I've been loosely following this tread for the past few days, and beyond some overly personal remarks, which in themselves are often brought about by this topic, overall I find it very interesting. As long as this topic can be discussed maturely, it yields some good food for thought. While my perspective and opinions haven't changed, I've pondered each and every point made, and so came to this post in which I'll try to simplify what I feel is a complex question.
This isn't directed towards anyone in particular, but instead to anyone who believes in a higher being of one sort or another. Again, I in no way mean to push anyones buttons, but dancing around the topic doesn't do any good for clarity, so in my posts I may come across frank.
Many a time in this thread people who believe in a higher being are offended by comparing God to mystical figures such as fairies for example. I'd like to try to clarify why comparisons like this are made so often.
A common statement a non-believer will make is there is no proof in God. The word "proof" seems to have a broader meaning to some, so this word itself has to be looked at and broken down rationally. Many times in this thread the word "proof" has been attacked, saying nothing can be proven, not even scientifically; this is correct if you're speaking ultimately. This has been braking the clarity of the statement, "There is no proof of God". So instead, I'd like to reward it to, "There is no evidence of God". I feel this reflects the statement better.
I can say with confidence that Diablo III will not come out tomorrow, because there is a lot of evidence that points to it. Evidence is how we understand the world, and maybe the word "proof" reflects something that we as a race have trouble understanding, since it tends to change context under certain topics. Science has also been attacked in a similar way, saying it doesn't prove anything ultimately. Again, this may very well be true. Scientific laws get proven wrong all the time, and Scientists rejoice (kind of). Being proven wrong means that's just another step towards being truly right, if there is such a thing. The thing is though, speaking rationally, Science works. You can predict things to a very high percentage using it. Science stands on the shoulders of rational thinking. Even new ground breaking concepts are built on math and ration. Without this process we wouldn't have computers, food, or anything for that matter. Without logic, we would have nothing. Abstract thoughts have their use surely, and lead to a great amount of progress. The thing is though, those thoughts are always met with logics in order to produce the end result.
So speaking of evidence, beyond unusable personal accounts of God, there is no evidence for one to rationalize. I just want to state I'm not speaking of a humanized God, I know for a lot of you this isn't how you view the concept. There is a whole other fine line in that concept where this topic can get fuzzy. If you say God is everything (or at least the unknown), than you're just replacing the concept of nature with the word God, and adding some emotional attachment to it. That's a whole other area of this topic though.
Back to the point, there is just as much rational evidence of God as there is of anything else with an equal lack of evidence. There are numerous accounts of Bigfoot, all of which from unreliable accounts, which the same thing can be said for God. If I may try and read a common response to this, many who believe in God will say either, -I don't need proof, I've had experiences, or have felt it to be true-, or -God is an incomprehensible concept-. Both may be true, but they can't be used in debate. If you go to court and say, "Your Honor, I swear I didn't do it" the judge is going to ask you to show evidence. If you use those type of statements in this topic you are essentially saying the same thing.
Cautiously, I ask for a concise answer to why with no evidence, so many choose to believe in God, but not Bigfoot or things of the like.
“We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about.” - Albert Einstein
People can believe the bible is a fairy tale. Other peoples beliefs shouldn't effect you. Proletaria is just infatuated with telling people that their beliefs are unfounded. If you add up all my posts in this thread, it would come out to a 3 page essay; in which I clearly state why I believe God exists. My reasons, to Proletaria, are not good enough, which I why I stopped responding to him. Ok, so my beliefs are "unfounded" in his eyes, but they are not in mine. Who's right? I say I am, he says he is. It's a waste of time arguing over the unprovable and unexplainable existence of God with someone that is so close minded.
If you want to control, dictate, or oversee what people believe, go to China or some other communist country. But I live in America where people are able to believe whatever they want, God or fairies, without persecution. Is America "persecution-less" -- no, but the majority of the population accepts the differences of people. I don't believe in fairies, but I don't see the need to disparage others that do. Get over yourself and realize that other peoples beliefs shouldn't effect you, regardless of how "unfounded" or absurd those beliefs are.
People can believe the bible is a fairy tale. Other peoples beliefs shouldn't effect you.
Poeple can believe anything. It is literally impossible to prevent someone from believing something or not. That said, people's beliefs shouldn't, but do effect me and others (even other believers). To contend that beliefs don't effect others is a patent fallacy. I'm effected on a daily basis by people who believe that my lifestyle is immoral.
Proletaria is just infatuated with telling people that their beliefs are unfounded.
For all this talk of being needlessly insulting, here we have a useless ad hominem attack. I am not infatuated with telling people their beliefs are unfounded. I am discussing the topic at hand. We all KNOW that belifs have no foundation in fact and evidence, that is part of the definition of the word. We came into this topic with that knowledge already in-hand. When we came to the point of belief, I asked for clarity on the matter. I want to know why those beliefs instead of others. I want to know what makes certain beliefs appealing and others not. I don't know how you are misconstruing that as some kind of pleasure-inducing exercise, but I assure you that I do this for no such purpose. I want to know why people think what they think. Not because it makes me feel good, but because it helps me understand the world I live in.
If you add up all my posts in this thread, it would come out to a 3 page essay; in which I clearly state why I believe God exists. My reasons, to Proletaria, are not good enough, which I why I stopped responding to him. Ok, so my beliefs are "unfounded" in his eyes, but they are not in mine. Who's right? I say I am, he says he is. It's a waste of time arguing over the unprovable and unexplainable existence of God with someone that is so close minded.
You stated you believe that god exists. I asked you why you held that belief and not another. You said, because you can choose what to believe in. I granted you that, and continued to ask why that particular belief. I never once said you were wrong. I never once made an assertion of certainty. I repeated time and again that I did not make any such assertion of god or no god. If you do not want to continue our conversation, that is fine, but please do not heap any such insulting title on me as "closed mineded," when I have done nothing to earn that title.
If you want to control, dictate, or oversee what people believe, go to China or some other communist country. But I live in America where people are able to believe whatever they want, God or fairies, without persecution. Is America "persecution-less" -- no, but the majority of the population accepts the differences of people. I don't believe in fairies, but I don't see the need to disparage others that do. Get over yourself and realize that other peoples beliefs shouldn't effect you, regardless of how "unfounded" or absurd those beliefs are.
I like America just fine, thank you very much. I know that you can and respect that you do believe in whatever you want. I have in no way persecuted you for your beliefs in this thread unless you consider asking the simple question "why," to be an act of persecution. Stop hurdling needless ad hominem insults at me because you cannot bring yourself to continue our conversation.
Well I think I've explained my thoughts before, but to steer it back on topic I'll post again.
To me it comes down to the very basics. I look at the world and see how advanced everything is from the structure of atoms to DNA to earthworms to the perfect conditions that allowed life to exist on Earth.
Now when I ask myself was this all an accident? I just can't believe yes it was. I know it's possible but to me for some reason it seems more possible that some being created all this in one way or another.
Could be an alien, could be a god, could be the flying spaghetti monster if you want to be cynical about it. I just think at the base level rather than matter and energy being created out of nothing, something created the matter and energy at the very least. The world just seems far too complex down to every last detail for it to have been chance. Of course there is still the chance of that.
Agreed ^^ I believe in the Roman catholic God, which do you believe in Dae?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Not even Death will save you from Diablo Bunny's Cuteness!
To me it comes down to the very basics. I look at the world and see how advanced everything is from the structure of atoms to DNA to earthworms to the perfect conditions that allowed life to exist on Earth.
I trust you realize that isn't evidence one way or the other? (Assuming we're still talking about god) If the world were not such that we existed, then we wouldn't be able to have this conversation. That doesn't suggest anything. Without earthworms we'd be missing a link in our evolutionary line, and we wouldnt be here. Without DNA we wouldn't be here. Without the structure of atoms, we wouldn't be here. Again, this is not miraculous, it is necessary. We cannot simply postulate "what if the universe were such that we couldn't exist," because it is plain to see that isn't the case.
Now when I ask myself was this all an accident? I just can't believe yes it was. I know it's possible but to me for some reason it seems more possible that some being created all this in one way or another.
You need not think it was an accident, but I would caution you against making an assumption without evidence. It is possile that some being created everything, but again, the evidence you are alluding to is not evidence supporting or refuting that proposition.
Could be an alien, could be a god, could be the flying spaghetti monster if you want to be cynical about it. I just think at the base level rather than matter and energy being created out of nothing, something created the matter and energy at the very least. The world just seems far too complex down to every last detail for it to have been chance. Of course there is still the chance of that.
I agree, there are many possiblities, but to return to an earlier point: we are not forced to the conclusion of god or anything else by first-cause arguments. We may say it is possible that god was always there, but how is that any diffirent than saying the universe was always there? Why add the step of god into it when we don't have enough knowledge of the universe to say wether or not the latter is true? The world is complex, and complexity arises from simplicity. Hydrogen was combined in stars to form other elements, elements combined to form amino acids, those amino acids formed the first life, that life evolved into the life we see today. This much we are VERY certain about, based on our scientific understanding of the universe.
So, if we are to weigh up all the knowledge we do have about how complexity did arise in the universe. If we are to adimt that we do have quite a plausible and intimately detailed vision of how the complexity around us arose from the simple "beginning," that we are also starting to understand: why then are we to saddle that to a completely unfounded principle of god? Why do we need to take all of our hard-earned information and insist that it live side-by-side with a completely baseless assumption.
I would say that it is better to live with doubt than to assert an answer that might be wrong.
Agreed ^^ I believe in the Roman catholic God, which do you believe in Dae?
None in specific, I just prefer to think that there is a greater being not necessarily even a caring one.
The world just seems to fit together so perfect for me to want to believe it was all chance and chaos.
@pro, Yes I realize it's illogical and it's unnecessary to add any god or... source being into the equation but I just like to believe that. It's just a preference I guess. Maybe it's just the mystery of such a being and wondering what it was like that's intriguing.
The world just seems to fit together so perfect for me to want to believe it was all chance and chaos.
You don't have to believe it was chance and chaos. You are making an arbitrary choice where there is not one. I don't assume that the origin of all things was chance. I have no grounds on which to make that assertion. I simply decline to speculate on such things about which I have no evidence to make any claim one way or the other. Perhaps that is what makes me diffirent, but I like to imagine that everyone behaves this way about most things. We weigh up what we know and what we do not know and we decide wether or not we know enough about something to judge what really happened or what is really happening.
@pro, Yes I realize it's illogical and it's unnecessary to add any god or... source being into the equation but I just like to believe that. It's just a preference I guess. Maybe it's just the mystery of such a being and wondering what it was like that's intriguing.
I'm going to ask you, because I've asked a lot of people so far and most (if not all) have declined to answer: What gives you that preference? What makes that mystery more appealing to you? What makes god (for the sake of simplification, I know you are willing to use many words there) the kind of idea you want to believe in (since you have been honest in saying that you know it to be an illogical assertion)?
I think I can say that you are a rational person. I am not attempting to be instulting by asking these things. I just want to get into the mindset of someone who is consciously deciding to believe in something while knowing it to be irrational. I want to know what the appeal is and what ideas motivate that desire.
Cautiously, I ask for a concise answer to why with no evidence, so many choose to believe in God, but not Bigfoot or things of the like.
Good post Winged, and yes, that is exactly what I am driving at. Coincidentally, that is exactly where the conversation has broken down time and again. I hope that soon we will hear some honest answers to these questions.
What makes it the most interesting and appealing choice for me? I dunno think of it like a mystery, because that's what life is. At the end of reading a good mystery book or story, you find out who was behind it all (usually) and that's a satisfying conclusion. If I played my way through for example Diablo 3, only to find out it was nothing. There was absolutely no entity behind the story or the demons, it'd be a let down. It's just a more entertaining idea to me personally I suppose. It makes for a better story.
What makes it the most interesting and appealing choice for me? I dunno think of it like a mystery, because that's what life is. At the end of reading a good mystery book or story, you find out who was behind it all (usually) and that's a satisfying conclusion. If I played my way through for example Diablo 3, only to find out it was nothing. There was absolutely no entity behind the story or the demons, it'd be a let down. It's just a more entertaining idea to me personally I suppose. It makes for a better story.
I can't fathom why you would assume it's simply god or nothing, but I thank you for giving an honest answer. I truly appreciate it.
What makes it the most interesting and appealing choice for me? I dunno think of it like a mystery, because that's what life is. At the end of reading a good mystery book or story, you find out who was behind it all (usually) and that's a satisfying conclusion. If I played my way through for example Diablo 3, only to find out it was nothing. There was absolutely no entity behind the story or the demons, it'd be a let down. It's just a more entertaining idea to me personally I suppose. It makes for a better story.
I believe in God and Heaven and Hell, but, I do not find this outcome to be the most interesting outcome. I actually find reincarnation to be quite facinating. As much as I may believe and want to go to heaven, in the end I think it would be a rather boring eternity. Same goes for hell.
I believe in God and Heaven and Hell, but, I do not find this outcome to be the most interesting outcome. I actually find reincarnation to be quite facinating. As much as I may believe and want to go to heaven, in the end I think it would be a rather boring eternity. Same goes for hell.
Yeah but reincarnation involves a higher power too doesn't it? Either way it's definitely interesting.
I can't fathom why you would assume it's simply god or nothing, but I thank you for giving an honest answer. I truly appreciate it.
Well maybe I'm misunderstanding something, what other choice is there? A being created the initial matter/energy, or nothing created it. At least at this point I don't see there is another answer, until science progresses and possibly finds an answer other than that.
Well maybe I'm misunderstanding something, what other choice is there? A being created the initial matter/energy, or nothing created it. At least at this point I don't see there is another answer, until science progresses and possibly finds an answer other than that.
What i find interesting is why people just believe in what science tells them.
Nothing is 100% proven. Someone has to believe in it no matter what it is.
Nothing is 100% proven, sure, but things we have absolutely no evidence for are not under the same umbrella as things for which we have a reasonable explanation backed up by empirical evidence and understanding by experiment, observation, and accurate prediction. Nobody has to believe in anything. There is no requirement of the mind to hold beliefs, I am living proof of this, as are many other atheists and agnostics.
I believe in God and Heaven and Hell, but, I do not find this outcome to be the most interesting outcome. I actually find reincarnation to be quite facinating. As much as I may believe and want to go to heaven, in the end I think it would be a rather boring eternity. Same goes for hell.
So you have ruled out "more interesting," as a motivation for you to choose to believe in your god. What persuaded you then? What is the compelling nature of that concept to you? What ideas do you have that lead you to hold those particular beliefs?
People can believe the bible is a fairy tale. Other peoples beliefs shouldn't effect you.
Poeple can believe anything. It is literally impossible to prevent someone from believing something or not. That said, people's beliefs shouldn't, but do effect me and others (even other believers). To contend that beliefs don't effect others is a patent fallacy. I'm effected on a daily basis by people who believe that my lifestyle is immoral.
Proletaria is just infatuated with telling people that their beliefs are unfounded.
For all this talk of being needlessly insulting, here we have a useless ad hominem attack. I am not infatuated with telling people their beliefs are unfounded. I am discussing the topic at hand. We all KNOW that belifs have no foundation in fact and evidence, that is part of the definition of the word. We came into this topic with that knowledge already in-hand. When we came to the point of belief, I asked for clarity on the matter. I want to know why those beliefs instead of others. I want to know what makes certain beliefs appealing and others not. I don't know how you are misconstruing that as some kind of pleasure-inducing exercise, but I assure you that I do this for no such purpose. I want to know why people think what they think. Not because it makes me feel good, but because it helps me understand the world I live in.
If you add up all my posts in this thread, it would come out to a 3 page essay; in which I clearly state why I believe God exists. My reasons, to Proletaria, are not good enough, which I why I stopped responding to him. Ok, so my beliefs are "unfounded" in his eyes, but they are not in mine. Who's right? I say I am, he says he is. It's a waste of time arguing over the unprovable and unexplainable existence of God with someone that is so close minded.
You stated you believe that god exists. I asked you why you held that belief and not another. You said, because you can choose what to believe in. I granted you that, and continued to ask why that particular belief. I never once said you were wrong. I never once made an assertion of certainty. I repeated time and again that I did not make any such assertion of god or no god. If you do not want to continue our conversation, that is fine, but please do not heap any such insulting title on me as "closed mineded," when I have done nothing to earn that title.
If you want to control, dictate, or oversee what people believe, go to China or some other communist country. But I live in America where people are able to believe whatever they want, God or fairies, without persecution. Is America "persecution-less" -- no, but the majority of the population accepts the differences of people. I don't believe in fairies, but I don't see the need to disparage others that do. Get over yourself and realize that other peoples beliefs shouldn't effect you, regardless of how "unfounded" or absurd those beliefs are.
I like America just fine, thank you very much. I know that you can and respect that you do believe in whatever you want. I have in no way persecuted you for your beliefs in this thread unless you consider asking the simple question "why," to be an act of persecution. Stop hurdling needless ad hominem insults at me because you cannot bring yourself to continue our conversation.
I'm effected on a daily basis by people who believe that my lifestyle is immoral.
You choose to be effected. You say you are gay, how does someone's belief stop you from loving someone of the same sex? They don't, unless you let them. Those people are wrong to pass judgement, but it ultimately falls on you to decide to be insulted by their beliefs.
I want to know why those beliefs instead of others. I want to know what makes certain beliefs appealing and others not. I don't know how you are misconstruing that as some kind of pleasure-inducing exercise, but I assure you that I do this for no such purpose. I want to know why people think what they think. Not because it makes me feel good, but because it helps me understand the world I live in.
I gave you a handful of reasons (beyond "because I want to") why I believe in a God, for example:
There is history, witnesses, unexplained miracles that all point to a God (that I choose to believe is true)
and:
I see God in the wind that blows through trees, the sounds of nature, the taste of peanut M&M's (yummm), the peace I get when I pray...
In which you said they were all unfounded because none of it is real "evidence" or "proof" - even though we had already come to an agreement there is no "evidence" or "proof." You belittle my reasons for belief, simply because there is no proof. You are attacking, insulting, and persecuting my beliefs; and everyone that has kindly tried to answer your "why" question.
I want to know why people think what they think. Not because it makes me feel good, but because it helps me understand the world I live in.
I have told you various times now why. You are too close minded to see my, and other's, perspective, so this is a complete waste of time.
Well maybe I'm misunderstanding something, what other choice is there? A being created the initial matter/energy, or nothing created it. At least at this point I don't see there is another answer, until science progresses and possibly finds an answer other than that.
I don't think there is an answer right now, but that doesn't mean that we have the group of all possible answers in-hand. If you want to say "nothing," created the universe and be more poetic about it, you might suggest that the universe is eternal, just in diffirent forms. I feel that is just as plausible as any arguments of causality and does not insert ugly words like "nothing."
What i find interesting is why people just believe in what science tells them.
We don't have to believe in anything. I'm really saddened that you don't grasp the concept of belief even after I have repeated it dozens of times now. Science presents us with evidence, with observations, with tests, and with verifiable predictions. We weigh this data with the propositions given us and we have theories with varying degrees of certainty that span the range of "possible," to "almost complete certainty." This is fundamentally diffirent from belief which is accepting something in the complete absence of evidence. Science does not ever do this.
Nothing is 100% proven. Someone has to believe in it no matter what it is.
Nothing is 100% proven, sure, but things we have absolutely no evidence for are not under the same umbrella as things for which we have a reasonable explanation backed up by empirical evidence and understanding by experiment, observation, and accurate prediction. Nobody has to believe in anything. There is no requirement of the mind to hold beliefs, I am living proof of this, as are many other atheists and agnostics.
I believe in God and Heaven and Hell, but, I do not find this outcome to be the most interesting outcome. I actually find reincarnation to be quite facinating. As much as I may believe and want to go to heaven, in the end I think it would be a rather boring eternity. Same goes for hell.
So you have ruled out "more interesting," as a motivation for you to choose to believe in your god. What persuaded you then? What is the compelling nature of that concept to you? What ideas do you have that lead you to hold those particular beliefs?
By 100% proven I mean that your entire life may be completely false. There is one notion that there is only one true person and everythign else in teh universe is something that is created from their own mind and without this one person nothign would exist.
Also when I say one religion is more interesting than another I do not say that the motivation of it is a problem. I think that a world where we can ahve super powers like dragonball z would be very interesting but that does not mean I believe in it.
What i find interesting is why people just believe in what science tells them.
We don't have to believe in anything. I'm really saddened that you don't grasp the concept of belief even after I have repeated it dozens of times now. Science presents us with evidence, with observations, with tests, and with verifiable predictions. We weigh this data with the propositions given us and we have theories with varying degrees of certainty that span the range of "possible," to "almost complete certainty." This is fundamentally diffirent from belief which is accepting something in the complete absence of evidence. Science does not ever do this.
You miss the point that tests and observations and all evidence that science provides is meaningless if the existence of this world is false. What you believe is what you believe, science is a belief just as religion is. There have been studies of religion and the like and each thing has its possibilities in the worlds eyes but none of it really matters. All that matters is what you believe and whether you will let anyone change that about you.
Is there anything I can say that will change what you believe? Would you need a God himself to come down to you to tell you that he is real and your beliefs are false? Would even that matter to you? What if your lack of faith in God sends you to an eternity in a burning hell? Would yo uthen believe in him? It is your choice as well as mine any everyone elses. We will deal with our consequences when the time comes because we will all die someday.
You choose to be effected. You say you are gay, how does someone's belief stop you from loving someone of the same sex? They don't, unless you let them. Those people are wrong to pass judgement, but it ultimately falls on you to decide to be insulted by their beliefs.
I have lost jobs, friends, and members of my family who haven't spoken to me in decades over my sexuality. I did not chooose to be gay, and I hope you aren't implying that. The beliefs of other people directly effected these relationships.
I gave you a handful of reasons (beyond "because I want to") why I believe in a God, for example:
There is history, witnesses, unexplained miracles that all point to a God (that I choose to believe is true)
and:
I see God in the wind that blows through trees, the sounds of nature, the taste of peanut M&M's (yummm), the peace I get when I pray...
In which you said they were all unfounded because none of it is real "evidence" or "proof" - even though we had already come to an agreement there is no "evidence" or "proof." You belittle my reasons for belief, simply because there is no proof. You are attacking, insulting, and persecuting my beliefs; and everyone that has kindly tried to answer your "why" question.
You told me you had a belief, then you gave me what looked like evidence. I had to explain to you that belief is the assertion of something in the absence of evidence. If you are telling me that is evidence then you are telling me that you don't "believe," at all. I don't insult your beliefs by telling you that evidence is or isn't supporting your claim. That isn't saying a thing about your beliefs, because beliefs (as I said) aren't based on evidence. What i'm asking for are your ideas, independant of evidence, that makes god appealing, that make christian dogma appealing.
I have told you various times now why. You are too close minded to see my, and other's, perspective, so this is a complete waste of time.
No, like I said, you said you had a belief and then you gave me "evidence," to support it. Belief has nothing to do with evidence. I was not asking for evidence. I wanted your own ideas, your own thoughts, etc. I was quite explicit and I don't know where you went about getting so confused.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This isn't directed towards anyone in particular, but instead to anyone who believes in a higher being of one sort or another. Again, I in no way mean to push anyones buttons, but dancing around the topic doesn't do any good for clarity, so in my posts I may come across frank.
Many a time in this thread people who believe in a higher being are offended by comparing God to mystical figures such as fairies for example. I'd like to try to clarify why comparisons like this are made so often.
A common statement a non-believer will make is there is no proof in God. The word "proof" seems to have a broader meaning to some, so this word itself has to be looked at and broken down rationally. Many times in this thread the word "proof" has been attacked, saying nothing can be proven, not even scientifically; this is correct if you're speaking ultimately. This has been braking the clarity of the statement, "There is no proof of God". So instead, I'd like to reward it to, "There is no evidence of God". I feel this reflects the statement better.
I can say with confidence that Diablo III will not come out tomorrow, because there is a lot of evidence that points to it. Evidence is how we understand the world, and maybe the word "proof" reflects something that we as a race have trouble understanding, since it tends to change context under certain topics. Science has also been attacked in a similar way, saying it doesn't prove anything ultimately. Again, this may very well be true. Scientific laws get proven wrong all the time, and Scientists rejoice (kind of). Being proven wrong means that's just another step towards being truly right, if there is such a thing. The thing is though, speaking rationally, Science works. You can predict things to a very high percentage using it. Science stands on the shoulders of rational thinking. Even new ground breaking concepts are built on math and ration. Without this process we wouldn't have computers, food, or anything for that matter. Without logic, we would have nothing. Abstract thoughts have their use surely, and lead to a great amount of progress. The thing is though, those thoughts are always met with logics in order to produce the end result.
So speaking of evidence, beyond unusable personal accounts of God, there is no evidence for one to rationalize. I just want to state I'm not speaking of a humanized God, I know for a lot of you this isn't how you view the concept. There is a whole other fine line in that concept where this topic can get fuzzy. If you say God is everything (or at least the unknown), than you're just replacing the concept of nature with the word God, and adding some emotional attachment to it. That's a whole other area of this topic though.
Back to the point, there is just as much rational evidence of God as there is of anything else with an equal lack of evidence. There are numerous accounts of Bigfoot, all of which from unreliable accounts, which the same thing can be said for God. If I may try and read a common response to this, many who believe in God will say either, -I don't need proof, I've had experiences, or have felt it to be true-, or -God is an incomprehensible concept-. Both may be true, but they can't be used in debate. If you go to court and say, "Your Honor, I swear I didn't do it" the judge is going to ask you to show evidence. If you use those type of statements in this topic you are essentially saying the same thing.
Cautiously, I ask for a concise answer to why with no evidence, so many choose to believe in God, but not Bigfoot or things of the like.
If you want to control, dictate, or oversee what people believe, go to China or some other communist country. But I live in America where people are able to believe whatever they want, God or fairies, without persecution. Is America "persecution-less" -- no, but the majority of the population accepts the differences of people. I don't believe in fairies, but I don't see the need to disparage others that do. Get over yourself and realize that other peoples beliefs shouldn't effect you, regardless of how "unfounded" or absurd those beliefs are.
Poeple can believe anything. It is literally impossible to prevent someone from believing something or not. That said, people's beliefs shouldn't, but do effect me and others (even other believers). To contend that beliefs don't effect others is a patent fallacy. I'm effected on a daily basis by people who believe that my lifestyle is immoral.
For all this talk of being needlessly insulting, here we have a useless ad hominem attack. I am not infatuated with telling people their beliefs are unfounded. I am discussing the topic at hand. We all KNOW that belifs have no foundation in fact and evidence, that is part of the definition of the word. We came into this topic with that knowledge already in-hand. When we came to the point of belief, I asked for clarity on the matter. I want to know why those beliefs instead of others. I want to know what makes certain beliefs appealing and others not. I don't know how you are misconstruing that as some kind of pleasure-inducing exercise, but I assure you that I do this for no such purpose. I want to know why people think what they think. Not because it makes me feel good, but because it helps me understand the world I live in.
You stated you believe that god exists. I asked you why you held that belief and not another. You said, because you can choose what to believe in. I granted you that, and continued to ask why that particular belief. I never once said you were wrong. I never once made an assertion of certainty. I repeated time and again that I did not make any such assertion of god or no god. If you do not want to continue our conversation, that is fine, but please do not heap any such insulting title on me as "closed mineded," when I have done nothing to earn that title.
I like America just fine, thank you very much. I know that you can and respect that you do believe in whatever you want. I have in no way persecuted you for your beliefs in this thread unless you consider asking the simple question "why," to be an act of persecution. Stop hurdling needless ad hominem insults at me because you cannot bring yourself to continue our conversation.
Agreed ^^ I believe in the Roman catholic God, which do you believe in Dae?
Missed your post with the ad hominem attack above, my apologies.
I trust you realize that isn't evidence one way or the other? (Assuming we're still talking about god) If the world were not such that we existed, then we wouldn't be able to have this conversation. That doesn't suggest anything. Without earthworms we'd be missing a link in our evolutionary line, and we wouldnt be here. Without DNA we wouldn't be here. Without the structure of atoms, we wouldn't be here. Again, this is not miraculous, it is necessary. We cannot simply postulate "what if the universe were such that we couldn't exist," because it is plain to see that isn't the case.
You need not think it was an accident, but I would caution you against making an assumption without evidence. It is possile that some being created everything, but again, the evidence you are alluding to is not evidence supporting or refuting that proposition.
I agree, there are many possiblities, but to return to an earlier point: we are not forced to the conclusion of god or anything else by first-cause arguments. We may say it is possible that god was always there, but how is that any diffirent than saying the universe was always there? Why add the step of god into it when we don't have enough knowledge of the universe to say wether or not the latter is true? The world is complex, and complexity arises from simplicity. Hydrogen was combined in stars to form other elements, elements combined to form amino acids, those amino acids formed the first life, that life evolved into the life we see today. This much we are VERY certain about, based on our scientific understanding of the universe.
So, if we are to weigh up all the knowledge we do have about how complexity did arise in the universe. If we are to adimt that we do have quite a plausible and intimately detailed vision of how the complexity around us arose from the simple "beginning," that we are also starting to understand: why then are we to saddle that to a completely unfounded principle of god? Why do we need to take all of our hard-earned information and insist that it live side-by-side with a completely baseless assumption.
I would say that it is better to live with doubt than to assert an answer that might be wrong.
None in specific, I just prefer to think that there is a greater being not necessarily even a caring one.
The world just seems to fit together so perfect for me to want to believe it was all chance and chaos.
@pro, Yes I realize it's illogical and it's unnecessary to add any god or... source being into the equation but I just like to believe that. It's just a preference I guess. Maybe it's just the mystery of such a being and wondering what it was like that's intriguing.
You don't have to believe it was chance and chaos. You are making an arbitrary choice where there is not one. I don't assume that the origin of all things was chance. I have no grounds on which to make that assertion. I simply decline to speculate on such things about which I have no evidence to make any claim one way or the other. Perhaps that is what makes me diffirent, but I like to imagine that everyone behaves this way about most things. We weigh up what we know and what we do not know and we decide wether or not we know enough about something to judge what really happened or what is really happening.
I'm going to ask you, because I've asked a lot of people so far and most (if not all) have declined to answer: What gives you that preference? What makes that mystery more appealing to you? What makes god (for the sake of simplification, I know you are willing to use many words there) the kind of idea you want to believe in (since you have been honest in saying that you know it to be an illogical assertion)?
I think I can say that you are a rational person. I am not attempting to be instulting by asking these things. I just want to get into the mindset of someone who is consciously deciding to believe in something while knowing it to be irrational. I want to know what the appeal is and what ideas motivate that desire.
Good post Winged, and yes, that is exactly what I am driving at. Coincidentally, that is exactly where the conversation has broken down time and again. I hope that soon we will hear some honest answers to these questions.
I can't fathom why you would assume it's simply god or nothing, but I thank you for giving an honest answer. I truly appreciate it.
I believe in God and Heaven and Hell, but, I do not find this outcome to be the most interesting outcome. I actually find reincarnation to be quite facinating. As much as I may believe and want to go to heaven, in the end I think it would be a rather boring eternity. Same goes for hell.
Yeah but reincarnation involves a higher power too doesn't it? Either way it's definitely interesting.
Well maybe I'm misunderstanding something, what other choice is there? A being created the initial matter/energy, or nothing created it. At least at this point I don't see there is another answer, until science progresses and possibly finds an answer other than that.
What i find interesting is why people just believe in what science tells them.
Nothing is 100% proven, sure, but things we have absolutely no evidence for are not under the same umbrella as things for which we have a reasonable explanation backed up by empirical evidence and understanding by experiment, observation, and accurate prediction. Nobody has to believe in anything. There is no requirement of the mind to hold beliefs, I am living proof of this, as are many other atheists and agnostics.
So you have ruled out "more interesting," as a motivation for you to choose to believe in your god. What persuaded you then? What is the compelling nature of that concept to you? What ideas do you have that lead you to hold those particular beliefs?
You choose to be effected. You say you are gay, how does someone's belief stop you from loving someone of the same sex? They don't, unless you let them. Those people are wrong to pass judgement, but it ultimately falls on you to decide to be insulted by their beliefs.
I gave you a handful of reasons (beyond "because I want to") why I believe in a God, for example:
and:
In which you said they were all unfounded because none of it is real "evidence" or "proof" - even though we had already come to an agreement there is no "evidence" or "proof." You belittle my reasons for belief, simply because there is no proof. You are attacking, insulting, and persecuting my beliefs; and everyone that has kindly tried to answer your "why" question.
I have told you various times now why. You are too close minded to see my, and other's, perspective, so this is a complete waste of time.
I don't think there is an answer right now, but that doesn't mean that we have the group of all possible answers in-hand. If you want to say "nothing," created the universe and be more poetic about it, you might suggest that the universe is eternal, just in diffirent forms. I feel that is just as plausible as any arguments of causality and does not insert ugly words like "nothing."
We don't have to believe in anything. I'm really saddened that you don't grasp the concept of belief even after I have repeated it dozens of times now. Science presents us with evidence, with observations, with tests, and with verifiable predictions. We weigh this data with the propositions given us and we have theories with varying degrees of certainty that span the range of "possible," to "almost complete certainty." This is fundamentally diffirent from belief which is accepting something in the complete absence of evidence. Science does not ever do this.
By 100% proven I mean that your entire life may be completely false. There is one notion that there is only one true person and everythign else in teh universe is something that is created from their own mind and without this one person nothign would exist.
Also when I say one religion is more interesting than another I do not say that the motivation of it is a problem. I think that a world where we can ahve super powers like dragonball z would be very interesting but that does not mean I believe in it.
You miss the point that tests and observations and all evidence that science provides is meaningless if the existence of this world is false. What you believe is what you believe, science is a belief just as religion is. There have been studies of religion and the like and each thing has its possibilities in the worlds eyes but none of it really matters. All that matters is what you believe and whether you will let anyone change that about you.
Is there anything I can say that will change what you believe? Would you need a God himself to come down to you to tell you that he is real and your beliefs are false? Would even that matter to you? What if your lack of faith in God sends you to an eternity in a burning hell? Would yo uthen believe in him? It is your choice as well as mine any everyone elses. We will deal with our consequences when the time comes because we will all die someday.
I have lost jobs, friends, and members of my family who haven't spoken to me in decades over my sexuality. I did not chooose to be gay, and I hope you aren't implying that. The beliefs of other people directly effected these relationships.
You told me you had a belief, then you gave me what looked like evidence. I had to explain to you that belief is the assertion of something in the absence of evidence. If you are telling me that is evidence then you are telling me that you don't "believe," at all. I don't insult your beliefs by telling you that evidence is or isn't supporting your claim. That isn't saying a thing about your beliefs, because beliefs (as I said) aren't based on evidence. What i'm asking for are your ideas, independant of evidence, that makes god appealing, that make christian dogma appealing.
No, like I said, you said you had a belief and then you gave me "evidence," to support it. Belief has nothing to do with evidence. I was not asking for evidence. I wanted your own ideas, your own thoughts, etc. I was quite explicit and I don't know where you went about getting so confused.