Why do you believe (or not believe)

T

The Evelyonian

Registered Senior Member
I've been reading the posts her for a while and I think I pretty well understand what various people believe. My question to you is this: Why do you believe what you believe?

Theists: Why do you believe there is a god?

Atheists: Why do you believe there is no god?
 
because there is no proof of God. As a baby till a teenager I have learned that everything needs to proof and only with proof can something become a fact. and you?
 
I disbelieve in God, not because there is no proof, I believe other things that are not proven 100%, but because there is not even a statistical likelihood of there being a personal God as described in the Bible. The reasons for this are many, the fallibility of the Bible, the fallibility of humans in believing strange things, the ubiquity of supernatural stories in absense of scientific literacy, religion as a means of social control, ect.
 
draqon said:
because there is no proof of God.
Click to expand...


I hate to use an old argument, but there's no proof there isn't either. Actually, from a purely logical perspective, proof that there is a God makes much more sense.

Take the subject of th ecreation of the universe. Was it caused or uncaused? Many atheists say that "matter is self-existing and not created." If matter had a beginning and yet was uncaused, one must logically maintain that something would have had to come into existence out of nothing. From empty space with no force, no matter, no energy, and no intelligence, matter would have to become existent. Even if this could happen by some strange new process unknown to science today, there is a logical problem. If matter had a beginning and yet was uncaused, one must logically maintain that something would have had to come into existence out of nothing. From empty space with no force, no matter, no energy, and no intelligence, matter would have to become existent.

Even if this could happen by some strange new process unknown to science today, there is a logical problem.

Would that be considered "deep"? ;)
 
ggazoo said:
I hate to use an old argument, but there's no proof there isn't either. Actually, from a purely logical perspective, proof that there is a God makes much more sense.

Take the subject of th ecreation of the universe. Was it caused or uncaused? Many atheists say that "matter is self-existing and not created." If matter had a beginning and yet was uncaused, one must logically maintain that something would have had to come into existence out of nothing. From empty space with no force, no matter, no energy, and no intelligence, matter would have to become existent. Even if this could happen by some strange new process unknown to science today, there is a logical problem. If matter had a beginning and yet was uncaused, one must logically maintain that something would have had to come into existence out of nothing. From empty space with no force, no matter, no energy, and no intelligence, matter would have to become existent.

Even if this could happen by some strange new process unknown to science today, there is a logical problem.

Would that be considered "deep"? ;)
Click to expand...

universe is so complex, humans are dust compared to it. Humans have so much to learn of universe and its ways. There does not have to be an intelligent entity controlling the universe creation, the universe has a potential to create itself or we have the potential to create a universe. Perhaps people from another universe have created our universe within their own. My statement is as valid as people stating that God exists.
 
ggazoo said:
How does the universe have the "potential to create itself" from nothing?
Click to expand...

time loop. you know how black hole condense matter into infinite cingularity? well that means everything becomes one point, so there is no time at that point. Perhaps time exists not as one uniform entity but is different for different spaces of cosmos. Perhaps black holes condense everything back into when time=0. thus after a while all universe gets condensed and becomes one point. Then as soon as that one point exists it creates another big bang and a new universe...and that goes on and on...
 
I'm with you.. but if time is infinite, then even it had to have a beinning, whether it looped or not.
 
I don't remember where I saw it, but it went something like this:

Can God create a rock so heavy even He can't lift it?

Of course, if he can, then he has limits and is not omnipowerful, and therefore not a god. If not, then he has limits and is not omnipowerful and therefore not a god. If he's not a god, there is no God.

And in a puff of logic, God disappeared.
Click to expand...
 
Puff of logic? Reminds of HHGTTG


"I REFUSE TO PROVE THAT I EXIST", says God, "FOR PROOF DENIES FAITH, AND WITHOUT FAITH I AM NOTHING. "

"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't, QED."

"OH DEAR", says God, "I HADN'T THOUGHT OF THAT", and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

"Oh, that was easy!", says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black equals white and gets killed on the next Zebra crossing.
Click to expand...
 
ggazoo said:
I hate to use an old argument, but there's no proof there isn't either. Actually, from a purely logical perspective, proof that there is a God makes much more sense.

Take the subject of th ecreation of the universe. Was it caused or uncaused? Many atheists say that "matter is self-existing and not created." If matter had a beginning and yet was uncaused, one must logically maintain that something would have had to come into existence out of nothing. From empty space with no force, no matter, no energy, and no intelligence, matter would have to become existent. Even if this could happen by some strange new process unknown to science today, there is a logical problem. If matter had a beginning and yet was uncaused, one must logically maintain that something would have had to come into existence out of nothing. From empty space with no force, no matter, no energy, and no intelligence, matter would have to become existent.

Even if this could happen by some strange new process unknown to science today, there is a logical problem.

Would that be considered "deep"? ;)
Click to expand...

There is no proof that there isn't a God, and no proof that there isn't a tiny teapot in orbit around the sun, full of frozen Earl Grey tea. However there is alot of evidence against the proposition of a complex creator being the cause of a complex universe. You have the problem of explaining the origin of a complex creator. If complexity comes from complexity, you just end up in an endless loop.

It makes more sense that a simple cause preceded the extremely simple early universe.

Scientists now see that complex results can emerge from simple causes and simple rules, and that the appearance of design can be the result of cumulative simple choices (does the life form live or die as the result of this or that variation). In this case, complexity builds upon previous complexity gradually.
 
I don't believe God is a physical object, so I wouldn't turn to science to go looking for him.

In a sense, a god is nothing more than something we worship; and in that sense, many gods undoubtedly exist, imaginary or otherwise. In another sense, a god is a state of perfection, and so many gods exist as hypotheticals or as archetypes. In still another sense, God is simply the source of all being, in which case he/it/whatever is immensely mysterious but undeniably existent, since something, be it an invisible man in the sky or a physical singularity 13.something billion years ago, must give rise to our experiences and the objects we perceive. Least but not certainly last, God is the name of my neighbor's bicycle.

God evidently has many names and many meanings, among whom only one thing is certainly common: God is a word. How you use it is up to you, and the nature of whatever meaning you assign to it is up to you to investigate. And that is my belief.
 
just to help you out with the time/self existent stuff. People who say "even if its self existant there must of been a beginning", you guys have clearly missed the point, the idea of time is an absolute creation of man the universe is not dictated by the time, we dictate ourselves by time, our own creation, its a hard concept to understand, but if you lower your arrogance for a second and think, it night make sense.
 
When it comes to the components of one's basic moral code, most people (i.m.o.) do not have a reason other than that is what they were taught when they were very young and their personalities were being formed. I think you would do better to restrict your question to the people who converted from one belief to the other at some point in their more-or-less adult life. They had to have a reason because that change is too difficult to make on the basis of caprice, fickleness, or adventurousness. Even then I wonder whether the most common reason for changing between theism and atheism is sheer rebellion against one's elders.

As for the rest of us...

I can give you a million reasons why atheism is clearly the "right" way to be and all those billions of other people must be total fools. But when it comes down, I'm an atheist because my parents were and by the time I was exposed to other belief systems it was simply a part of me.

It would be like trying to explain why I love music and pets. It's because I'm me. I was born and raised in a house full of both. I don't have a reason and I don't need one.

We just need to accept the fact that for most other people, their religion is part of who they are too, and they don't have a reason and don't need one. Most of the world's religions would really be all right, if they would just teach that one thing to their people. That's all they need to have in common for us to share this planet in peace. Whenever there is a conflict between two religious communities it is invariably because at least one of them believes that it's wrong for the other community to have theirs.
 
It's weird. My argument for my atheism has always went like this:

Me: Do you think there is a secret society of partying teletubbies living under the surface of Pluto?
Other person: No.
Me: Can you prove they're not there?
Other person: No.
Me: Then why don't you believe in their existence?
Other person: Because it's a ridiculous idea.
Me: Bingo!

Now apply the same concept to god.

Anyway, that was always my explanation for my atheism, although people often don't understand it. I don't know why. It's not terribly complex to me. But get this. Recently, I found other people, other atheists are atheists just like me, for the exact same reason. They even use an analogy just like I had. Instead of the secret teletubbies, their analogy is a teapot orbiting the planet.

The logic is, you can't see, observe or infer the likelihood of the existence of a teapot in orbit. So why would you believe it is there in the first place?

That is the basic logic, these people use for their atheism. I learned about it by video googling Richard Dawkins. Those atheists are called "Teapot Atheists." I was a Teapot Atheist all along and never knew it!
 
Atheists: Why do you believe there is no god?
Click to expand...

I hate to keep bringing up Dawkins book 'The God delusion', but it addresses what we always talk about on this forum in far much more detail.

I didn't believe in god before I read his book, but to further explain my reasons, simply read his book. He artculated it far better than I could.

A big argument would be that god would have to be far more complexed than the universe itself, thereby making his own existence far more unlikely from our point of view.

A 'Darwinian' theory may not only apply to the formation of life itself, but an evolution of the universe which may favour particular physical attributes such as black holes, or life etc... Either way, Dawkins points out that Darwin showed us how 'impossible' complexity came about without the apparent need for a divine hand, and says this could be a good model for the universe itself.

Either way, I am certain people like gazoo and lightgigantic are fooling themselves with their own superficial empty hopes. They need a universe that has the 'why', I am more interested and thrilled by a universe that makes my existence far more improbable and complicated. If I was farted into existence by a divine being, it sort of ruins the uniqueness of life.

There is far more mystery in a universe created by 'chance' than a universe created on purpose. If there was no divine hand in the creation of life, then all the more we should treasure it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top