Do you believe in God and why

[notmyself]

Grammatically correct but meaningless piece of prose masquerading as a question. What is the colour of seven?

 

[Skeptic7]

2 hours ago, notmyself said:

 

Aye.… it's called the Gish Gallop.

 

 

Just to clarify (not to you, of course)...for those who don't know...Eugenie Scott is a biologist and anthropologist, university professor and Atheist who vehemently opposes the teaching of "Creationism" and "Intelligent Design" in schools. She also served as Executive Director of the National Center For Science Education and on the Board of Trustees of Americans United For The Separation of Church and State. 

[notmyself]

3 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

Just to clarify (not to you, of course)...for those who don't know...Eugenie Scott is a biologist and anthropologist, university professor and Atheist who vehemently opposes the teaching of "Creationism" and "Intelligent Design" in schools. She also served as Executive Director of the National Center For Science Education and on the Board of Trustees of Americans United For The Separation of Church and State. 

 

Works endlessly to do so.

 

 

 

 

[ThaiBunny]

23 minutes ago, notmyself said:

Grammatically correct but meaningless piece of prose masquerading as a question. What is the colour of seven?

Precisely my point - we are unable to discuss anything that does not conform to the human construct of language

[notmyself]

2 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

Precisely my point - we are unable to discuss anything that does not conform to the human construct of language

 

Ergo WHY consider the question as other than white noise. On what basis should this question be more valid?

 

[kevvy]

On 4/14/2019 at 10:12 PM, villagefarang said:

Hellllll No????

no photoshop here .

Edited June 9, 2019 by kevvy

[Odysseus123]

59 minutes ago, notmyself said:

 

You seem to be making a rod for your own back my friend. '''non human construct''' It did make me laugh though and this thread has had its laughs along the way. It's only because members are being polite to each other that it's still open. Be nice to get back to the question at hand rather than debate specific verses of a book. 

 

 

"..it's only because members are being polite to each other.."

 

..and a good thing too!

 

In the immortal words of President Merkin Muffley..

 

"Gentlemen,you cannot fight here..this is the War Room!"

Edited June 9, 2019 by Odysseus123

[CMNightRider]

It seems to me, to be an atheist one has to believe that nothing produces everything; non-life produces life; randomness produces fine-tuning; chaos produces information; unconsciousness produces consciousness; and non-reason produces reason. 

 

After reading so many nonsensical comments on this subject, it looks like these people hope and wish there is no God, no accountability, and therefore no judgment.  Am I missing something here?

 

The Bible affirms Gods existence, and the fact that a judgment is indeed coming for those who know within themselves the truth He exists but suppress that truth (Romans 1:20).  However, for those who respond to the evidence that a Creator does indeed exist, He offers the way of salvation that has been accomplished through His Son, Jesus Christ.  

 

It almost looks like some of you are competing in some sort of stupid contest.  People are surrounded with proof of God’s existence, and it is only through the hardening of sin that men reject that proof (Romans 1:18–23).  It is foolish to disbelieve in God (Psalm 14:1).  All of us have until our last breath to figure this out.  After that, it is a done deal.
 

[yodsak]

I've used this before ,but it's a classic.

 

[transam]

11 minutes ago, CMNightRider said:

It seems to me, to be an atheist one has to believe that nothing produces everything; non-life produces life; randomness produces fine-tuning; chaos produces information; unconsciousness produces consciousness; and non-reason produces reason. 

 

After reading so many nonsensical comments on this subject, it looks like these people hope and wish there is no God, no accountability, and therefore no judgment.  Am I missing something here?

 

The Bible affirms Gods existence, and the fact that a judgment is indeed coming for those who know within themselves the truth He exists but suppress that truth (Romans 1:20).  However, for those who respond to the evidence that a Creator does indeed exist, He offers the way of salvation that has been accomplished through His Son, Jesus Christ.  

 

It almost looks like some of you are competing in some sort of stupid contest.  People are surrounded with proof of God’s existence, and it is only through the hardening of sin that men reject that proof (Romans 1:18–23).  It is foolish to disbelieve in God (Psalm 14:1).  All of us have until our last breath to figure this out.  After that, it is a done deal.
 

"The Bible affirms God's existence"...Was it beamed down from above...?

 

Did you not know that humans are all different, born different. We have murderers, peodo's, rapists, you name it....It seems your God wants all of these human variations, well they are probably in every corner of our planet....

 

Why do you think your god did not make his humans all perfect to start with...?

[Date Masamune]

38 minutes ago, CMNightRider said:

It seems to me, to be an atheist one has to believe that nothing produces everything; non-life produces life; randomness produces fine-tuning; chaos produces information; unconsciousness produces consciousness; and non-reason produces reason. 

 

After reading so many nonsensical comments on this subject, it looks like these people hope and wish there is no God, no accountability, and therefore no judgment.  Am I missing something here?

 

The Bible affirms Gods existence, and the fact that a judgment is indeed coming for those who know within themselves the truth He exists but suppress that truth (Romans 1:20).  However, for those who respond to the evidence that a Creator does indeed exist, He offers the way of salvation that has been accomplished through His Son, Jesus Christ.  

 

It almost looks like some of you are competing in some sort of stupid contest.  People are surrounded with proof of God’s existence, and it is only through the hardening of sin that men reject that proof (Romans 1:18–23).  It is foolish to disbelieve in God (Psalm 14:1).  All of us have until our last breath to figure this out.  After that, it is a done deal.
 

No. No rational person “hopes” there is no god, that is like hoping the Easter bunny won’t come. No cosmology theories state something comes from nothing. The best argument creationism has is “the universe is complicated and we can’t explain it all, so there must be a creator”. This best argument of all arguments is a logical fallacy. It is obviously to anyone with knowledge of high school biology that life on earth is a continuum. I don’t consider the existence of deities because there no reason to do so, and it has already been considered by philosophers and academics since ancient times who have come up with nothing to prove it. It is not wanting to believe there is no god. It is waste of thought.

 

My question would be why do so many people want believe in one or more Gods, or believe in a God, when there has not been a single where’s of evidence for the existence of any supernatural phenomena in the entire history of humanity?

 

“The Bible affirms gods existence”. This is an example of the logical fallacy known as the circular argument, or, “I say it is so, so it is so”.

 

 

 

Edited June 9, 2019 by Date Masamune

[Skeptic7]

43 minutes ago, CMNightRider said:

It seems to me, to be an atheist one has to believe that nothing produces everything; non-life produces life; randomness produces fine-tuning; chaos produces information; unconsciousness produces consciousness; and non-reason produces reason. 

 

After reading so many nonsensical comments on this subject, it looks like these people hope and wish there is no God, no accountability, and therefore no judgment.  Am I missing something here?

 

The Bible affirms Gods existence, and the fact that a judgment is indeed coming for those who know within themselves the truth He exists but suppress that truth (Romans 1:20).  However, for those who respond to the evidence that a Creator does indeed exist, He offers the way of salvation that has been accomplished through His Son, Jesus Christ.  

 

It almost looks like some of you are competing in some sort of stupid contest.  People are surrounded with proof of God’s existence, and it is only through the hardening of sin that men reject that proof (Romans 1:18–23).  It is foolish to disbelieve in God (Psalm 14:1).  All of us have until our last breath to figure this out.  After that, it is a done deal.
 

Oh...you're missing something alright.  

[transam]

Wonder how many folk took notice of these guys...????

 

 

 

 

[Skeptic7]

4 hours ago, CMNightRider said:

It seems to me, to be an atheist one has to believe that nothing produces everything; non-life produces life; randomness produces fine-tuning; chaos produces information; unconsciousness produces consciousness; and non-reason produces reason. 

 

After reading so many nonsensical comments on this subject, it looks like these people hope and wish there is no God, no accountability, and therefore no judgment.  Am I missing something here?

 

The Bible affirms Gods existence, and the fact that a judgment is indeed coming for those who know within themselves the truth He exists but suppress that truth (Romans 1:20).  However, for those who respond to the evidence that a Creator does indeed exist, He offers the way of salvation that has been accomplished through His Son, Jesus Christ.  

 

It almost looks like some of you are competing in some sort of stupid contest.  People are surrounded with proof of God’s existence, and it is only through the hardening of sin that men reject that proof (Romans 1:18–23).  It is foolish to disbelieve in God (Psalm 14:1).  All of us have until our last breath to figure this out.  After that, it is a done deal.
 

You are so far gone (indoctrinated) in the dogma that it is just unimaginable for you to understand that many of us NEVER...EVER...think about such a ridiculous notion of a god. That thing never enters our minds...except on the occasional thread like this one or random door knock of years gone by. We DO NOT pray (nor ever consider it), we DO NOT give thanks (unless to a buddy who buys us a beer) and we ARE NOT afraid of yours (or any other's) invisible, immaterial, inconsequential, undetectable, deaf, dumb, blind, silly, childish, NON-EXISTENT concept-Thing you waste your ONE AND ONLY life on.

 

It's impossible for you to accept that WE DON'T think about it at all. We DON'T CARE about what your ridiculous book of stories says. We also don't pretend to have all the knowledge of the Universe and don't give a flying "eff" if something can or cannot (or did or did not) come from nothing. We don't know yet...working on it...check back again later and preferably with SCIENTISTS that do care and may have an answer. We don't pretend, like Fundies such as yourself, to have all the answers. Sometimes "we don't yet know" is the best and most honest answer (you should give it a try). But why??? Accurate, meaningful, proven answers are just brushed aside as foolish and ridiculous by the likes of you and your lot, for the same tired old biblical nonsense and non-answers. 

 

I worked in the aviation biz for nearly 35 years. Had at least 5 intense incidents where some people were probably shitting their pants...but never once did any of us pray (nor hear anyone else praying). We kept cool...relied on our extensive training...did our jobs...and resolved the situation safely and prayer free. 

 

A SINGLE pair of hands doing is worth infinitely more than 7 billion pairs of hands praying. End of story. 

Edited June 9, 2019 by Skeptic7

[CMNightRider]

3 hours ago, Skeptic7 said:

Oh...you're missing something alright.  

........and that would be what?

[MalandLee]

I have seen a desperate longing to share their faith in the eyes of many Christians, and I believe it to be in most cases a heartfelt expression of their love for their fellow man and their desire to distribute or disperse widely the joy of God’s fatherly love for mankind. Trouble is, they don’t apprehend how difficult it is for us rationalists to even converse with them.

 

For example, the words I have typed above presuppose me using symbols that I don’t even believe in, just in order to communicate. We atheists always Feel that way when we are drawn into a discussion about religion and we are forced to use (to us) meaningless terms like ‘God.’ We feel that we are debasing ourselves by descending to use the unscientific Christian lexicon, which we genuinely see as barbaric and primitive.

 

We feel awkward and vulnerable when we do so. We don’t take their crude representations seriously, but rather as quickly disposable verbal tools for contact purposes.

 

Now you know that I’m speaking in general terms here, and this isn’t an attack on any specific religious person, but merely an attempt by me to explain how frustrating it is for guys like us to parley.

 

It must work the other way for them too, and be equally frustrating when they quote the Holy Bible to us and we don’t respond to their quotes and references to the truth, as they see it, in the Holy Scripture. I can feel their frustration and I genuinely sympathise with them sometimes.

 

On certain occasions or in certain cases but not always, I ask them to imagine what it’s like to be within our minds. It’s not the notion of negativity that they probably imagine it to be - it’s not a sort of vacuum filled with an indescribable hunger or longing for something unbeknownst and unreachable - but rather an exhilarating, expansible, euphoric, exciting place, full of freedom, challenge and counter-challenge and breathtaking self-sufficiency.

 

Can they imagine how arduous it is for us to regress into some sort of Crude childhood naivety characterised by over-simplicity and babble seriously of ‘God’ and ‘soul’ - nouns that for us are without substance of significance, denoting nothing. I can insinuate myself into their minds by using my natural empathy. I get A feeling of love and a kind of peace and joy, but also detect a yearning For something further - there’s a feeling of incompleteness - as if some expansion of their selfhood is required which is intangible and mysterious.

As for those that still have the faith, I hope that someday they find peace they seek, whether the route is by a total immersion in the completeness and love of Christian spirituality, OR by opening the golden door of joyful liberation and joining those of us who are waiting for them in the garden of atheism/humanism, sipping the nectar of self-determination through silver straws.

 

Edited June 9, 2019 by MalandLee
Typo

[Elad]

11 hours ago, notmyself said:

Who is claiming something came from nothing?

Me,

    ????

[notmyself]

2 hours ago, Elad said:

Me,

    ????

 

lol The zero energy universe is a description of 'is' and not from whence it came.

 

The problem with questions such as this is lack of data since we only know of one universe. 

 

[CMNightRider]

This is to all those who profess to be an atheists.  The Bible teaches that atheists are not really atheists.  Those who profess to be atheists do ultimately believe in God in their heart-of-hearts.  The Bible teaches that everyone knows God, because God has revealed Himself to all (Romans 1:19).  The Bible tells us that God’s existence is so obvious that anyone who suppresses this truth is “without excuse” (Romans 1:20).  That should be a sobering thought.  The atheist denies with his lips what he knows in his heart.  If they know God, then why do atheists claim that they do not believe in God?

 

The answer may be found in (Romans 1:18).  God is angry at unbelievers for their wickedness.  An all-powerful, all-knowing God who is angry at you is a terrifying prospect.  So even though many atheists might claim that they are neutral, objective observers, and that their disbelief in God is purely rational, in reality, they are strongly motivated to reject the biblical God who is rightly angry with them.  So they suppress that truth in unrighteousness.  They convince themselves that they do not believe in God.  The atheist is like a schizophrenic—believing in God, but believing that he does not believe in God.

 

Just keep in mind you have until your last breath to accept Jesus Christ as your Saviour.  After that it is a done deal.  Eternity is a long time to harbor regret.   

[CMNightRider]

5 hours ago, MalandLee said:

I have seen a desperate longing to share their faith in the eyes of many Christians, and I believe it to be in most cases a heartfelt expression of their love for their fellow man and their desire to distribute or disperse widely the joy of God’s fatherly love for mankind. Trouble is, they don’t apprehend how difficult it is for us rationalists to even converse with them.

 

For example, the words I have typed above presuppose me using symbols that I don’t even believe in, just in order to communicate. We atheists always Feel that way when we are drawn into a discussion about religion and we are forced to use (to us) meaningless terms like ‘God.’ We feel that we are debasing ourselves by descending to use the unscientific Christian lexicon, which we genuinely see as barbaric and primitive.

 

We feel awkward and vulnerable when we do so. We don’t take their crude representations seriously, but rather as quickly disposable verbal tools for contact purposes.

 

Now you know that I’m speaking in general terms here, and this isn’t an attack on any specific religious person, but merely an attempt by me to explain how frustrating it is for guys like us to parley.

 

It must work the other way for them too, and be equally frustrating when they quote the Holy Bible to us and we don’t respond to their quotes and references to the truth, as they see it, in the Holy Scripture. I can feel their frustration and I genuinely sympathise with them sometimes.

 

On certain occasions or in certain cases but not always, I ask them to imagine what it’s like to be within our minds. It’s not the notion of negativity that they probably imagine it to be - it’s not a sort of vacuum filled with an indescribable hunger or longing for something unbeknownst and unreachable - but rather an exhilarating, expansible, euphoric, exciting place, full of freedom, challenge and counter-challenge and breathtaking self-sufficiency.

 

Can they imagine how arduous it is for us to regress into some sort of Crude childhood naivety characterised by over-simplicity and babble seriously of ‘God’ and ‘soul’ - nouns that for us are without substance of significance, denoting nothing. I can insinuate myself into their minds by using my natural empathy. I get A feeling of love and a kind of peace and joy, but also detect a yearning For something further - there’s a feeling of incompleteness - as if some expansion of their selfhood is required which is intangible and mysterious.

As for those that still have the faith, I hope that someday they find peace they seek, whether the route is by a total immersion in the completeness and love of Christian spirituality, OR by opening the golden door of joyful liberation and joining those of us who are waiting for them in the garden of atheism/humanism, sipping the nectar of self-determination through silver straws.

 

Some of the emotions you describe makes me think you are under the influence of some serious mind altering medication.  Anyway, you might want to hold those thoughts and let us know how it works out for you.  

[thaibeachlovers]

22 hours ago, notmyself said:

 

I don't deny and we use this same logic up to and including legal matters. What does a 'jury of our peers' do? Is it 'guilty or not guilty' of 'x' or 'guilty or innocent' of 'x'.

 

I must mention nothing comes from nothing but first we have no basis to consider the question of what existed before as valid. It has been proposed that a multiverse may exist but it does nothing to influence the god question, as we only know of one and can only use that as a basis. I've always find it funny as it's pulling **** out of mostly hydrogen gas.

 

My old friend tbl. Before I go looking I'll ask on what possible basis you can make such a claim. The claim is essentially...…. ?

 

 

 

The claim that nothing comes from nothing? Only magic can "make" something out of nothing. So if something came from nothing, the force that created it must be "god".

 

Seems to me that the naysayers are looking at the question from too small a perspective, too narrow a focus, too limited in imagination.

Look at the big picture. Just as we and everything in the universe are/is composed of atoms and molecules, perhaps the components of the universe are the "body" of "god".

I've long considered that "God" may be a force outside of our comprehension that exists throughout this universe and possibly infinite other universes and parallel dimensions, and that the spark of intelligence that makes lumps of walking meat become "people" comes from that force, and when our bodies die, our life spark ( what makes us, us ) returns to that force to be reborn in another being, not necessarily human. On other worlds, "people" may be lumps of silicone or a cloud of electricity. Who said that humans are the only intelligent beings in the entire universe?

 

To imagine that "god" is in the image of man, is just too arrogant, in my opinion.

[ThaiBunny]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I've long considered that "God" may be a force outside of our comprehension

And therefore not even worth discussing because we have no language to comprehend such a thing

[thaibeachlovers]

22 hours ago, ThaiBunny said:

Still waiting for your explanation of what's north of the North Pole

For all any of know, the very point of the north pole may be the portal to another dimension, but we are too big to go through it, of course.

[CMNightRider]

15 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The claim that nothing comes from nothing? Only magic can "make" something out of nothing. So if something came from nothing, the force that created it must be "god".

 

Seems to me that the naysayers are looking at the question from too small a perspective, too narrow a focus, too limited in imagination.

Look at the big picture. Just as we and everything in the universe are/is composed of atoms and molecules, perhaps the components of the universe are the "body" of "god".

I've long considered that "God" may be a force outside of our comprehension that exists throughout this universe and possibly infinite other universes and parallel dimensions, and that the spark of intelligence that makes lumps of walking meat become "people" comes from that force, and when our bodies die, our life spark ( what makes us, us ) returns to that force to be reborn in another being, not necessarily human. On other worlds, "people" may be lumps of silicone or a cloud of electricity. Who said that humans are the only intelligent beings in the entire universe?

 

To imagine that "god" is in the image of man, is just too arrogant, in my opinion.

(Genesis 1:27) “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” 

[thaibeachlovers]

12 minutes ago, CMNightRider said:

(Genesis 1:27) “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” 

The Bible (old testament) is a history book of sorts, and far as I'm concerned not 100% accurate as relates to such.

More likely, IMO, "God" chose to present himself to humans in a form they could accept, as the way "God" really is would be traumatic to primitive people that believed thunder was gods fighting. To say that "God" looks like us is, IMO, silly as "God" could be anything "God" wants to be. After all, a being that created the universe, life and everything can't be constrained to one form.

Where it all went wrong IMO, is that by thinking men look like "God" humans started to think they were actually important, instead of an insignificant species on an insignificant planet in an insignificant solar system in an insignificant galaxy somewhere in the universe, and realising that on a cosmic scale, our entire existence will be for an insignificant blip in the life of the universe.

[thaibeachlovers]

39 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

And therefore not even worth discussing because we have no language to comprehend such a thing

Oh c'mon. This is the "pub", and it's exactly the sort of thing we might discuss down at a real pub.

[notmyself]

29 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The claim that nothing comes from nothing? Only magic can "make" something out of nothing. So if something came from nothing, the force that created it must be "god".

 

Magic?! lol OK Perhaps you could be kind enough to furnish me with any logical reason to believe that nothing is the only possible outcome from nothing. 

 

So you have absolutely nothing... except a force (yet to be demonstrated)… and a god (yet to be demonstrated) and a viaduct. I'm not convinced mate.

 

 

[VincentRJ]

11 hours ago, CMNightRider said:

 So even though many atheists might claim that they are neutral, objective observers, and that their disbelief in God is purely rational, in reality, they are strongly motivated to reject the biblical God who is rightly angry with them.  So they suppress that truth in unrighteousness.  They convince themselves that they do not believe in God.  The atheist is like a schizophrenic—believing in God, but believing that he does not believe in God.

 

Thanks for that insight, CMNightRider. ????

 

I've often been puzzled by the fact that so many apparently rational, intelligent, and educated people in the past, and in the present, appear to show such a disconnect with their rationality when they also express a belief in God. They are like a Schizophrenic.

 

An example would be the great scientist, Sir Isaac Newton, famous for his concept of Gravity and the laws of motion. When I was at school studying Physics, it was never mentioned that Isaac Newton was also a deeply religious man. I learned that later.

 

One of the great puzzles about Newton's theory of gravity, that all objects exert a gravitational force of attraction in proportion to their mass and their distance apart, was why the universe was not collapsing upon itself because each star must be attracted to its nearest neighbour by the force of gravity.

 

Newton's explanation was that God intervened and prevented all the stars collapsing. For the next 250 years or so, it was assumed that the universe was static, because of God's interference. When Albert Einstein first formulated his theory of relativity, the mathematics indicated that the universe was expanding, but Einstein also believed it was static and introduced a constant into the equations to make them conform with this religious belief that the universe is static.

 

A few years later, Edwin Hubble produced empirical evidence that the universe is in fact expanding. As a result, Einstein removed his cosmological constant, and called it his greatest blunder.

 

Now imagine if Newton had not switched to his religious persona in order to explain this puzzle as to why the universe was not collapsing upon itself due to the force of gravity. He could have said, "I don't know why the universe is not collapsing upon itself, but one explanation is that it could be expanding." When Einstein later formulated his relativity theory, he could have presented it as mathematical evidence that the universe is expanding, in support of Newton's hypothesis. Isaac Newton would have gained an even more brilliant reputation in history, and Einstein would have avoided an embarrassing blunder.

[CMNightRider]

3 hours ago, ThaiBunny said:

And therefore not even worth discussing because we have no language to comprehend such a thing

I think you are in denial.  The KJV version of the Bible is written in plain English, and easy to understand.  

 

“God is very difficult to understand” - Buddha

[4MyEgo]

I only believe in one God, "Erectus", The God of Love, he appears for me when I need him without fail ????