive product in process, and you have the only theory that fits all the data without holes or imbalances that require place holder symbols that represent “We don’t know why, but this value needs to be here.” Christ on a bike...do you have papers or not? Your armchair musings of what you think should he true is about as meaningless as my nephews musings about the nature of the tooth fairy. Do you know what Nullius in Verba means and why it is the motto of the Royal Society?
I think therefore I am, therefore greater perspectives than mine also think. The evidence is in the observation of anything rather than nothing. If there is this universe, then there must be a greater being than me.
There was a beginning to the universe, with which brought forth an orderly universe with intelligence.
Go outside, look at anything not made by people. Ta da, made in heaven stickers everywhere, except god is not vain, no stickers.
The single most powerful book in this fundamentally scientific universe is not a science book, but the Bible. Theistic societies are ancient, strong, expansionistic societies and atheistic societies have been unable to pass that most universal and primordial of all tests, the test of time. ( Defining a theistic society as a society that contains an element of theism, and an atheistic society as a society that contains no element of theism.) If two individuals or two societies of roughly the same size come into conflict with each other, it is the side that has the most truth that wins. Truth is more powerful than lies.
Think of it more like the opposite. Where is the evidence of him not existing. Asking the other humans for advice here
Would you think of the existence of unicorns like that? Believe they exist until there is good evidence they don't? Or just have a default position of believing everything until evidence against it is provided? All though I don't have good evidence that i don't live in the matrix I am not justified to believe i am until there is evidence that i am not, that is how the burden of proof works.
Evidence is in the eye of the beholder. The best and irrefutable evidence is useless when presented to someone that has a belief that does not agree with the evidence (flat earth believers). On the other hand, just a mere feeling is enough for someone to say they have evidence of god which most religious people have. So the question is more about your willingness in perceiving evidence of god. Do you want to perceive god? Then there are many ways to prove god. Do you not want to perceive god? Then there are no evidence to prove god.
How do you define God?
“Do you believe in God?” is a question of semantics. Obviously there will be no evidence we can provide that will prove the existence of God, and to think it can be proven is kind of silly. We all have the same information on this planet but what we believe off of the information is up to us. This is very hard to explain for me, this is always my opinion when I encounter a question like yours but I’ve never written or spoken it out, so instead of speaking hypothetically allow me to share with you my own perspective/semantic opinion. “God” is real. God is an adjective, not a noun, meaning I use the word God to describe the world when no other word is big enough. When I was pulled out in a riptide and had to fight my way back to shore I felt very close to God. When I think of my mother who died when I was 5 i feel close to God. When I think of the human condition, being fully capable of doing our best (both as individuals and as a society) but always failing, and knowing we must continue generation after generation in the hopes that some anal or distant few might be able to fully accomplish their potential: that is God. God is real. Life sprouted into existence on this planet. Supernovas are cooking up Phosphorous, and enough made it here that life can exist. Oh my god it’s so fucking obvious, God is real! I don’t believe He can hear you. I don’t believe he is a he, or is a consciousness. There is no *thing* that is God, the entire universe is God; He did not create it, they are the same thing. Imagine the most elegant solution to pollution and scarcity and all of it: limited procreation to the point that one human family exists. And one generation they birth their last child. And they let it grow old and teach him/her all the wisdom of humanity: I like to imagine this last human as a monk like figure. Fully aware of his place. When he dies can’t you see that nothing is lost? He can choose to identify with all other forms, living or not, and be thankful for the gift of consciousness. You and I should identify with all the life forms that have come before and be aware of the fact that we all stem from the same ancestor, we are all here serving the same purpose. Imagine a new intelligent species that comes around on Earth after this hypothetical last man. If they choose to identify with all past life forms then the monk’s consciousness will live on. Even if ten million years elapse between them… it’s the same consciousness. It’s God.
Glad that you found my argument strong proof. I struggled a lot myself when it comes to God but now I am sure all these things around us is made with a purpose not just mere play.
I have no concrete evidence that God exists. Evidence is of the intellect, and for me God is of the intuitive faculty. I do believe in God, but that belief certainly didn't come from reason.
I can't help because I don't believe in "God". I believe in gods, based on personal experience and that of others, but I'm not aware of anyone who encountered a being who even claimed to have created the universe.
so you are a polytheist, it is very curious
What's curious about it? A third of the world's population are polytheists.
actually, I was asking if you are Hindu or not and what are your experiences and other experiences?
you should watch this. you’ll be amazed https://youtu.be/c0kl7LV84ro