Posted on Apr 12, 2015
Does God exist? Or, is there a God?
332K
2.24K
2.12K
41
41
0
What are the best arguments for or against the existence of God?
I mean an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent Supreme Being -- the eternally and necessarily extant Creator of the universe.
Atheists, Theists, Agnostics, Polytheists, Pantheists and anyone else are all welcome to weigh in!
I'm not asking what you believe, I'm asking about the best arguments for or against the existence of God.
To clarify omnibenevolence, I mean simply 'perfect goodness,' not "the quality of being kind and generous towards everyone and everything." CH (CPT) (Join to see)
I mean an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent Supreme Being -- the eternally and necessarily extant Creator of the universe.
Atheists, Theists, Agnostics, Polytheists, Pantheists and anyone else are all welcome to weigh in!
I'm not asking what you believe, I'm asking about the best arguments for or against the existence of God.
To clarify omnibenevolence, I mean simply 'perfect goodness,' not "the quality of being kind and generous towards everyone and everything." CH (CPT) (Join to see)
God
Religion
Atheism
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 332
1
1
0
There was probably a God who created the universe, or at the very least got it started. It may even be that the Christian Old Testament got it all right. But I don't see God in the world today. Maybe He decided to just lean back and relax until Judgement Day, I don't know, but I don't exactly see Him having a hand in our modern world.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I believe the best argument for a God would be for one that is view more as a grand designer and not one that the bible discribes. I can believe that some being could have set in motion the way earth panned out, but evolution is supported by science and very hard to argue against.
(1)
(0)
SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA
SPC (Join to see) strictly speaking evolution/creation may be irrelevant to my OP, but of course they are related. If there is no God of any kind, then evolution of some kind may be presumed to have happened. If God does exist, then he may have used evolution, but there was presumably some kind of Creation involved at the start.
(0)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA Why should god presumably be involved? Whether the god in OP exists would seem to be irrelevant, as the empirical data that indicates evolutionary theory, or any scientific theory for that matter, wouldn't change. If they are related, than the god describes would require empirical evidence regarding its nature before it could be relevant, and therefor applicable to any scientific model.
What does start mean? even if studies of the field of abiogenesis revealed that it's likely the chemicals involved could start life by naturalistic means, that wouldn't change anyone's opinion regarding supernatural involvement, though i wish it would. It just seems rather pointless to say any gods did anything without evidence that the act even occurred. There seem to be many theories, all supported by evidence, regarding how life could have risen from non-life. Though all are incomplete, none scientifically involve any supernatural occurrence. Do you know why that is?
hint: no brainwashing necessary
What does start mean? even if studies of the field of abiogenesis revealed that it's likely the chemicals involved could start life by naturalistic means, that wouldn't change anyone's opinion regarding supernatural involvement, though i wish it would. It just seems rather pointless to say any gods did anything without evidence that the act even occurred. There seem to be many theories, all supported by evidence, regarding how life could have risen from non-life. Though all are incomplete, none scientifically involve any supernatural occurrence. Do you know why that is?
hint: no brainwashing necessary
(0)
(0)
SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA
SPC (Join to see), all I was saying was that if God and the universe exist, God probably made the universe. This would be called Creation, even if evolution of some kind followed.
You are assuming the nonexistence of the supernatural. 'Anything we think we can explain is natural, and anything we can't explain yet will be explained by natural means in the future. '
You are assuming the nonexistence of the supernatural. 'Anything we think we can explain is natural, and anything we can't explain yet will be explained by natural means in the future. '
(0)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA I do assume the nonexistence to the supernatural. This is why:
Merriam-Webster on supernatural: unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature
I believe that science is the best way of understanding the universe (science: knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation)
I've encountered no other method that i trust to explain the universe, therefor my understanding of the universe does not include the supernatural. If I don't know a thing (or reasonably believe a thing) about the universe scientifically, than I simply don't know it.
as a side note, i believe that faith is anti-scientific, and a poor reason to believe anything, as it does not require proof, or makes unfounded assumptions regarding the universe (or events within it).
TL;DR - The supernatural is by definition unscientific, so I assume it's not real (doesn't exist), because even if it is (does), we'll never know it scientifically.
Merriam-Webster on supernatural: unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature
I believe that science is the best way of understanding the universe (science: knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation)
I've encountered no other method that i trust to explain the universe, therefor my understanding of the universe does not include the supernatural. If I don't know a thing (or reasonably believe a thing) about the universe scientifically, than I simply don't know it.
as a side note, i believe that faith is anti-scientific, and a poor reason to believe anything, as it does not require proof, or makes unfounded assumptions regarding the universe (or events within it).
TL;DR - The supernatural is by definition unscientific, so I assume it's not real (doesn't exist), because even if it is (does), we'll never know it scientifically.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Funny thing, gods are. You can almost define them any way you like. The more limits you impose, the more likely or unlikely you make its existence seem. When, in reality, there's no good reason to believe magic exists at all.
Supernatural entities are better describe as unreal entities. Is that an argument? probably not. I completely dismiss the idea for the same reason i dismiss all of the other types of gods and supernatural beings humans have ever thought up. So should you.
Supernatural entities are better describe as unreal entities. Is that an argument? probably not. I completely dismiss the idea for the same reason i dismiss all of the other types of gods and supernatural beings humans have ever thought up. So should you.
(1)
(0)
Suspended Profile
MAJ Carl Ballinger Alright, probably my last one because I do not think we'll find common ground. The initial premise in my argument is that to have knowledge of something, it must be real, because one cannot know a false thing. For example, one cannot know that the earth is flat, because it's a spheroid. I don't know where I'm going wrong there sir.
PO1 (Join to see)
It seems funny that THIS is where many Christian opinions divert. As I said, and as MAJ Carl Ballinger mentioned: God is all knowing and all seeing. To us, our most complex situations dealing with the most perplexing decisions are as simple to him as seeing a rain drop in the sky and knowing with certainty that it will hit the ground. We cannot see everything as he does. If we did, we would come to the same conclusion. We are given free will because, and yes, it is very poetic to say: He has hope in us. He has hope that we will make the right decisions in life. I will agree that God can see major events happening such as wars, calamities and swayings. His knowing everything doesn't mean that we have no free will. To me, it means that not only does He know everything, but he can think of everything all at once, and not just one, or a few things at once. It gives Him the ability to predict with utmost certainty, everything that will happen.
(0)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
I suppose the distinction here for some is whether one has a choice if someone else already knows with absolute certainty what choice you're going to make. this is all conjecture, because no reasonable person anywhere will claim to know anything with absolute certainty.
that's a pretty interesting thought, considering absolute certainty in this universe would seem to be impossible given Heisenberg's uncertainty principle as i understand it. Even without that understanding, whether or not any knowledge even can be known to be 100% accurate before it can be observed is unknown.
that's a pretty interesting thought, considering absolute certainty in this universe would seem to be impossible given Heisenberg's uncertainty principle as i understand it. Even without that understanding, whether or not any knowledge even can be known to be 100% accurate before it can be observed is unknown.
(0)
(0)
PO1 (Join to see)
As far as I know, we still don't know everything about quantum physics. Things that may seem random to us, or that come with a level of uncertainty are not as uncertain to God. Like you said, it seems to be impossible, but what is impossible for man is not impossible for God. No one CAN know. Our frail brains cannot hold all this information, nor does it possess the processing power to think nearly as complex as God can. But once again, spiritual knowledge is an individual journey, and I cannot, of myself, prove this truth alone.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
To elaborate further, just as the DNA molecule has the complexity, and technical attributes of a computer program (You cannot logically have a computer program in the absence of a "programer").
The basic cell cannot function, or maintain it's own existence in any developmental form, minus any of it's apparently engineered subcomponents (it's irreducibility).
Cellular subcomponents among other things, generate and conserve their own energy, and in certain cases have "installed" self contained nano motors, for propulsion. [http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.biochem.72 [login to see] 37]
Thus once again, as stated previously, one cannot have engineered structure without an "engineer."
No "designer," no design, etc...
These are just a few of the numerous salient points made by those who would adhere to the "intelligent Design" theory of origins. This line of reasoning has also been referred to philosophically as the "cosmological argument."
Also, let's not forget a term absent from your original list of divine attributes, namely His being "transcendent!"
The basic cell cannot function, or maintain it's own existence in any developmental form, minus any of it's apparently engineered subcomponents (it's irreducibility).
Cellular subcomponents among other things, generate and conserve their own energy, and in certain cases have "installed" self contained nano motors, for propulsion. [http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.biochem.72 [login to see] 37]
Thus once again, as stated previously, one cannot have engineered structure without an "engineer."
No "designer," no design, etc...
These are just a few of the numerous salient points made by those who would adhere to the "intelligent Design" theory of origins. This line of reasoning has also been referred to philosophically as the "cosmological argument."
Also, let's not forget a term absent from your original list of divine attributes, namely His being "transcendent!"
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
The existence of "God" neither proves nor disproves the validity of "Science" (after all, for all we know it could be "God" that is making things do the things that "Science" predicts they will do and they will stop doing those things the minute that "God" stops making them do them).
Equally, the existence of "Science" neither proves nor disproves the existence of "God" (after all, possibly "God" set things up in such a way that we would discover how they worked and therefore be able to predict what they would do).
Equally the existence of "Logic" has no bearing on "Belief" since "Belief" doesn't need any foundation of "Logic" to exist (it may be silly, but it is still "Belief").
Equally the existence of "Belief" has no bearing on "Logic" since "Logic" doesn't need any foundation of "Belief" to exist (you may not believe it, but it is still "Logic").
In other words, the existence of "God" can never be proven nor disproved (until it is too late to worry about).
PS - Yes an all-powerful being (call them "God") could create a being greater than themselves. Of course tat would mean that they wouldn't be all-powerful (read as "wouldn't be 'God'") any more and the newly created being would be the all powerful one (read as "God") in their place.
Equally, the existence of "Science" neither proves nor disproves the existence of "God" (after all, possibly "God" set things up in such a way that we would discover how they worked and therefore be able to predict what they would do).
Equally the existence of "Logic" has no bearing on "Belief" since "Belief" doesn't need any foundation of "Logic" to exist (it may be silly, but it is still "Belief").
Equally the existence of "Belief" has no bearing on "Logic" since "Logic" doesn't need any foundation of "Belief" to exist (you may not believe it, but it is still "Logic").
In other words, the existence of "God" can never be proven nor disproved (until it is too late to worry about).
PS - Yes an all-powerful being (call them "God") could create a being greater than themselves. Of course tat would mean that they wouldn't be all-powerful (read as "wouldn't be 'God'") any more and the newly created being would be the all powerful one (read as "God") in their place.
(1)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
(holy crap, wall of text. sorry, going to try to respond all at once)
MAJ Carl Ballinger congratulations on your studies. I'm sure you've learned a lot about apologetics. To believe the bible was widely circulated in the time immediately after jesus' death is not possible given the non-existence of printing presses. Were the stories passed word of mouth for some time, which is likely, then the story is highly suspect from the begginning. The authors and witnesses of the events cannot be shown to have existed outside the bible, therefor the bible is the one and only source. The only reference to jesus by any historian of note that I can recall was born after jesus would have died, and many miles away. Places in the bible have been verified, even a few low-key figures seem likely to have existed as THEY ARE referenced in other materials. But there's simply no evidence ever found for any of the magic tricks of jesus or any of the more mythical sounding stories there. The typical apologist ploy here is that most of these stories would leave evidence. To that i say, well, I guess there's no good reason to believe them. I'm simply incapable of taking the bible as a whole seriously until there is evidence found there was an exodus, that a supernatural force destroyed two cities, unicorns, etc.
SPC D W perhaps i didn't communicate well. I meant that evidence and accounts provided to me thus far have been questionable, and most reasoning to be, in my opinion, faulty. I don't presume evidence is bad. That could only happen if one was lying, as empirically verified observation is what it is. however, I will admit to an expectation (not a presumption) that the arguments I'll encounter here will likely be fallacious, as this has just been typical. But, I'm looking forward to finding the arguments that are not.
COL Ted Mc So science, belief, the supernatural, and logic need not apply to each other at all? This is true. But I believe it should, and for good reason. Science is the ability to honestly understand our universe. beyond what science has now or can later reveal, any beliefs outside of that seem at best extraneous. specifically, most religions are best understood properly by ignoring facts. some of my thoughts on that outlined above.
MAJ Carl Ballinger congratulations on your studies. I'm sure you've learned a lot about apologetics. To believe the bible was widely circulated in the time immediately after jesus' death is not possible given the non-existence of printing presses. Were the stories passed word of mouth for some time, which is likely, then the story is highly suspect from the begginning. The authors and witnesses of the events cannot be shown to have existed outside the bible, therefor the bible is the one and only source. The only reference to jesus by any historian of note that I can recall was born after jesus would have died, and many miles away. Places in the bible have been verified, even a few low-key figures seem likely to have existed as THEY ARE referenced in other materials. But there's simply no evidence ever found for any of the magic tricks of jesus or any of the more mythical sounding stories there. The typical apologist ploy here is that most of these stories would leave evidence. To that i say, well, I guess there's no good reason to believe them. I'm simply incapable of taking the bible as a whole seriously until there is evidence found there was an exodus, that a supernatural force destroyed two cities, unicorns, etc.
SPC D W perhaps i didn't communicate well. I meant that evidence and accounts provided to me thus far have been questionable, and most reasoning to be, in my opinion, faulty. I don't presume evidence is bad. That could only happen if one was lying, as empirically verified observation is what it is. however, I will admit to an expectation (not a presumption) that the arguments I'll encounter here will likely be fallacious, as this has just been typical. But, I'm looking forward to finding the arguments that are not.
COL Ted Mc So science, belief, the supernatural, and logic need not apply to each other at all? This is true. But I believe it should, and for good reason. Science is the ability to honestly understand our universe. beyond what science has now or can later reveal, any beliefs outside of that seem at best extraneous. specifically, most religions are best understood properly by ignoring facts. some of my thoughts on that outlined above.
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
"So science, belief, the supernatural, and logic need not apply to each other at all? This is true." - Yep.
"But I believe it should, ...", and your evidence for that is?
"... and for good reason.", according to your "value set" but not necessary according to another value set.
"Science is the ability to honestly understand our universe. ..." - not quite.
"... beyond what science has now or can later reveal, any beliefs outside of that seem at best extraneous...", according to some value sets - but not necessarily so according to others.
{ASIDE} Is someone who is trying to do something that has never been done before - but which they "just know" can be done - a "Scientist" or a "Believer"?
"... specifically, most religions are best understood properly by ignoring facts." - not really, the "facts" behind EVERY religion are what the devotees "believe" and may have nothing whatsoever to do with physical reality (the physical reality is irrelevant to the devotee's belief set).
"some of my thoughts on that outlined above.", indeed you have outlined what you believe and you have given the reasons why you believe it. You have not, however, rebutted the arguments in opposition to what you believe other than saying "I don't believe that, therefore it isn't true.".
In fact, your position of "What I believe is true and what I don't believe is not true." is - essentially - the position of EVERY religion ever devised.
"But I believe it should, ...", and your evidence for that is?
"... and for good reason.", according to your "value set" but not necessary according to another value set.
"Science is the ability to honestly understand our universe. ..." - not quite.
"... beyond what science has now or can later reveal, any beliefs outside of that seem at best extraneous...", according to some value sets - but not necessarily so according to others.
{ASIDE} Is someone who is trying to do something that has never been done before - but which they "just know" can be done - a "Scientist" or a "Believer"?
"... specifically, most religions are best understood properly by ignoring facts." - not really, the "facts" behind EVERY religion are what the devotees "believe" and may have nothing whatsoever to do with physical reality (the physical reality is irrelevant to the devotee's belief set).
"some of my thoughts on that outlined above.", indeed you have outlined what you believe and you have given the reasons why you believe it. You have not, however, rebutted the arguments in opposition to what you believe other than saying "I don't believe that, therefore it isn't true.".
In fact, your position of "What I believe is true and what I don't believe is not true." is - essentially - the position of EVERY religion ever devised.
(0)
(0)
SPC D W
SPC (Join to see): it's not that you don't communicate well, it's that you communicate too well...
There is a key difference between you and me: whereas you think bad logic is what you typically encounter from the religious end, you don't understand what is and what isn't bad logic.
So, let's start simple. First, explain to us why the 13 sources in the Bible are INSUFFICIENT to be used as independent historical sources. You will be required to reference Bart Erhman's usage of Paul's letters as evidence for the existence of Jesus in this.
If you are not that familiar with the material, then I would recommend you start learning prior to making such gross and negligent assumptions.
There is a key difference between you and me: whereas you think bad logic is what you typically encounter from the religious end, you don't understand what is and what isn't bad logic.
So, let's start simple. First, explain to us why the 13 sources in the Bible are INSUFFICIENT to be used as independent historical sources. You will be required to reference Bart Erhman's usage of Paul's letters as evidence for the existence of Jesus in this.
If you are not that familiar with the material, then I would recommend you start learning prior to making such gross and negligent assumptions.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
The structure of the DNA molecule has the complexity, and apparent design of a computer program. You can't have a computer program, without a "programer." The basic cell, cannot be broken down (is irreducible) in any developmental form minus any of it's inherent, and apparently engineered subcomponents, You cannot have irreducible technical structures, without an "engineer."
(1)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
A computer like program can merely evolve?! The chances of that happening are so fantastically remote, it begs credulity! The burden of disproof on on you my friend. It's a much more "reasonable" to believe in an intelligent designer. The "weak" evidence is rational, and passes the common sense test, unlike your "exploding factory, resulting in a finely crafted swiss watch (read "big bang")," theory.
(0)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
SFC (Join to see) burden of disproof? i've never heard of that before. That's a good one. what i was explaining is that you have a faulty understanding of irreducible complexity. if this was not your argument, i'm sorry for misunderstanding.
anyway, the big bang theory is a model for how they universe began based on empirical observations regarding the current state of the cosmos. It's not 100% accurate. Never will be. But it's the best model we have right now. It doesn't account for all empirical observations, but it doesn't contradict any, either. What predictive model for the universe exists that includes supernatural forces, or a god?
http://www.medicaldaily.com/proved-atheists-more-intelligent-religious-people-250727
:) worth a look.
anyway, the big bang theory is a model for how they universe began based on empirical observations regarding the current state of the cosmos. It's not 100% accurate. Never will be. But it's the best model we have right now. It doesn't account for all empirical observations, but it doesn't contradict any, either. What predictive model for the universe exists that includes supernatural forces, or a god?
http://www.medicaldaily.com/proved-atheists-more-intelligent-religious-people-250727
:) worth a look.
(1)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
The common cell is a perfect example of the scientific principle of irreducible complexity.
(1)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
SFC (Join to see) Why do you think exaptation is impossible? Why can't unrelated functions within a cell change to become necessary?
Why do you believe explanations of how the eye could have evolved in earlier lifeforms is faulty?
Why do you believe explanations of how the eye could have evolved in earlier lifeforms is faulty?
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I believe God does exist and rather than argument about it you will just have to accept that for what it is worth.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
There is too much order in the universe for things to have just happened by accident. It is easier for me to believe that there is an intelligent design than to believe that things just fell into place from an explosion.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Not really sure what I believe to be honest. I grew up in a baptist household; I actually used to be very devout myself. But as I grew older, I grew wiser and to me, things just didn't add up with religion. So, I stopped believing. Do I believe in God and Jesus within Christanity? Absolutely not. Do I believe in the Big Bang theory? Absolutely not. But ask me if I believe that the possibility exists that there could be a higher power somewhere out there; I might be inclined to agree. The main reason I fell out of religion is because I fell in love with physical cosmology and all that the stars and universe have to offer. All religions were created by man and therefor only explain mankind here on earth. The reality is that you have to be incredibly naive to think that out of every planet in the entire observable universe (about 46.5 billion light years to the edge), we are the only planet capable of sustaining intelligent life.
In any regards, I don't need religion to live my life. I have my own morals that I live by that still fit in with the rest of societies morals. Some people need religion because they have no other compass to guide them. For that, I believe religion is necessary. Just don't go shoving it in everyone's faces
In any regards, I don't need religion to live my life. I have my own morals that I live by that still fit in with the rest of societies morals. Some people need religion because they have no other compass to guide them. For that, I believe religion is necessary. Just don't go shoving it in everyone's faces
(1)
(0)
SSgt Christopher Brose
Expanding over time isn't a problem, but once being very compressed is. The Big Bang posits all matter in the universe in one place at one time -- which would constitute literally the densest black hole possible. If the gravity of "normal" black hole is strong enough to prevent anything from escaping, including light, how much stronger would the gravity be of the cosmic egg?
You have to believe in some non-God natural force that would be strong enough to expel all matter from that gravity hole. There isn't one.
You can believe there is such a force, but it is every bit as faith-based as another person's belief in a God -- and just as ridiculous from the other side of the fence.
You have to believe in some non-God natural force that would be strong enough to expel all matter from that gravity hole. There isn't one.
You can believe there is such a force, but it is every bit as faith-based as another person's belief in a God -- and just as ridiculous from the other side of the fence.
(2)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
SSgt Christopher Brose I certainly don't know what kicked off the expansion of the universe. I've only had it demonstrated to me how the universe must be expanding as time goes by, which requires that it was more compressed, and likely more dense in the past. Is there some sort of oscillation on the scale of the known universe? I really have know idea how to explain that. but most scientists seem to think that the research indicates the universe had to be incredibly dense at some point, but what indication is there that the supernatural is involved? Humanity has not understood a thing, then found the answer, and the answer has never been any sort of super natural force. So, not only do i not understand how the SSG can reject the best model we have for the current state of the cosmos, but i have no idea what that could have to do with a god or gods as you imply.
(0)
(0)
SSgt Christopher Brose
SSG Pilkington said he didn't believe in the Big Bang. You are calling it the "best model we have" for the current state of the cosmos, but you've got nothing to base that statement on. The reason it is not pushed harder as the origin of the universe is that the closer people study it, the more they realize it can't have happened. It's not that they don't know how it happened, it's that they know it can't have happened.
A black hole is a gravity well from which nothing can escape, even light. Which means that if anything were to escape, it would have to be propelled by something with enough force to push it beyond the speed of light. The Big Bang posits all matter in the universe in one place at one time, making it a black hole with the densest matter and the strongest gravity field -- in absolute terms.
Even in a puny little gravity field like Earth's, we do not observe anything leaving of its own accord and freeing itself entirely from earth's gravity. And yet you want to believe in a force that would expel all matter from the depths of the universe's strongest possible gravity field? And you don't want to call it supernatural? I can't think of a better word to apply, because there's certainly nothing natural that could cause it.
Of course, you can continue to insist that there must have been a Big Bang and there must be a naturalistic explanation, because there can't be a supernatural explanation, because [apply your logic here]. But it isn't a belief based on science, it's a belief held in spite of science -- because your strongly held religious belief is that there is no god, and therefore everything must have a non-god explanation no matter how silly or impossible it might be.
A black hole is a gravity well from which nothing can escape, even light. Which means that if anything were to escape, it would have to be propelled by something with enough force to push it beyond the speed of light. The Big Bang posits all matter in the universe in one place at one time, making it a black hole with the densest matter and the strongest gravity field -- in absolute terms.
Even in a puny little gravity field like Earth's, we do not observe anything leaving of its own accord and freeing itself entirely from earth's gravity. And yet you want to believe in a force that would expel all matter from the depths of the universe's strongest possible gravity field? And you don't want to call it supernatural? I can't think of a better word to apply, because there's certainly nothing natural that could cause it.
Of course, you can continue to insist that there must have been a Big Bang and there must be a naturalistic explanation, because there can't be a supernatural explanation, because [apply your logic here]. But it isn't a belief based on science, it's a belief held in spite of science -- because your strongly held religious belief is that there is no god, and therefore everything must have a non-god explanation no matter how silly or impossible it might be.
(1)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
SSgt Christopher Brose
I explained in an earlier post to another thread here that the supernatural is by definition unscientific. Therefor, no scientific explanation will include it. I state that the big bang is the best model for understanding the universe because it is the dominant model for explaining not only the early stages of the universe, but its current state. If you prefer a different model of the universe, we can certainly discuss that, I suppose.
Just because cosmological theory may be incomplete, or you/I don't understand how something may have happened, that doesn't mean you, or I, should presume that the event is supernatural in nature. I say this because even if it IS supernatural in nature, we'll never really know it.
I explained in an earlier post to another thread here that the supernatural is by definition unscientific. Therefor, no scientific explanation will include it. I state that the big bang is the best model for understanding the universe because it is the dominant model for explaining not only the early stages of the universe, but its current state. If you prefer a different model of the universe, we can certainly discuss that, I suppose.
Just because cosmological theory may be incomplete, or you/I don't understand how something may have happened, that doesn't mean you, or I, should presume that the event is supernatural in nature. I say this because even if it IS supernatural in nature, we'll never really know it.
(0)
(0)
I may not believe in organized religion, however, a rational explanation for our existence and the creation of the universe is by a higher power.
(1)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
I have no problems with deists, or buddhists, or seiks, or jaynes, or any other peaceful religionist that has no desire to integrate their religion into my government, wage war in the name of their religion, or commit crimes in the name of their religion. Â
(1)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
Even when I was a christian I wanted a secular government, as did the church I attended, but that was before the radical religionists learned what a religious government could gain for them and took over the GOP in the 90s. The only benefit to having a religious government benefits those of the chosen religion, and only as long as their religion remains the chosen religion. If the ever abandon it, or if the government decides to choose a different religion, they'll quickly learn the value of a secular government. Only those who want to oppress minority views want to inject teir own religion into the government. At least that's something that radical chrisitians and radical muslims have common ground on.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I am an Agnostic, and to first clarify, my understanding of the word, which many folks don't seem to grasp, is that I neither believe in any higher power, nor disbelieve in any higher power, and that I am relatively unconcerned about it, and that a big part of that unconcern lies in the confidence that IF I shall be judged one day, it would be upon my actions and merit, and it has already been the observation of others that I tend to align myself with Christian values and do more "walk the walk" than most who bother to state they are Christian do.
That said, this topic is not strictly an Atheist vs Christianity thread. There are many worldwide religions.
I believe once upon a time there were Cavemen and Cavewomen living their lives without religion at all. And one day someone asked the questions about Why are we here, How did we get here, and What is our purpose?
If Christianity is true, and God gave Humans free will, then it is my parents who are my creator. I am usually happy to leave it at that, knowing I was planned.
However I refuse to stick any round peg of religion into a square hole just to soothe some need to have an answer. I question that very need.
I am also an "Observationalist." Seemed to me that at some point in history, there were Christians, separate from those who were not, who were all just very collectively Christians. But here is my observation. People bend and twist what they perceive by reading from a book what they WANT to perceive. Fundamentally, people are just simply going to go do whatever it is they want to do, and they will find a religion, and/or book, and/or fellowship, that will allow themselves to continue to do whatever it was they were already doing anyway. And when they cannot find one, they will MAKE a new one, and this is what has led to all of these many subgroups...Baptists, Mormons, Lutherans, Methodists, Evangelicals, Catholics, etc.
To put it out there that you are a member of any of these "Xs or Ys" is supposed to mean something. You are speaking about your beliefs, and expecting the listener to believe you follow a certain set of rules. And most then turn around and wonder why they would then question you when it becomes clear that you are not. It would seem to me that a real God-fearing person wouldn't have much trouble walking the walk of their own self-imposed rulesets. We might not even need the World of Law if people would stop being hypocrites in that sense.
I believe people should be smart enough to figure out how they should conduct themselves without having to read an instruction manual...or at least should they in fact need that reading material, that they should then be able to retain and apply what they have read.
There is one thing most non-believers struggle with. Its the notion of "Well I wasn't religious until my life plummeted into the gutter, and then I suddenly "found God". I have to wonder Where was God yesterday, or all of those months prior? I don't find anything wrong with people having a struggle, needing a vice, finding a book as a stepping stone to climb back up, and all of that. If you need the structure and guidance of a book and its related fellowship, then by all means go get it. This however does not mean there is anything wrong with those who do not have the same need. Some of us can keep healthy relationships, avoid criminality, and not choose the escapism of addiction problems just fine. And while we're at it, we tend to earn a much better general reputation among our peers along the way.
Most people view Clergy as those who have spent the most time in a Bible. When every major religion has its Clergy Pedophiles discovered, I cannot help but think "Well---if HE cant even follow his own rules, then I guess the rest of us are doomed." To that, most Christians might say "Blame the man, not the Book", and if it was a 1-time case, yeah maybe...but this has been rampant enough to suggest the Book is flawed.
I don't expect anyone to be perfect, but I do expect they are at least trying to instill their own Walk The Walk within their lives. But you don't just stumble and fall and accidentally ram your equipment into some young child.
Please consider this an offering, or at least a glimpse of, "The Argument Against".
They used to say There are no Atheists in Foxholes. If that is true, then it pleases me to be the first. (those I am Agnostic, not Atheist, and there is a big difference).
That said, this topic is not strictly an Atheist vs Christianity thread. There are many worldwide religions.
I believe once upon a time there were Cavemen and Cavewomen living their lives without religion at all. And one day someone asked the questions about Why are we here, How did we get here, and What is our purpose?
If Christianity is true, and God gave Humans free will, then it is my parents who are my creator. I am usually happy to leave it at that, knowing I was planned.
However I refuse to stick any round peg of religion into a square hole just to soothe some need to have an answer. I question that very need.
I am also an "Observationalist." Seemed to me that at some point in history, there were Christians, separate from those who were not, who were all just very collectively Christians. But here is my observation. People bend and twist what they perceive by reading from a book what they WANT to perceive. Fundamentally, people are just simply going to go do whatever it is they want to do, and they will find a religion, and/or book, and/or fellowship, that will allow themselves to continue to do whatever it was they were already doing anyway. And when they cannot find one, they will MAKE a new one, and this is what has led to all of these many subgroups...Baptists, Mormons, Lutherans, Methodists, Evangelicals, Catholics, etc.
To put it out there that you are a member of any of these "Xs or Ys" is supposed to mean something. You are speaking about your beliefs, and expecting the listener to believe you follow a certain set of rules. And most then turn around and wonder why they would then question you when it becomes clear that you are not. It would seem to me that a real God-fearing person wouldn't have much trouble walking the walk of their own self-imposed rulesets. We might not even need the World of Law if people would stop being hypocrites in that sense.
I believe people should be smart enough to figure out how they should conduct themselves without having to read an instruction manual...or at least should they in fact need that reading material, that they should then be able to retain and apply what they have read.
There is one thing most non-believers struggle with. Its the notion of "Well I wasn't religious until my life plummeted into the gutter, and then I suddenly "found God". I have to wonder Where was God yesterday, or all of those months prior? I don't find anything wrong with people having a struggle, needing a vice, finding a book as a stepping stone to climb back up, and all of that. If you need the structure and guidance of a book and its related fellowship, then by all means go get it. This however does not mean there is anything wrong with those who do not have the same need. Some of us can keep healthy relationships, avoid criminality, and not choose the escapism of addiction problems just fine. And while we're at it, we tend to earn a much better general reputation among our peers along the way.
Most people view Clergy as those who have spent the most time in a Bible. When every major religion has its Clergy Pedophiles discovered, I cannot help but think "Well---if HE cant even follow his own rules, then I guess the rest of us are doomed." To that, most Christians might say "Blame the man, not the Book", and if it was a 1-time case, yeah maybe...but this has been rampant enough to suggest the Book is flawed.
I don't expect anyone to be perfect, but I do expect they are at least trying to instill their own Walk The Walk within their lives. But you don't just stumble and fall and accidentally ram your equipment into some young child.
Please consider this an offering, or at least a glimpse of, "The Argument Against".
They used to say There are no Atheists in Foxholes. If that is true, then it pleases me to be the first. (those I am Agnostic, not Atheist, and there is a big difference).
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google