Do you believe in God?

[troyjs]

Hi Niky,

Many scientists and mathematicians believe in multiple universes outside of our own, because of the evidence they observe. It is not true that we can't make inferences to things outside or beyond our universe.

Many atheist and agnostic scientists think the evidence points to a nonphysical cause of the universe. Some candidates for such a cause are a mathematical constant, or an abstract principle, or a transcendent mind. The atheists believe one of the first two, and the theists think it is a mind. The theists think that the evidence is more compatible with the cause being a mind, because it is more reasonable than to say an abstract principle or a mathematical constant can cause something to exist.


Atheist and theist physicists alike, think the evidence points to something beyond our universe which is the cause of the universe, and which is nonphysical.

If you are conversant in modal logic and philosophy, I will be happy to provide why it is more reasonable to think this cause is a mind.


If anyone is interested in reading why agnostic and atheist physicists and mathematicians agree with what I have said, you may find their own books very interesting to read.
The agnostic physicist PCW Davies' book 'The Mind of God' is a classic. This agnostic scientist writes why he and many of his atheist and agnostic peers think that a nonphysical cause of the universe exists.

Kind regards

 

[niky]

Of course the cause for the Universe is non-physical... Because physical matter did not exist before the Universe. The cause must also needs exist outside of time, because time does not exist outside the Universe.

While I believe something exists beyond the Universe, I am neither vain nor naive enough to pretend I know what that is. That is the difference between an agnostic and a theist.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

I felt a need for an epilogue to the end of the discussion I have been having with others on this thread.

I believe that Christianity is true because of my personal witness of the self-authenticating Holy Spirit upon my heart. I do not believe in God because of any of the arguments I have brought to your attention, rather I thought that using them may help the unbeliever to come to know God. Please understand that, should my arguments have been weak or unconvincing to you, that is my problem and not God's. It only would show that I am a poor apologist - not that God doesn't love and care for you.
I believe that God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life and I would rejoice for anyone to come to know Him and enjoy the same kind of relationship that I, along with many others have with Him. I promise that if you sincerely seek God you will find Him, no matter how long it may take.

And so I tell you, keep on asking, and you will receive what you ask for. Keep on seeking, and you will find. Keep on knocking, and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives. Everyone who seeks, finds. And to everyone who knocks, the door will be opened. (Luke 11:9-10)

Thanks. I will still read this thread because I am very interested in the discussion.

You are not the first, and possibly not the last, to bear witness in this thread to the reality of the Holy Spirit.

Countless millions including myself have come to know this tangible empowerment, given by God to all who will accept his gift of grace.
It can only be known personally and individually since it can only be recieved on that basis.
Likewise it can only be aknowledged corporately by those who have it.

Do not be discouraged if your testimony here, appears unfruitful.

Your not responsible for the results, but only to be a witness, and to the degree you are able, not personally adding to, taking away from, or otherwise interfering with, his working through you.

If you read further back in the thread, I have posted something or another to the effect that "seeing is not believing".

Evidence must be looked at with an open mind. Open, not in the sense that you are willing to accept explanations for said evidence that are fantastic, but in the sense that you are willing to discard any preconceived notions of what that evidence might suggest.

People see lights in the sky and see it as evidence of aliens. Refusing to consider the possibility that these lights are evidence for car lights reflected off the sky... heat inversion mirages (and it's usually heat inversion mirages)... birds or bats... experimental aircraft... meteors... balloons... time travellers... superheroes holding a rave... or perhaps, simply... regular airplanes.

"Evidence for God" would be very difficult. Perhaps a hole in space-time hanging stationary against the night sky spelling out the number "42" would suffice. Perhaps the rapture. But each of these would be evidence of the possibility of the phenomena themselves, not the totality of what we consider "God".

Which is why I neither believe or disbelieve. There is no convincing evidence for traditional Gods, like Yahweh/Allah/Jehovah or Brahmin... and plenty against. And there is no evidence either for or against God the Prime Mover, simply because, as we have stated, Physics cannot predict or model what lies beyond the Universe.

"Seeing is believing", but as you point out sight has its limitations, is manipulatable , and not always reliable.
The difference is there is no true value in the belief by sight.
It is weak, swayable, and uncontested.
At least from God's viewpoint.

In my understanding thus far, it is why God chose faith as the specific tool for man to come to know him.

The same principle is involved in say a employer - employee relationship.
Which is a better measure of the loyalty and integrity of the employee?
When the Employer is present, or when he is out of town and there is no direct visual oversight.

There is evidence, but only if you discern it as such.

Romans 1:20
Amplified Bible (AMP)

For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes, that is, His eternal power and divinity, have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made (His handiworks). So [men] are without excuse [altogether without any defense or justification],

There is also the testimonies of countless numbers of people, some of which are in this thread.

As to the rapture, if it were to take place, it would be explained away in a matter of days and probably have a lasting effect on a only a few people.

 

[Exorcet]

You are not the first, and possibly not the last, to bear witness in this thread to the reality of the Holy Spirit.

Countless millions including myself have come to know this tangible empowerment, given by God to all who will accept his gift of grace.
It can only be known personally and individually since it can only be recieved on that basis.
Likewise it can only be aknowledged corporately by those who have it.

Do not be discouraged if your testimony here, appears unfruitful.

Your not responsible for the results, but only to be a witness, and to the degree you are able, not personally adding to, taking away from, or otherwise interfering with, his working through you.

Don't forget how many have tried and gotten no where. The suggestion above isn't really news to either side. It simply doesn't work unless you want it to work.

In my understanding thus far, it is why God chose faith as the specific tool for man to come to know him.

The same principle is involved in say a employer - employee relationship.
Which is a better measure of the loyalty and integrity of the employee?
When the Employer is present, or when he is out of town and there is no direct visual oversight.

Faith is a terrible tool, and hopefully no relationship relies on it. Employer - employee should work based on facts and evidence. If there is no evidence of a problem, the relationship is strong. If there is a problem, such as money starts vanishing from the cash register when a certain employee comes to work, there is a problem. The caused needs to be found, not made up and believed.

 

[D3ATHS1NBUNCH3S]

I'm very touchy about this very subject...I do believe there is something out there, somewhere, but I don't know what it is, why it's there, or what it's purpose is, whatever it may be.

I've always wondered, "Why is there other religions that worship different gods? Is there truly multiple gods? Is there only one god? Is there a god at all?" These questions will obviously never be answered, but imagine the world beyond ours, who knows what could lie ahead?

Religion is very confusing.

 

[dylansan]

In my understanding thus far, it is why God chose faith as the specific tool for man to come to know him.

Faith is not a tool for determining truth in anywhere near the same way the eye is. The eye is a source of information, as are other senses. You receive a bunch of information from your senses and then come to conclusions which are compatible with all of the information.

Faith does not gather information. If I have faith in something that means I believe in it with or without evidence that it is true. It does not change with new information. It is the opposite of a sense, it the the ignorance of senses. And for that reason it doesn't make any sense.

You may notice, however, that science takes pretty much the same form as human senses, in a larger scale. i.e. taking in information and coming up with conclusions. In fact, science doesn't just rely on the main senses as they are in humans, they use tools (actual tools, not faith) to extract more information that is normally not perceptible by senses. A microscope, for example, allows the eye to see in much more detail than normally possible.

I'll tell you what, I'd be far more willing to let myself be vaccinated with something that was devised using a microscope than one using faith, and I don't see why a similar principle shouldn't apply to everything else.

 

[Eat Of The Dead]

Yes, yes I do.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Don't forget how many have tried and gotten no where. The suggestion above isn't really news to either side. It simply doesn't work unless you want it to work.

There is no working involved.
You sincerely want it and ask for it, and you recieve it.
Thats why its called Grace.

Faith is a terrible tool, and hopefully no relationship relies on it. Employer - employee should work based on facts and evidence. If there is no evidence of a problem, the relationship is strong. If there is a problem, such as money starts vanishing from the cash register when a certain employee comes to work, there is a problem. The caused needs to be found, not made up and believed.

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but all relationships rely on Faith.

Faith is not a tool for determining truth in anywhere near the same way the eye is. The eye is a source of information, as are other senses. You receive a bunch of information from your senses and then come to conclusions which are compatible with all of the information.

Faith must operate much the same way.
Otherwise God could not legitimately charge man with the statement in Romans 1:20.

Faith does not gather information. If I have faith in something that means I believe in it with or without evidence that it is true. It does not change with new information. It is the opposite of a sense, it the the ignorance of senses. And for that reason it doesn't make any sense.

There is such a thing as blind faith, but thats not what is being referred too.
See above.
Evidence is subject to individual determination.

You may notice, however, that science takes pretty much the same form as human senses, in a larger scale. i.e. taking in information and coming up with conclusions. In fact, science doesn't just rely on the main senses as they are in humans, they use tools (actual tools, not faith) to extract more information that is normally not perceptible by senses.

So I've noticed.

A microscope, for example, allows the eye to see in much more detail than normally possible.

Apparently, the tool of Faith can do the same thing.

I'll tell you what, I'd be far more willing to let myself be vaccinated with something that was devised using a microscope than one using faith, and I don't see why a similar principle shouldn't apply to everything else.

Faith is involved either way.

 

[AlexGTV]

I don't believe in god because I don't need him.

 

[niky]

Apparently, the tool of Faith can do the same thing.

So you're reading this with your eyes closed and your faith open?

Faith is different from trust. As you said, faith is, by necessity, blind. Trust, in the scientific sense, must be earned, with evidence. They're nowhere near the same.

In fact, the Biblical God demands that you believe without evidence.

 

[Exorcet]

There is no working involved.
You sincerely want it and ask for it, and you recieve it.
Thats why its called Grace.

Except I did and I didn't. Like 1000000000000000 other people.

It only works if you want to believe. Asking isn't enough, this thread probably wouldn't be here if it was. Then you would have to wonder about all the other religions too. God would have to be pretty unclear to have people worshiping multiple gods in place of him.

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but all relationships rely on Faith.

None of mine do, I won't be so foolish. When I meet someone, I don't know them and I treat them that way. I'm nice, but I won't lend them $50,000, won't let them live in my home, won't let them borrow something of mine, etc. There might be some small exceptions if I meet them through an existing acquaintance.

Over time I know more and more about people and develop my thoughts on them. This determines how I treat them. Never is there faith, not unless I want to ruin myself.

 

[homeforsummer]

Faith is involved either way.

Err... not really. People don't have "faith" that a vaccination will work, as vaccinations are based on well-understood biological processes. A vaccination will either work or it won't (mostly it will) but presence or absence of faith won't make a blind bit of difference to whether it works or not.

 

[dylansan]

Just stumbled on this quote and realized it was relevant.

"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."

- Friedrich Nietzsche​

 

[SuperCobraJet]

So you're reading this with your eyes closed and your faith open?.

No, they are both open.

Faith is different from trust. As you said, faith is, by necessity, blind. Trust, in the scientific sense, must be earned, with evidence. They're nowhere near the same..

I didn't say Faith had to be blind, I said it could be.

In fact, the Biblical God demands that you believe without evidence.

Not so.
Here it is again:

Romans 1:20
Amplified Bible (AMP)

For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes, that is, His eternal power and divinity, have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made (His handiworks). So [men] are without excuse [altogether without any defense or justification],


The wonders of the highly organised complexity and detailed function of Creation, reflects a unfathomable scale of intelligence and power involved to accomplish such a unimaginable concert of feats.

God declares that this is intelligibly discernable by man or evidentiary.
However, he also declares not all will deduce it as such.

 

[niky]

Cherry picking from the Bible is simply cherry picking.

http://bible.cc/john/20-29.htm

Faith, by definition, must be blind, for faith is belief in the absence of proof.

 

[Scaff]

For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes, that is, His eternal power and divinity, have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made (His handiworks). So [men] are without excuse [altogether without any defense or justification],

That doesn't change the requirement for blind faith at all, particularly as it describes 'invisible' actions.

The wonders of the highly organised complexity and detailed function of Creation, reflects a unfathomable scale of intelligence and power involved to accomplish such a unimaginable concert of feats.

Now it's a different topic of discussion but if you are using creation as proof that faith is not blind then you have to show so evidence that creation is actually true. Good luck with that (and I expect it to be in the correct thread i.e. not this one)

God declares that this is intelligibly discernable by man or evidentiary.
However, he also declares not all will deduce it as such.

Which is still blind faith.

 

[PR1VATEJ0KER]

I find it baffling that people can believe in God so strongly, no matter what you say there is no convincing them because they come up with some sort of ambiguous answer which was never mentioned in the Bible. It would be nice though to blindly believe that you are actually going somewhere when you're on your death bed. I'm not saying a God is impossible but improbable.

I agree,

I was raised religious but I was about 10 when I decided that none of it could be true.
I felt I was indoctrinated to believe everything.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Cherry picking from the Bible is simply cherry picking.

http://bible.cc/john/20-29.htm

Faith, by definition, must be blind, for faith is belief in the absence of proof.

I merely provided an applicable verse to the question at hand,
just as you have done above.

To the contrary, since the evidence is intelligibly discernable, the Faith involved is not blind.

As it says, God is not visable but his handiworks are.

I guess you could call it, circumstantial evidence.

Now it's a different topic of discussion but if you are using creation as proof that faith is not blind then you have to show so evidence that creation is actually true. Good luck with that (and I expect it to be in the correct thread i.e. not this one).

It should be readily apparent, that the two topics are cross connected, particularly in light of the last few posts.

Certain areas of discussion are common to both threads.

 

[TankAss95]

It's like sending spam: Keeping doing it often enough and eventually some nutters will fall for it.

I'd just like to say that I really don't like the attitude of this post.

 

[lbsf1]

I'm an agnostic and honestly don't know if god exists or not, and to be honest no one else knows for sure either. However one thing that does annoy me with religious arguments is when you quote the bible. Please if you are arguing with someone who doesn't believe in god and quote the bible it does no use atall. In the case of this argument an atheist might aswell quote a scientific paper on the big bang as proof also.

 

[Warren4649]

Creation? LoL...
Why every-time I hear people talking about that they also say that dinosaurs are an invention of scientists to "troll" religion?

 

[Scaff]

It should be readily apparent, that the two topics are cross connected, particularly in light of the last few posts.

Certain areas of discussion are common to both threads.

Quite true on both counts, they are areas of common discussion and are cross-connected, however its the staff's decision that the core of the content discussed should remain separate.

I do find it interested that you have however chosen to address the correct place to post rather than actually posting the proof of creation that would validate your claim that faith is not blind.

 

[niky]

I merely provided an applicable verse to the question at hand,
just as you have done above.

To the contrary, since the evidence is intelligibly discernable, the Faith involved is not blind.

As it says, God is not visable but his handiworks are.

I guess you could call it, circumstantial evidence.

The evidence for Yahweh, Allah, Brahmin, Zoroaster or...?

If we provide two contradicting statements from one book, which one is correct? Does that mean the book is then not 100% correct?

 

[PR1VATEJ0KER]

The evidence for Yahweh, Allah, Brahmin, Zoroaster or...?

If we provide two contradicting statements from one book, which one is correct? Does that mean the book is then not 100% correct?

 

[jasr73]

I do find it interested that you have however chosen to address the correct place to post rather than actually posting the proof of creation that would validate your claim that faith is not blind.

Just waiting for a 'sign' I'd say?

If you could just get him to make an appearance for five minutes and do a few card tricks it would silence the naysayers. 👍

Oh hang on apologies, if your 'faith' is big enough you don't need any facts. I'm just starting to get the hang of this.

This issue i have with the great book of stories and everything that came after it, is it seems to me to be an extremely well thought out legal contract. Basically it requires folk to consider its faith offer and lists a series of costs and rewards for all those who choose to or choose not to accept it. It then provides no further evidence that all this might be true other than to use fear and or reward to encourage people to get on board.

Hmmm, time for a re-write?

 

[Denur]

I'd just like to say that I really don't like the attitude of this post.

Just to clarify: I'm not saying that a person must be nuts to believe in a god (or gods). I only consider people who believe that the content of the Bible (or e.g. the Koran) is the literal truth, to be mentally challenged. These people would include adult young earth creationists. This is my opinion, not a scientific fact (or maybe it is). It is a fact though, that this is my personal opinion.

 

[PR1VATEJ0KER]

I'm not saying that a person must be nuts to believe in a god (or gods)..

I wouldn't say they are nuts, but I would say they have been deluded.
(It's fair for me to say that, as they believe I will burn for eternity)
(Eternity is a long time, someone should call mercy after maybe 40 years of burning alive)

Also if they don't believe the bible to be the literal word of god, well they're not really doing it right.

 

[XoravaX]

I wouldn't say they are nuts, but I would say they have been deluded.
(It's fair for me to say that, as they believe I will burn for eternity)

Also if they don't believe the bible to be the literal word of god, well they're not really doing it right.

Ehm, you don't realise the Bible is written using metaphors? Taking them literally is effectively doing it wrong. Try reading New Testament without understanding them and it's complete bogus. Grain seeds on rock? Fish and bread? Jesus cursing a fig tree (Matthew 21:18-22)?

You are also saying that people aren't doing it right when they don't take it the fundamentalist way? How would that even be possible as if literally taken, the Bible contradicts itself too many times to count. But when you understand (even partially) the time and geopolitical situation etc. each of the texts were written at, you'll (at least partially) see why it contradicts itself, and why it's not to be taken literally (apart from several laws and such). The way of interpreting the metaphors is up to each and every one him/herself.

Feel free to call the fundamentalists deluded, but keep it for yourself with others. I'm not saying you'll burn for eternity, you'll just cease to be forever. I'm not sure what will happen to me either, if the eternal life happens to be a damn metaphor too.

But as said countless times, the Bible doesn't prove it either way. The existence of God, a god or gods is an unanswered question; you can try to think it the way the great philosophers like Socrates and Platon did, but the final thought is a decision of faith; whether you believe or not. No science, no man can ever prove it either way.

 

[sumbrownkid]

Just to clarify: I'm not saying that a person must be nuts to believe in a god (or gods). I only consider people who believe that the content of the Bible (or e.g. the Koran) is the literal truth, to be mentally challenged. These people would include adult young earth creationists. This is my opinion, not a scientific fact (or maybe it is). It is a fact though, that this is my personal opinion.

I believe the Quran has literal truth in it, but I won't go as far as to say non-believers are mentally challenged.

 

[Scaff]

Ehm, you don't realise the Bible is written using metaphors? Taking them literally is effectively doing it wrong. Try reading New Testament without understanding them and it's complete bogus. Grain seeds on rock? Jesus cursing a fig tree (Matthew 21:18-22)?

You are also saying that people aren't doing it right when they don't take it the fundamentalist way? How would that even be possible as if literally taken, the Bible contradicts itself too many times to count. But when you understand (even partially) the time and geopolitical situation etc. each of the texts were written at, you'll (at least partially) see why it contradicts itself, and why it's not to be taken literally (apart from several laws and such).

Feel free to call the fundamentalists deluded, but keep it for yourself with others. I'm not saying you'll burn for eternity, you'll just cease to be forever. I'm not sure what will happen to me either, if the eternal life happens to be a damn metaphor too.

If your saying that only fundamentalists take the bible as being the exact word of God and free from error or interpritation then you might wnat to have a word with the Catholic church. They hold the Bible as being:

“Inerrancy” simply means the state of being free from error. The Catholic Church has always taught that Sacred Scripture is inerrant. Since all the books of the Bible were composed by human authors who were “inspired” by the Holy Spirit (cf. Jn. 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:19-21; 3:15-16), they truly have God as their author, and communicate without error Our Heavenly Father’s saving truth.

Source: http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=22

It also seems as if you don't believe in hell, which would be a rather odd concept for a Christian. As an Atheist I know that when I die I will cease to be, not a new piece of news at all, but for a Christian to not believe that I am bound for hell strikes me as just picking and choosing what you want to believe.

But as said countless times, the Bible doesn't prove it either way. The existence of God, a god or gods is an unanswered question; you can try to think it the way the great philosophers like Socrates and Platon did, but the final thought is a decision of faith; whether you believe or not. No science, no man can ever prove it either way.

The burden of proof lies only with those making the claim, no evidence (to a scientific standard) exists for a God or Gods, as such a belief in God (or Gods) relies entirely on blind faith.