Do you believe in God?
- Thread starter Patrik
- 24,489 comments
- 1,145,853 views
- 919
This is a pretty dim view to take on life, I think.
It's perfectly possible to be an Atheist, yet not be so grim about existence. The best example is Carl Sagan. He didn't look into the vastness of the night sky and imagine how vile and insignificant we are as a species. He felt wonder and humility, yes, but also a sense of immense pride in the fact that we as a species are so developed as to be able to explain the cosmic mechanics of things we can't even see.
Likewise, space is BIG. So big, that it's almost inevitable that we share it with other civilizations. Despite that, the vast distances that likely divide us from them are so immense that it's entirely possible that WE are the only species we will ever know. That makes us something of a rare gem, to my mind - something to be valued and celebrated.
- 919
As I understand the current state of science, it's likely that both are true - that it's probable that there is life elsewhere in our universe, and that one, some, or infinite other universes exist. And if God's all that busy, then he proves himself not to be God because he doesn't fit one of the classic criteria - omnipresence.
Last edited:
- 1,214
- 23,800
- Philippines
Backread a few pages.
Confidence =/= Faith.
Given what has happened over the past billion years, I can confidently predict with 99.99999999999999% certainty that the sun will appear to rise in the East tomorrow. The only way to stop that from happening is for the Earth to be shattered to pieces in a collision with a planet-sized object or a black hole of sufficient size and power... either of which we would see coming from a long ways away... or for the Universe to collapse tomorrow... something which we can't even begin to put a number on because of how unlikely it is.
Given that I have woken up for the past few thousand days every morning, I can predict with about 99.999% confidence that I will wake up again tomorrow. With that 0.001% chance of dying in the night from acute pancreatitis.
Statistics have nothing to do with faith. Faith is for things you can't put numbers on.
- 2,621
- Lincoln, NE
- huskeR_32
You're operating with a misunderstanding of what the word proof means in science. Technically speaking, nothing has ever been proven, and nothing ever will be proven. Instead, we have a lot of theories that have stood the test of time, and never been disproved. Confidence in a theory builds as more and more evidence falls in line with it, and as time goes on without contradictory evidence coming along.
The fact that the sun has come up every day for billions of years is a lot of evidence in favor of it coming up again tomorrow. That evidence is more than enough for me to logically believe that it will happen. The theory that the sun will come up every day is about as "proven" as a theory could ever be.
See above. You're misunderstanding proof.
Let's try this one more time. Faith means believing in something with no evidence that it is true. I have billions of years of evidence to support my belief that the sun will come up tomorrow. The word faith is therefore completely inappropriate for the situation.
Wrong. You're missing the qualifier of "without any evidence." Faith is one way to believe. Logical thinking and analyzing evidence are also processes that one can use to believe in something.
Downhill Dino
Premium
- 11,754
- Maryland
- DownhillDinosaur
Then what would be a blind faith?
- 919
Is there really a difference? I don't think so.
I think "blind faith" is a redundant concept. Faith is belief without evidence. So really, any faith is essentially blind.
So, unless you can provide something that logically qualifies as evidence for the existence of God, I'll still hold that belief in Christianity is "blind faith".
Also, I'm still curious as to your response to my morality challenge.
- 2,069
- Japan / Seattle
Hahahaha! Really? Christianity isn't blind faith? As was said above, saying "blind faith" is completely redundant.
With that being said, I'm out. It's really like arguing with a brick wall, there is no better metaphor.
I leave you all with this:
With that being said, I'm out. It's really like arguing with a brick wall, there is no better metaphor.
I leave you all with this:
Last edited:
- 2,621
- Lincoln, NE
- huskeR_32
This. What qualifies as blind faith? What are you "seeing" with faith in god?
- 3,245
- United Kingdom
- TankAss95
A blind faith would be something based on no evidence (blind faith is very dangerous). Faith is when you have a base to base your beliefs on.EliteDreamer
I have faith that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and I accept him as my saviour. This faith is built upon many things:such as the historical evidence of the events in the Bible (fulfilled prophesies for example), the evidence for Jesus Christ himself and that he rose from the dead, personal experiences with God and what I deduce from my knowledge of the natural sciences.
superbike81
Faith is when someone can't prove something but believes that they have enough evidence to accept a subject as fact.
And please, stop separating religion from science, I've gone over this before. Being Christian doesn't mean you are anti-science, science is trying to understand the world in which God has made.
This is a debate between world-views (theism and naturalism or such as).
And to above, I will get back to do a proper response when I have enough time. I am busy.
Please guys, keep it peaceful.
Jubby
Premium
- 1,532
- Maine
- jubbyboi617
It was brought to my attention today that before God made it rain after the existence of man, it didn't rain. (Just the basic idea... not even close to a quote)
How can that even be knowing how long humans have lived on the earth in comparison to how long water has existed on our planet?
How can that even be knowing how long humans have lived on the earth in comparison to how long water has existed on our planet?
Downhill Dino
Premium
- 11,754
- Maryland
- DownhillDinosaur
- 1,662
- Tennessee,USA
- StarFirebird
- starfirebird
In the very beginning of earth's history, this planet was a giant, red hot, roiling, boiling sea of molten rock - a magma ocean. The heat had been generated by the repeated high speed collisions of much smaller bodies of space rocks that continually clumped together as they collided to form this planet. As the collisions tapered off the earth began to cool, forming a thin crust on its surface. As the cooling continued, water vapor began to escape and condense in the earth's early atmosphere. Clouds formed and storms raged, raining more and more water down on the primitive earth, cooling the surface further until it was flooded with water, forming the seas.Then yadda,yadda,yadda you know the rest.
Don't listen to the person who told you it didn't rain before man.I fear you have been told a bunch of bull.
- 2,621
- Lincoln, NE
- huskeR_32
None of that is real evidence of god. I'm not trying to be rude, or start an argument here, but there simply isn't any evidence that god is real.
Multiple problems here:
1. You're operating with a misunderstanding of what it means to "prove" something. I posted about this a page or two back. Essentially, nothing can ever be truly proven. Rather, theories can endure for a long time and resist all attempts to disprove them. The longer they last, and the more evidence that builds for them, the more confident we can be. But 100% proof of something is not possible. So your statement here is flawed.
2. There's a big flaw with this: "Believe that you have enough evidence." You either have evidence, or you don't. It's a simple observation.
3. Faith really means believing something without evidence. Your definition of faith here contains the idea that there's evidence involved. There's not.
In the end, there's two ways to believe something: with or without evidence. If you have evidence (real, measurable, quantifiable evidence) then it's not faith. If you don't' have evidence, it's faith. All faith is "blind" due to this lack of evidence. I understand how that probably offends you a little bit if somebody uses that term. But that doesn't mean we should be able to create a special, religion-only type of faith that's somehow based on evidence. It violates the definition of the word faith, and it essentially allows religion to play by it's own rules. It shouldn't be able to. It should have to play by the same rules as any other theory or idea.
- 23,800
- Philippines
Doesn't work that way. Faith is, by definition, blind. Just because there was a Jesus, and there was a Ramses, and there was a Gautama Buddha, is not any evidence that any of the had divine properties.
Again, that's your opinion. You're the only one trying to turn this into an argument of moral views. The rest of us have given you the source of our morality, not based on God, which perfectly conforms with yours. Even better than some religions do. The question is belief in God with or without evidence.
Jubby
Premium
- 1,532
- Maine
- jubbyboi617
I know the science behind how water, rain, etc. started. I am confident it happened. I'm very skeptical of the interpretation of the bible's description. That's why I asked, to get another opinion from another person who may believe.
- 5,184
- Phoenix, AZ
- nitrorocks
I'm confused
- 919
I tend to agree with the responses to this thus far. There are very specific qualifications for a piece of datum to be considered "evidence". Unverifiable personal experience definitely doesn't qualify - and please understand I'm not trying to attack the PERSONAL veracity of experiences I'm sure you consider very dear to you.
Historical evidence of events described in the bible, also, definitely doesn't qualify. Just because the authors got a few historical facts correct doesn't lend any credence to the extremely radical claims made about resurrection and divinity. As for 'fulfilled prophecies' and evidence supporting the resurrection of Christ, I'd like to hear some specifics. I'm not aware of any evidence for any such claims. There were COUNTLESS "savior figures" recorded by historians of the era, representing sects with far more support and influence than early Christianity. It's interesting to note that MANY such figures made very similar claims regarding the specifics of their divinity. It wasn't until the Roman Empire adopted Christianity as a political expediency that the claims of the divinity of Christ became KNOWN, much less accepted, by anyone outside the region.
The bolded bit is simply untrue. There's a proper definition for the concept 'faith', and it's, very succinctly, belief without evidence. What you describe, colloquially, is simply 'confidence'. I am CONFIDENT that if I pick up a pencil and then release it, it will fall. I do not have FAITH that this is so. I can't accept as an undeniable fact that something beyond my experience might interfere with what I know about gravity at any given moment - and THAT is the difference between faith and confidence, or predictive science in the context of the broader discussion.
And yes, I grant that you can be a Christian AND respect science. The problem, as I see it, is that to allow for science to hold the role that it does, you have to ignore or creatively re-interpret HUGE swaths of Christian scripture. Once you've done that, of what value is your faith in scripture? What moral good arises from it that couldn't arise just as readily from a secular institution or idea?
- 1,662
- Tennessee,USA
- StarFirebird
- starfirebird
Jubby
Premium
- 1,532
- Maine
- jubbyboi617
Oh, no problem! The person that told me this is Christian, but very tolerant of other views. It was something I didn't know, and she couldn't really explain it fully as to why. I wasn't sure if someone else here knew more about it. 👍
- 919
I have a pretty reasonable guess as to where she got that impression. I'm sure she's talked to some semi-fundamentalist preacher at some point, and misinterpreted, or is slightly misremembering what she heard.
There's a wingnut supposition among young-earth creationists and biblical literalists that there was no rain until the time of "Noah's Flood". The premise is that all the water that covered the earth in the flood existed as a solid layer of water in the atmosphere before the flood, and somehow this layer of water shielded people from the "aging radiation" of the sun. This is used to make attempts to justify both biblical accounts of the flood, and the stated ages of many individuals in family trees detailed early in the old testament - many of these claimed lifespans topped 900 years.
Obviously this is entirely unscientific and absurd on its face, but there you have it.
- 5,184
- Phoenix, AZ
- nitrorocks
Rain was created when Adam and Eve were around.....
Similar threads
