Why do you still believe in a god?

[Pirate]

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??  

I don't think that people shouldn't believe in a god. I just don't think that arguing the point that the human body as a complex structure should validate the existence of a designer, specifically when it's regarded as a 'miracle of creation'. My role so far in this thread is not to question the existence of a god per se but to bring different perspectives to the arguments being made.

     At this point I doubt that many people who have put much thought into their faith actually try to reason about the existence of their god, in the same way that I simply don't need to and don't want to reason about my belief that there is no god or no gods. Now, that isn't to imply that I am an absolutist Agnostic, far from it. I just don't believe in a god because I don't need or want to. Not because I think that it's impossible for one to exist. I'm sure many believers share my thought process, in having faith for no other reason than a want.

[bosk1]

Oh, okay.  I see what you are saying.  Thanks (and thanks to El Barto) for clarifying.  Sorry--I wasn't intentionally trying to misstate your argument.  I just didn't get it.

EDIT:  So to actually speak to your point rather than talking past it by misstating it, I see your point that, in and of itself, the complexity of the human body does not prove the existence of God.  But I personally do believe it is evidence, consistent with other evidence, that points toward a creator.  I don't think any perceived or actual imperfections undermine that. 

[Pirate]

No problem, Chief. 

[j]

I don't think such things have anything to do with one another.  Yeah, our bodies are full of inefficiencies, superfluosities, and vestigialities (those last two are not actually words, I don't think, but damn it they should be), as well as some truly amazing mechanisms, some because of their simplicity and others because of their complexity.  But in the end, it comes down to a matter of perspective.  What we may perceive as imperfections in our "design" do not preclude an all-knowing creator, any more than things we are in awe of suggest one.

In other words, someone who already believes (or is inclined to believe) in a loving, omniscient God is of course going to view things in light of that, whereas a non-believer's wonderment, while perhaps just as intense, will be directed elsewhere or chalked up to other possible causes.

-J

[Pirate]

Here's another question for believers who argue a supposed logical reason for their belief: If you attribute unexplained positive phenomena to a god and in effect use unexplained phenomena as proof of said god, where do negative phenomena come into the equation? If the miracle of birth points to a all-loving creator, what do you think about things like, say, I don't know... getting hit in the head by a stray bullet, or spontaneous combustion? Are there bad miracles? What are they proof of?

[Voyage 34]

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.

Exactly. If you want to present evidence for an intelligent designer, look else where.

[Ħ]

What I see a lot of when I talk to friends about this, and what I'm seeing a lot of here, is a thought process that looks like this:

"Well, if I was God, I would do this, this, and this.  So therefore, since God is apparently not doing those things, he must not exist."

It's pretty....silly when you look at it that way.

[GuineaPig]

I think it's a pretty fair question why God would give man an arduous, 3 billion year journey to dominance that still leaves us imperfect.  Or, if you literally interpret Genesis, why he would make it look like that happened.

[Voyage 34]

When it's obvious to fallible human beings that there are major design flaws in our biology, it's pretty stupid to still claim that an intelligent all knowing designer did it. Not to mention that the presence of various vestigial traits point directly to evolution, not design from scratch. To reiterate, this is not to say "we have design flaws, therefore there is no god," it's to say that the argument for design holds no ground.

[bosk1]

...why he would make it look like that happened.

It doesn't.  One can onloy reach that conclusion by making faulty assumptions.

[bosk1]

When it's obvious to fallible human beings that there are major design flaws in our biology, it's pretty stupid to still claim that an intelligent all knowing designer did it. Not to mention that the presence of various vestigial traits point directly to evolution, not design from scratch. To reiterate, this is not to say "we have design flaws, therefore there is no god," it's to say that the argument for design holds no ground.

Not at all.  You are saying that an intelligent designer necessitates a perfect design, which is simply not the case.

[Voyage 34]

When it's obvious to fallible human beings that there are major design flaws in our biology, it's pretty stupid to still claim that an intelligent all knowing designer did it. Not to mention that the presence of various vestigial traits point directly to evolution, not design from scratch. To reiterate, this is not to say "we have design flaws, therefore there is no god," it's to say that the argument for design holds no ground.

Not at all.  You are saying that an intelligent designer necessitates a perfect design, which is simply not the case.

So god is more of an aimless tinkerer then...?

[bosk1]

No.  We're designed exactly how he intended us to be.

[Voyage 34]

So god intended his creations to have flawed designs that look exactly like they would if they had evolved...ok.

[El Barto]

So god intended his creations to have flawed designs that look exactly like they would if they had evolved...ok.

That would actually be pretty damn funny,  like if he were just yanking our chains for Godly amusement.  Like hiding dinosaur bones all over the place just to fuck with us.  I'd actually consider that a fairly redeeming quality (although he's still got a ways to go).

[soundgarden]

Wow, really?! people are still using the intelligent designer argument?  I thought that was debunked; pushed to the sides along with other archaic arguments for god's existence.

Time and time and time and time again and again and again an aspect of the universe which seems to be of super human complexity or inexplicable by any natural means is later at some time understood and explained, and re-understood and re-explained and so forth removing more and more and more of gods necessity as an explanation.  The gaps are getting smaller, squeezing out the need for a god.

Furthermore, and the most absolute reason for my atheism is reinforced by the notion of a single intelligent designer designing the most unimaginably complex robot (according to the argument; that's EXACTLY what we are; where every single attosecond of thought can be mapped by bio-chemical matrix of equations) removing free will.  Without free will we are nothing special and the entirety of the universe and time can mapped mathematically and scientifically by the only people capable; the programmer, the mechanic, the engineer, the electrician, etc. of the humans; god I believe is his name and I am sure he has the schematics somewhere.

There is absolutely NO WAY free will can be argued alongside the idea of an intelligent designer.  

The deist explanation of God is the only argument that holds any semblance of weight anymore.

[ack44]

Either way, the birth of the theory of evolution by natural selection and such would be part of the plan of an all-knowing God.

[ack44]

There is absolutely NO WAY free will can be argued alongside the idea of an intelligent designer.  

I agree with this 100% but in what context CAN it be argued in?

[Perpetual Change]

So god intended his creations to have flawed designs that look exactly like they would if they had evolved...ok.

That would actually be pretty damn funny,  like if he were just yanking our chains for Godly amusement.  Like hiding dinosaur bones all over the place just to fuck with us.  I'd actually consider that a fairly redeeming quality (although he's still got a ways to go).

Lol.

Going with the yearly Bible reading we're currently doing and all the talk of cirumcision in it lately, I recall that joke where God meets Abraham up in heaven and says something to him like "LOL I didn't think you'd really do it!"

[soundgarden]

Either way, the birth of the theory of evolution by natural selection and such would be part of the plan of an all-knowing God.

...and let the world schism and people kill each other in his name under the guise of free will, WHICH HE CREATED, and condemn them to hell, WHICH HE CREATED, for breaking rules WHICH HE CREATED.

In our world, we would lock someone up for playing psychotic games like that....

Its mind boggling out deliberately delusional some people are to this....

edit...

No.  We're designed exactly how he intended us to be.

look, perfect example.  All of the violence among humans for all time were intended (or if not, then his imperfection must be admitted)

[73109]

Remember...it is all part of gods plan.

I don't believe it either and that one argument pisses me off more than any other.

[sonatafanica]

And what kind of a dick is god if after creating an entire universe, all he can give a fuck about is if a planet full of shitty people love him or not. I mean, if I was god, I'd be like, "oh, you don't like me? who gives a fuck, I made everything ever. I've accomplished quite a bit of stuff, I think I'll get over it." But the guy can't get over that shit. Everybody has to love him or they die forever.

The guy has some serious self-worth issues.

[ack44]

Either way, the birth of the theory of evolution by natural selection and such would be part of the plan of an all-knowing God.

...and let the world schism and people kill each other in his name under the guise of free will, WHICH HE CREATED, and condemn them to hell, WHICH HE CREATED, for breaking rules WHICH HE CREATED.

In our world, we would lock someone up for playing psychotic games like that....

Its mind boggling out deliberately delusional some people are to this....

No shit brah. Btw, my reply to your post was the one you apparently missed, not the one you quoted, lol.

[soundgarden]

oh, oops  

Dawkins said it quite well:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

ooh, i found examples!

https://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2008/12/richard-dawkins-god-of-old-testament.html

If someone comes in and says the god of the OT is somehow different from the god of the NT I am going to nerd rage out of here...

[sonatafanica]

For lack of a better term,

amen.

[soundgarden]

Also, is it possible for the omniscient and omnipresent god to have "intentions" ?  

It is or it isn't; simply as that.  For him to have "intentions" implies the possibility of him not succeeding.  Its a very human aspect; "intention"

[ack44]

Pretty much all human qualities of God have to be removed if you take all powerful, omnipotent and all that to their end conclusions.

@ soundgarden: Unless I misunderstood you, you were arguing a case for free will. Free will isn't compatible with an all-knowing God, but then what the hell IS it compatible with?

[soundgarden]

Unless I misunderstood you, you were arguing a case for free will. Free will isn't compatible with an all-knowing God, but then what the hell IS it compatible with?

Oh, I think we both misunderstood each other actually

I wasn't arguing a case for free will; in fact I don't see the idea even existing even in a non-theist world.  The only "will" I see is the "will to survive." which began humbly among our distant ancestors and resulted in civilizations where survival was found to be easier gained when working together. We are moving forward with this very old, very deep feeling.

As to absolute reason or purpose of life; well there is no explanation.

[ack44]

Unless I misunderstood you, you were arguing a case for free will. Free will isn't compatible with an all-knowing God, but then what the hell IS it compatible with?

Oh, I think we both misunderstood each other actually

I wasn't arguing a case for free will; in fact I don't see the idea even existing even in a non-theist world.  The only "will" I see is the "will to survive." which began humbly among our distant ancestors and resulted in civilizations where survival was found to be easier gained when working together. We are moving forward with this very old, very deep feeling.

As to absolute reason or purpose of life; well there is no explanation.

Ah, gotcha. I agree, except I wouldn't call it a "will to survive"... maybe a group of wills for things that tend to benefit our survival (and reproduction), which then, in our complex civilizations, morph into things that have little or nothing to do with survival (or reproduction).

[Big Crouton]

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.

That's a hilarious thought to me.  As I recently realized I have no signature, I believe that will make for a good one.

...why he would make it look like that happened.

It doesn't.  One can onloy reach that conclusion by making faulty assumptions.

Question...  I don't want to jump to any conclusions about your beliefs, but do you subscribe to the view that the earth is somewhere around 6000 years old, or am I misreading your post?

[TheVoxyn]

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.

That's a hilarious thought to me.  As I recently realized I have no signature, I believe that will make for a good one.

[eric42434224]

As to absolute reason or purpose of life; well there is no explanation.

And that is precicely the reason man created the reason and purpose.  It made him too uncomfortable not knowing, so god and religion were created to comfort him.

[hefdaddy42]

Jeez, this thread...

[ack44]

As to absolute reason or purpose of life; well there is no explanation.

And that is precicely the reason man created the reason and purpose.  It made him too uncomfortable not knowing, so god and religion were created to comfort him.

I'd actually say it's the exact opposite. There was no need to artificially attempt to create "reason" or "purpose"; those were things that just automatically popped up in every culture. It was only when these ideas started to be seriously challenged that the problem of cosmic meaninglessness emerged. But this sense of "meaninglessness" is only devastating when it's directly contrasted with the human imaginative/imaginary dream of eternal life and happiness and the such. And that's why when people start to get over the old ways of thinking, they can go on living a content life, because they intuitively realize that since "meaning" never existed, neither did "meaninglessness."

[bosk1]

...why he would make it look like that happened.

It doesn't.  One can only reach that conclusion by making faulty assumptions.

Question...  I don't want to jump to any conclusions about your beliefs, but do you subscribe to the view that the earth is somewhere around 6000 years old, or am I misreading your post?

Ah...finally amidst half a page of incoherent half-informed raging, an actual question that can be responded to. 

Short answer:  I think it is MUCH closer to 6,000 than 6 billion.