Why do you still believe in a god?

[bosk1]

Why does any of that matter?  Yes, the earth is tiny compared to the universe, the galaxy, or even the solar system.  So?

[GuineaPig]

Why would a god care only about us?  Sure, the Earth is capable of supporting intelligent life, which all things considered is a pretty big attribute, but there are probably dozens of other such planets within a million light years.

[Chino]

One thing I have an issue with most religions about is scale.  The Earth is not important.  It's not significant.  It's tiny.  It's in the unfashionable end of the western spiral arm of the Milky Way.  That every religion places supreme importance on the Earth, I think, is representative of when they came to be; mostly, when we were blissfully unaware of the cosmos, or our relative (un)importance.

Made me think of this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wupToqz1e2g

[ehra]

Why would a god care only about us?  Sure, the Earth is capable of supporting intelligent life, which all things considered is a pretty big attribute, but there are probably dozens of other such planets within a million light years.

Assuming there's other life in the galaxy, what does that have to do with God and religion? I'm sure the creator of everything can multitask and take care of the going-ons of multiple planets, assuming he does at all.

[bosk1]

Why would a god care only about us?  Sure, the Earth is capable of supporting intelligent life, which all things considered is a pretty big attribute, but there are probably dozens of other such planets within a million light years.

Assuming there's other life in the galaxy, what does that have to do with God and religion? I'm sure the creator of everything can multitask and take care of the going-ons of multiple planets, assuming he does at all.

This.  I don't see what the issue is.

[Chino]

It just seems like other worlds and life being maintained by the same god should be something mentioned in at least one religion.

[bosk1]

Honestly, this arguments just sounds like when you have a crush on some girl in high school, and her response is, "I just don't believe you could really care about me, so because you don't fit my preconceived ideals of what a relationship should be like, I just won't believe that you really care about me."

[jsem]

It just seems like other worlds and life being maintained by the same god should be something mentioned in at least one religion.

Pearl of Great Price (LDS scripture)

Moses 1:33
And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten.
https://lds.org/scriptures/pgp/moses/1.33.31-33?lang=eng#33

Doctrine & Covenants 76:24
That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God.

[Jamesman42]

One thing I have an issue with most religions about is scale.  The Earth is not important.  It's not significant.  It's tiny.  It's in the unfashionable end of the western spiral arm of the Milky Way.  That every religion places supreme importance on the Earth, I think, is representative of when they came to be; mostly, when we were blissfully unaware of the cosmos, or our relative (un)importance.

Uh, lol? If it isn't so important, then we do scientists look for life similar to our own?

[Adami]

One thing I have an issue with most religions about is scale.  The Earth is not important.  It's not significant.  It's tiny.  It's in the unfashionable end of the western spiral arm of the Milky Way.  That every religion places supreme importance on the Earth, I think, is representative of when they came to be; mostly, when we were blissfully unaware of the cosmos, or our relative (un)importance.

Uh, lol? If it isn't so important, then we do scientists look for life similar to our own?

......so we can relate to it. I have a feeling they'd be excited about any kind of life.

[Jamesman42]

But would that planet also be insignificant? Who should care, by that logic?

[Adami]

But would that planet also be insignificant? Who should care, by that logic?

We care, because we're alone. No one's asking why we would care.

[Bombardana]

The proof that there is no God, has not been brought forth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

Do you also believe in the flying spaghetti monster?

[bosk1]

Nice staw man argument there, Bombardana.  That argument was actually already shot down a few posts back.  Now if you have anything useful to contribute to the discussion, by all means, proceed.

[Bombardana]

Nice staw man argument there, Bombardana.  That argument was actually already shot down a few posts back.  Now if you have anything useful to contribute to the discussion, by all means, proceed.

Be a pal and quote the exact post, if you please

huh, don't see how this counts as a straw man argument. The (il)logic is consistent in both cases, that something can be believed in simply because it can't be proved to not exist.

I'm also liking that you said "if you have anything useful to contribute to the discussion, by all means, proceed." without actually debating me on the subject at all. Lovely irony!

[rumborak]

I personally find the existing notions of deities way too anthropogenic/centric. You read the documents about them and you immediately realize that the specific idea about the deity wasn't born out of a philosophical consideration, but out of a human need.

rumborak

[XJDenton]

We've tended in our cosmologies to make things familiar. Despite all our best efforts, we've not been very inventive. In the West, Heaven is placid and fluffy, and Hell is like the inside of a volcano. In many stories, both realms are governed by dominance hierarchies headed by gods or devils. Monotheists talked about the king of kings. In every culture we imagined something like our own political system running the Universe. Few found the similarity suspicious.

[eric42434224]

Just like aliens are always described as little grey men with big eyes.

[ddtonfire]

(quoting Carl Sagan)

I don't think that it's similarity; it's just how people know how to describe things in easily understandable terms.

[The Texas Pirate!]

The God of your ancestors does not appeel to your modern sencibilities? Do you feel a modern God would suit you better in this modern world? Do you feel the churches today are antiquated, and out of touch? Or perhaps the mere thought of a higher power repulses you, makes you physicly sick. Well do not frett, I have come up with a solution, or rather, A new, modern, more powerful God that could care less about our insignificant lives, on this back water insignificant world. This new god has contacted me, and wishes me to spread this good news, to all you insignificant pathetic fools. The Good News is that you all shall die, but not all at once, or of the same things. God needs you to give nothing but your undying praise and worship, and small sacrifices, and in return, god will not intervene in our insignificant meaningless lives. God does promiss to make sure you will suffer a billion deaths if you do not comply. God has technilogical devices that can transfer our souls from body to body.
so join now or suffer a billion deaths.

[Chino]

I feel like if you went back a few thousand years, you could get people to believe you.

[GuineaPig]

I think so too.  There's a reason no one respects Scientologists' beliefs.  Or cults.  Or the Falun Gong.

[Pirate]

Why do people use the human body as proof of a creator? Of all the beings in the world, we have quite our share of flaws. Why do we need to eat to survive?Even accepting that we need to eat, why make only some nutrients important to us? Why make others detrimental? Why the need for waste disposal (waste)? Why are the most important parts of our body made from weak tissue? Why is our body corruptible to disease? If our bodies are so "intelligently designed", then why were the fundamentals overlooked?

[GuineaPig]

See, in my mind the people who trot out arguments stemming from unlikelihood use false reasoning.  If you take the human body as the logical end point of the universe, of course it looks ridiculously unlikely.  But because we're not, it isn't a sound argument for design.

Imagine if you're playing a five card game of poker, and you leave the room.  When you get back, you find out you've been dealt a royal flush.  You might suspect the dealer rigged the hand.  That's only because you ascribe significance to it.  It's merely as unlikely as any other five card combination.  Similar situation.

[Voyage 34]

Why do people use the human body as proof of a creator? Of all the beings in the world, we have quite our share of flaws. Why do we need to eat to survive?Even accepting that we need to eat, why make only some nutrients important to us? Why make others detrimental? Why the need for waste disposal (waste)? Why are the most important parts of our body made from weak tissue? Why is our body corruptible to disease? If our bodies are so "intelligently designed", then why were the fundamentals overlooked?

Why do we have an appendix, a useless vestige that likely killed 1/100 people before the time of surgery?

[bosk1]

Wow, so let me get this straight:  You don't think people should believe in God because you subjectively believe the human body should have been made differently if there was a God?  Really??  I mean...really?? 

[TheVoxyn]

Wow, so let me get this straight:  You don't think people should believe in God because you subjectively believe the human body should have been made differently if there was a God?  Really??  I mean...really??  

Of course it shouldn't be a main point of the argument, but it is a valid point nontheless. I don't see why it is worthy of a facepalm. I have read sillier arguments in this thread.

[bosk1]

If you say so, but I'm having difficulty fathoming that one.  To me, it's like a 3-year-old going up to his parents and saying, "Mom and dad, you don't perform your jobs, manage the family finances, or raise you children the way I believe a reasonable parent should.  Consequently, I refuse to believe you are really my parents."

[TheVoxyn]

Parent's aren't claimed to be perfect and all knowing.

[bosk1]

Irrelevant.  You still have a child projecting his immature subjective expectations on someone's actions he does not have the tools to comprehend, which is exactly the same thing.

[TheVoxyn]

Isn't it kind of simple to wave away all criticisms with 'you just can't comprehend it' or 'it's his plan'?

I understand what you're getting at, it's just that it's the same argument which is used for a lot of criticisms. Seems a bit convenient.

[bosk1]

Yes, but "simple" or "convenient" doesn't render the argument any less valid.  I find it to be a ridiculous argument.  I mean, I get stuff like "I think the evidence for both evolution and the big bang and resulting cosmology to be compelling evidence against the creation story; therefore, I do not believe in a god."  That makes sense.  I do not find "The human body does not conform to my personal expectations of what I think it should be" to even approach making sense.

[Perpetual Change]

It basically implies in the Bible that God didn't make us exactly how he wanted us. Today's Bible reading, for example, ends with another wonderful set of instructions from God about circumcision.

WHY AREN'T YOU GUYS READING?

[TheVoxyn]

It's just that there seems to be no reason why a human being has an organ that can do nothing but get infected and kill you. I'm sure it's part of some grand plan, but it doesn't really seem to make any sense at the moment.

I'm not sure how literal 'God created man in his own image' is, but it would be pretty crappy if there was a god but he died a while ago of appendicitus.

Note: please don't take the last remark seriously.

[El Barto]

Wow, so let me get this straight:  You don't think people should believe in God because you subjectively believe the human body should have been made differently if there was a God?  Really??  I mean...really?? 

The very first sentence of his post was "why do people use the human body as proof of a creator?"  At no point did he suggest that it was proof of non-existence.  He was merely pointing out a valid flaw in a common theistic line of reasoning.

Bad show, Chief.