Why do you still believe in a god?

[Progmetty]

Then let them have their comfort.

[Voyage 34]

It really all boils down to people fearing the shit out of death.

Which is sort of amusing. Death is the one thing that can be promised to all of humankind, yet so many go to great lengths to try to believe that they will never truly die.

[Chino]

Then let them have their comfort.

I envy their comfort TBH.

[Progmetty]

Me too, I realize that anyone who keeps up with the "whats rational" tone with religious people is -at least sub consciously- jealous of their comfortable state.
Again drugs is a really good analogy here imo.

[El Barto]

have i missed something...I don't keep up with evolution.  has evolution found the explanation for where matter came from?

Probably the same place God came from. 

As for "why Christianity?", it's a construct of man, built perfectly for man.  What's not to love?  It's infinitely malleable, which allows anybody to do or be anything they want.  You get all the benefits of major religion, the promise of life in paradise and the ability to look smugly down on others, without all of the annoying rules, conditions and guilt that were always getting in the way.  It's like the buffet at Bellagio. 

[j]

]
I Would God really deny a person entry into heaven because they believed that the earth was gradually created over billions of years instead a literal 6 days? Not a reasonable God anyway.

No but his followers at one time were willing to lock away, stone, or burn whoever challenged the original 6 day theory. It just seems like God is being shaped to fit whatever group of people is currently living. Isn't suppose to be the other way around.

I have a hard time discussing things like this with with non-believers. Here's the problem I have. If a religion or faith changes over time you say that it can't be true because people are changing their beliefs based on scientific facts. Apparently a religion should not grow or change it's faith based on discoveries made in the world. Or you expect that God should have given us every piece of knowledge that we need in the very beginning so there's nothing else to learn, thus our faith doesn't change. On the other hand, if I believed in a literal 6 day creation, you'd say I was ignoring the facts that science has proven and thus can't be correct. So there's really no way for me to win. I don't really know what else to say to you about this subject, so I'll just leave it at that.

Well, that's the thing. If people change the definitions of what a god allows over time, doesn't that just prove that god is just a creation of humanity?

Ignoring the part of your post concerning the bible (because I mostly agree with it), this isn't what lordxizor was saying.  He wasn't claiming to hold the assumption that God gave humans full and complete knowledge of him and his mechanisms of creation and intervention from the outset.  In other words, God could not be changing at all, but we still could be coming to a better understanding of him (thus, "changing our ideas about God").  At least I think that's what he was getting at.

As for the science proving/disproving God stuff going on earlier in the thread, I can't believe we still haven't gotten past that.  No matter what religion proclaims or what science reveals, neither will *ever* have anything to do with the other (specific claims of religious texts notwithstanding).

-J

[yeshaberto]

have i missed something...I don't keep up with evolution.  has evolution found the explanation for where matter came from?

No, evolution is usually used in explaining how one one life form may slowly alter over time if it's environment allows it to. I don't stay up to date on the bible. Has it found an explanation as to where God came from?

touche

[El Comandante de Córdoba]

As an atheist, it is imperative to ask yourself what about the universe you find incompatible with God's existence.
Upon realizing that you are unable to name a single thing, you will begin to question the very assertion of "there is no God."

[bosk1]

As an atheist, it is imperative to ask yourself what about the universe you find incompatible with God's existence.
Upon realizing that you are unable to name a single thing, you will begin to question the very assertion of "there is no God."

Exactly.  I don't find a single thing that is incompatible with God's existence, and I find plenty that is compatible.  But that's neither here nor there, really.  We've had these debates so many times on this forum, and they never go anywhere.  To answer the question simply and directly:  As I said in the first sentence, I am persuaded that what man can observe about the universe is consistent with the fact that there is a God.  I am further persuaded that he has made himself known to man, that he has told man what he expects and what he promises those who have faith and try to live up to those expectations, that he is merciful, that he is fully capable of doing what he has promised, and that he does in fact do so.  Those things being true, I am compelled to "still believe in a god" the same way I am compelled to believe that if I opened the window of my office on the 23rd floor right now and stepped outside, the law of gravity would make a swift end of me.  I just don't see any other conclusion as being wise.

[TheVoxyn]

As an atheist, it is imperative to ask yourself what about the universe you find incompatible with God's existence.
Upon realizing that you are unable to name a single thing, you will begin to question the very assertion of "there is no God."

It's not so much that nothing is incompatible with god's existence (seeing as a almighty being should be able to create and do everything that is in existence), but it's that there is not a single thing that points towards a god existing. Because I cannot think of something incompatible, it must be there? I now believe in a large invisible flying mammoth. I haven't seen a single sign that rules out it's existence.

Also, if there is a god - there are a large number of things that are questionable. A god could let half the world suffer and let people die of hunger. He could let slavery exist. He could let floods kill thousands of people. Question is, why would he? All things that do not rule out an existence of a god. But they don't really point towards a god either.

[ClairvoyantCat]

As an atheist, it is imperative to ask yourself what about the universe you find incompatible with God's existence.
Upon realizing that you are unable to name a single thing, you will begin to question the very assertion of "there is no God."

But a being compatible with all of the aspects of the universe could be easily imagined, because all of mankind's knowledge of the universe is based on his own thinking.  That logic would really do nothing but take you in circles.  I could imagine a creature that has all of the adaptations needed to live on Mars.  Does that mean that there is life on Mars?

[bosk1]

A god could let half the world suffer and let people die of hunger. He could let slavery exist. He could let floods kill thousands of people. Question is, why would he? All things that do not rule out an existence of a god. But they don't really point towards a god either.

  Why not?

[TheVoxyn]

A god could let half the world suffer and let people die of hunger. He could let slavery exist. He could let floods kill thousands of people. Question is, why would he? All things that do not rule out an existence of a god. But they don't really point towards a god either.

  Why not?

Why would a 'loving and caring' god let people suffer so much?

[Bonham]

As an atheist, it is imperative to ask yourself what about the universe you find incompatible with God's existence.
Upon realizing that you are unable to name a single thing, you will begin to question the very assertion of "there is no God."

Exactly.  I don't find a single thing that is incompatible with God's existence, and I find plenty that is compatible.  But that's neither here nor there, really.  We've had these debates so many times on this forum, and they never go anywhere.  To answer the question simply and directly:  As I said in the first sentence, I am persuaded that what man can observe about the universe is consistent with the fact that there is a God.  I am further persuaded that he has made himself known to man, that he has told man what he expects and what he promises those who have faith and try to live up to those expectations, that he is merciful, that he is fully capable of doing what he has promised, and that he does in fact do so.  Those things being true, I am compelled to "still believe in a god" the same way I am compelled to believe that if I opened the window of my office on the 23rd floor right now and stepped outside, the law of gravity would make a swift end of me.  I just don't see any other conclusion as being wise.

I don't make the argument that God "cannot" exist. In fact, it's impossible for us to definitively know, and it may in fact be that the creation of the universe came about as the result of His divine will (or whatever). It's more that while there is no evidence supporting the claim that there is no God, there is also no evidence showing that it is necessary for God to exist for the universe to work as it does. In fact, considering M theory/unified field theory, the Big Bang theory, and the nature of force carriers, the concept of God becomes unnecessary, as the universe is able to sustain itself quite well. The coincidences that you might point to as evidence for god (the golden ratio, Earth fitting within the "Goldilocks zone") are just that: coincidences. The result of billions of years of natural particles and forces interacting through forces, explained perfectly well by quantum theory and relativity, and coalescing in a beautiful orderly blue ball, surrounded by chaos.

And that's another thing: there's chaos EVERYWHERE.

This unnecessity transforms God into more of a dead philosophical argument than an active theory. (Dead doesn't mean disproven, it just means it's not productive to discuss it anymore.) I just don't see any substantial proof that says otherwise...

[El Comandante de Córdoba]

It's not so much that nothing is incompatible with god's existence (seeing as a almighty being should be able to create and do everything that is in existence), but it's that there is not a single thing that points towards a god existing.

Well, I frankly disagree. I see the universe itself as a "thing" that points towards a God existing. Existence in itself points towards a creator, transcendent of space and time. The laws of physics, the genesis of life, the morality of human beings, the grandness and order of the universe lead to view God's existence necessary and logical.

I have an extremely hard time believing that the Universe came into existence from nothing, uncaused, and then decided to adhere to a set of universal laws that also simply decided to come into existence

.

Because I cannot think of something incompatible, it must be there? I now believe in a large invisible flying mammoth. I haven't seen a single sign that rules out it's existence.

See, we have obvious good reasons to believe that a large, invisible flying mammoth does NOT exist.
The same cannot be said about God. God is not restricted by space and time, and credited with the creation of existence.
We have good reasons to believe that God exists. An invisible flying mammoth, as awesome a mythical creature it may be, cannot be credited with the creation of the universe.

Also, if there is a god - there are a large number of things that are questionable. A god could let half the world suffer and let people die of hunger. He could let slavery exist. He could let floods kill thousands of people. Question is, why would he? All things that do not rule out an existence of a god. But they don't really point towards a god either.

The implication that objectively immoral or evil acts exist only serve to imply that objective moral actions (aka objective morality) exist as well, which only serves to further complicate matters for an atheist.

Don't forget of the concept of Free Will. God makes us responsible for our actions. If we were to know that whenever we would mess up, God would always be there to magically make everything happy for the whole world and give us divine cookies, would we ever develop responsibility? Would we be truly free to make our own decisions?

Really, the whole notion that "Evil exists, so there is no God" is primitive, foolish and detrimentally emotional.

[Ħ]

Why do people jump to that conclusion that, if there is a god, then he controls every event and detail that happens in everyone's lives, and that therefore he cannot be just and loving?  Just because he's God doesn't mean he is in control of everything.

[XJDenton]

Well, I frankly disagree. I see the universe itself as a"thing" that points towards a God existing. Existence in itself points towards a creator, transcendent of space and time. The laws of physics, the genesis of life, the morality of human beings, the grandness and order of the universe lead to view God's existence necessary and logical.

How? All of those things have naturalistic explanations.

[bosk1]

Well, first off, I will preface this by saying that unless God has directly provided an answer to a question that starts off "Why would God ___?" it is difficult to answer.  And he basically answered this question in the book of Job along the lines of, "I couldn't possibly explain to you why I do all the things I do.  I'm God and I do what I do for reasons.  Understand that you, my creation, won't always understand."  That answer may not be intellectually satisfying, but it is the only correct one.  

Second, I don't completely understand the correllation between being "loving and caring" on one hand and insulating people from all kinds of bad things on the other.  Given that we as humans tend to get comfortable and resist questioning our existence and the meaning of life unless and until our world gets rocked by something, I don't see why we should think that being insulated from all suffering would be a good thing.  If we need that kind of thing to grow, it would be unloving to remove what makes us grow.

Third, all that being said, what I do know is this:  Pain and suffering are not from God, but God does allow them.  On top of what I know in that regard, what I think is that God has a much different perspective on suffering.  While it saddens him and it is bad, I think he understands that it isn't as bad as we think it is.  I don't mean to minimize any of it, but I think it is a lot like a child going through something that the child from his or her perspective thinks is tragic, while the parent understands that it is something the child must face, can get through, and isn't as bad as the child thinks it is.  I also think that if someone is at all inclined to have a relationship with God, suffering in this life has the end result of bringing that person closer to God.  And in the end, this life is so short in comparison to eternity, that, as Paul put it, "sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us."  Forgive me if my answer seems trite, or doesn't seem satisfying.  It is actually a deep, complex question.  I struggle mightily to even comprehend what I think the answer might be.  I struggle even more to try to articulate it well, and I fear that despite my best intentions, I probably still haven't done a very good job.

[El Comandante de Córdoba]

I don't make the argument that God "cannot" exist. In fact, it's impossible for us to definitively know, and it may in fact be that the creation of the universe came about as the result of His divine will (or whatever).

So you agree that atheism as a stance if illogical as one cannot assert that 'God does not exist'?

In fact, considering M theory/unified field theory, the Big Bang theory, and the nature of force carriers, the concept of God becomes unnecessary, as the universe is able to sustain itself quite well.

The M theory, just as the parallel universe theory, is not supported by any proof. They are merely the  products of over-imaginative scientists with too much time on their hands. And even IF either are proven to be true, they would lead to an infinite regress of universe-creating universes, leading to no beginning, which is illogical, as matter and energy are neither eternal nor infinite (time being the exception with the potential to be infinite).

The that you might point to as evidence for god (the golden ratio, Earth fitting within the "Goldilocks zone") are just that: coincidences. The result of billions of years of natural particles and forces interacting through forces, explained perfectly well by quantum theory and relativity, and coalescing in a beautiful orderly blue ball, surrounded by chaos.

Actually, the Universe will most likely "end" in the scenario known as the "Big Freeze" - in which the universe's thermodynamic free energy will be completely spent. In other words, all energy will be completely spent and the universe will turn into a motionless blob of nothingness. No possibility for a "reincarnation" of the universe is possible under such circumstances.

And do not forget that quantum mechanics are observed in the presence of space-time. To imply that a quantum event is responsible for the existence of...existence... would be to imply that a quantum event "travelled" back in time to when nothing existed and birthed the universe - in other words: that the universe had to exist before it came into existence, which is, for obvious reasons, ludicrously illogical.

[Chino]

if I opened the window of my office on the 23rd floor right now and stepped outside, the law of gravity would make a swift end of me. 

Not necessarily.

[Ħ]

Bosk, what do you think of the doctrine of sovereignty? (that God is in control of everything and that everything happens according to his will, down to the slightest detail)

[bosk1]

Personally, I really, really like the phrase "ludicriously illogical."  If it weren't for the fact that it's pretty much per se inflammatory and insulting in most contexts I can think of, I would make a conscious effort to incorporate it into my vocabulary and use it as often as possible.  

[El Comandante de Córdoba]

Well, I frankly disagree. I see the universe itself as a"thing" that points towards a God existing. Existence in itself points towards a creator, transcendent of space and time. The laws of physics, the genesis of life, the morality of human beings, the grandness and order of the universe lead to view God's existence necessary and logical.

How? All of those things have naturalistic explanations.

Actually, the genesis of the Universe, the genesis of the universal laws, which tie into the "grandness and order of the universe" cannot be explained.

[Ħ]

Personally, I really, really like the phrase "ludicriously illogical."  If it weren't for the fact that it's pretty much per se inflammatory and insulting in most contexts I can think of, I would make a conscious effort to incorporate it into my vocabulary and use it as often as possible.  

Well then I guess we finally agree on something!

EDIT: Oh wait never mind.  I thought you were responding to my post. =/

[El Comandante de Córdoba]

Personally, I really, really like the phrase "ludicriously illogical."

What can one say? It's a great phrase...

[bosk1]

if I opened the window of my office on the 23rd floor right now and stepped outside, the law of gravity would make a swift end of me.  

Not necessarily.

Your personal experiences with balconies aside, I am confident enough in the certainty of that result that I'm not about to test it.  But thanks.  

Bosk, what do you think of the doctrine of sovereignty? (that God is in control of everything and that everything happens according to his will, down to the slightest detail)

Personally, I do believe everything happens in accordance with his will, but I believe that is more of a macro view than a micro view (i.e., he does NOT control everything down to the slightest detail).  He is in control, but does not control.  But I also think that (a) how that works isn't really relevant to how I need to live my life, and (b) it is so deeply theological that it makes my head hurt.  Either way, I'm not really inclined to debate it much.

[bosk1]

Personally, I really, really like the phrase "ludicriously illogical."

What can one say? It's a great phrase...

That it is.  And, upon further reflection, given my profession, I think I can probably find an appropriate use for it.  *writes it on a sticky note and attaches it to monitor for future use*

[Adami]

Regarding the whole will of god thing, I figure if it's true it's probably more like this.

God wants John to get home, doesn't matter how.

Rather than, God wants John to put his right foot 8 inches forward, then follow with his left......etc.

[XJDenton]

Well, I frankly disagree. I see the universe itself as a"thing" that points towards a God existing. Existence in itself points towards a creator, transcendent of space and time. The laws of physics, the genesis of life, the morality of human beings, the grandness and order of the universe lead to view God's existence necessary and logical.

How? All of those things have naturalistic explanations.

Actually, the genesis of the Universe, the genesis of the universal laws, which tie into the "grandness and order of the universe" cannot be explained.

And yet you are trying to with god.

[Voyage 34]

Well, I frankly disagree. I see the universe itself as a"thing" that points towards a God existing. Existence in itself points towards a creator, transcendent of space and time. The laws of physics, the genesis of life, the morality of human beings, the grandness and order of the universe lead to view God's existence necessary and logical.

How? All of those things have naturalistic explanations.

Actually, the genesis of the Universe, the genesis of the universal laws, which tie into the "grandness and order of the universe" cannot be explained.

And yet you are trying to with god.

Nice point. Well, I guess they have to hide god somewhere.

[El Comandante de Córdoba]

Well, I frankly disagree. I see the universe itself as a"thing" that points towards a God existing. Existence in itself points towards a creator, transcendent of space and time. The laws of physics, the genesis of life, the morality of human beings, the grandness and order of the universe lead to view God's existence necessary and logical.

How? All of those things have naturalistic explanations.

Actually, the genesis of the Universe, the genesis of the universal laws, which tie into the "grandness and order of the universe" cannot be explained.

And yet you are trying to with god.

Well its either that or Luck (or do they now call him "Chance"?), atheists' true God...

[Voyage 34]

Well, I frankly disagree. I see the universe itself as a"thing" that points towards a God existing. Existence in itself points towards a creator, transcendent of space and time. The laws of physics, the genesis of life, the morality of human beings, the grandness and order of the universe lead to view God's existence necessary and logical.

How? All of those things have naturalistic explanations.

Actually, the genesis of the Universe, the genesis of the universal laws, which tie into the "grandness and order of the universe" cannot be explained.

And yet you are trying to with god.

Well its either that or Luck (or do they now call him "Chance"?), atheists' true God...

Yes, anthropomorphizing something like "chance" and calling it god for atheists, that makes a lot of sense.

[El Barto]

One might also consider a person basing their religious beliefs on the perceived nature of a universe we know almost nothing about to be a ludicrous bit of illogic.  

[bosk1]

Well, I suppose you could.  But saying it that way just doesn't have the same ring to it, so why would you bother?

[El Comandante de Córdoba]

One might also consider a person basing their religious beliefs on the perceived nature of a universe we know almost nothing about to be a ludicrous bit of illogic.  

We know enough of the Universe to deem the idea that the universe came into existence from nothing, uncaused and then somehow created a set universal laws it would itself adhere to is highly illogical.

In the end, an absolute beginning of the Universe is unavoidable.