There is a god

This is not the only place I debate stuff, and recently I have talked with a person here about god?s in general. An Orthodox Christian, although I do not believe as he does, he makes a ton of sense.

He almost has me convinced that there is a god of some sort (I am still far from convinced that there is a God, but who knows? I will use God to denote the Christian God and god to denote a generic god).

He has presented me with several evidences for god which are very hard to argue. Given that I can?t really disprove them, and that they make sense, I can?t just reject them.

First: Nearly everyone believes or acts like they believe that there is objective morality to some degree, even if they do not believe in a god. Rape is a good example, we all say it is wrong to, or act like it is wrong to rape. Why? Any reason that you can come up with (it is harmful, it is forcing them something, not their choice, whatever) I can ask why to as well. What makes that logic moral? Basically because we define it as such, and short of getting into a linguistics, there is still nothing fundamentally that makes good good unless there is a god of some sort. Otherwise, it is just a human desire to not harm people or something, and what makes that desire better than wanting to act like a animal?

Second: I feel this is not logically sound, but I can?t explain how it is not. We don?t expect things with complexity to normally happen from nothing. Life comes from life, intelligence comes from intelligence, we have never seen life or intelligence or order come from nothing (or something that is neither), yet it had to come from somewhere, or be made by something? Humans have built things, buildings for example, that have order, complexity, etc, and given that life is a bajillion times more complex, doesn?t it make sense that something created it?

Third: This relates to the first point. There is nothing in godless origins, like big bang and evolution, that would have life, much less intelligent life, much less moral intelligent life.

Finally: Those things can be explained through science or psychology, but if we look at which explanation is simpler, god or the long mental exercises of science, which is simpler? God.

Although that conclusions gives no understanding of what god really is, it is rather hard to say that there is no god at that point. So, are these right? I can?t figure out how to really argue them (I still have not gotten my head completely around them anyway), and they make some sense, so I can?t reject them. Has anyone else heard these arguments? Know how these conclusions can be developed to know more about god?

 

Well, technically speaking, I can't argue your second, third, and fourth points. In fact, I agree with them but that doesn't necessarily mean they explain the existence of God pertaining to traditonal Judeo-Christian science.

But man can have values without the inclusion of God. If society didn't have morals we'd be on the same level as heathens.

Man has a basic understanding of what's right regarding hurting, degrading, or angering others. It's the only way in which we can co-exist in a semi-peaceful manner and not wipe the human race by constantly being at each other's throats.

My view is God may a mere figment of the imagination construed to provide solace and comfort for mortals mortified of the unknown.

Also to cope with hardships, death, and despair. Man is self-centered, therefore is practically chews individuals up inside not to know their niche in society or the grand scheme.

Can't we all concede that we can't have absolute assurance until we actually die?

<[-]> Saber

 

To be honest I find your points really weak.
I do think there is a God, but not for those reasons.
1. I agree with Evolution
2. I agree with the Big Bang Theory
3. I think that man is in control of his own destiny.
4. I think God made the entire universe already knowing what will happen, but he cannot control it.

I thought you might like this,
This article is by Isaac Asimov,
____________________________________
Some time ago, Ronald Reagan pointed out that one couldn't trust the Soviet government because the Soviets didn't believe in God or in an afterlife and therefore had no reason to behave honorably, but would be willing to lie and cheat and do all sorts of wicked things to aid their cause. Naturally, I firmly believe that the president of the United States knows what he is talking about, so I've done my very best to puzzle out the meaning of that statement.

Let me begin by presenting this "Reagan Doctrine" (using the term with all possible respect): "No one who disbelieves in God and in an afterlife can possibly be trusted." If this is true (and it must be if the president says so), then people are just naturally dishonest and crooked and downright rotten. In order to keep them from lying and cheating every time they open their mouths, they must be bribed or scared out of doing so. They have to be told and made to believe that if they tell the truth and do the right thing and behave themselves, they will go to heaven and get to plunk a harp and wear the latest design in halos. They must also be told and made to believe that if they lie and steal and run around with the opposite sex, they are going to hell and will roast over a brimstone fire forever.

It's a little depressing, if you come to think of it. By the Reagan Doctrine, there is no such thing as a person who keeps his word just because he has a sense of honor. No one tells the truth just because he thinks that it is the decent thing to do. No one is kind because he feels sympathy for others, or treats others decently because he likes the kind of world in which decency exists.

Instead, according to the Reagan Doctrine, anytime we meet someone who pays his debts, or hands in a wallet he found in the street, or stops to help a blind man cross the road, or tells a casual truth -- he's just buying himself a ticket to heaven, or else canceling out a demerit that might send him to hell. It's all a matter of good, solid business practice; a matter of turning a spiritual profit and of responding prudently to spiritual blackmail.

Personally, I don't think that I -- or you -- or even president Reagan -- would knock down an old lady and snatch her purse the next time we're short a few bucks. If only we were sure of that heavenly choir, or if only we were certain we wouldn't get into that people-fry down in hell. But by the Reagan Doctrine, if we didn't believe in God and in an afterlife, there would be nothing to stop us, so l guess we all would.

But let's take the reverse of the Reagan Doctrine. If no one who disbelieves in God and in an afterlife can possibly be trusted, it seems to follow that those who do believe in God and in an afterlife can be trusted. Since the American government consists of god-fearing people who believe in an afterlife, it seems pretty significant that the Soviet Union nevertheless would not trust us any farther than they can throw an ICBM. Since the Soviets are slaves to godless communism, they would naturally think everyone else is as evil as they are. Consequently, the Soviet Union's distrust of us is in accordance with the Reagan Doctrine.

Yet there are puzzles. Consider Iran. The Iranians are a god-fearing people and believe in an afterlife, and this is certainly true of the mullahs and ayatollahs who comprise their government. And yet we are reluctant to trust them for some reason. President Reagan himself has referred to the Iranian leaders as "barbarians."

Oddly enough, the Iranians are reluctant to trust us, either. They referred to the ex-president (I forget his name for he is never mentioned

 

TL, DR.

Currently, there are too many holes in the Evolutionist/Big Bang theory for me to even begin believing in it. Until then, I'm sticking with the "God created the universe" because it is perfectly infallible.

 

First: People need a sense of orientation. Some people get this from an idea of a god, others from natural law, still others from something else.

Second: If life has to come from life, doesn't god have to come from god? Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of god?

Third: Also, if we throw out evolution and whatnot because something had to come first, where did god come from. You can't just say he appeared, because that reasoning works just as well with the big bang and whatnot.

Fourth: Which is simpler: life came from a gradually evolving interaction of chemicals, or a god appeared out of nowhere with supernatural powers, snapped his fingers, and we appeared. What if god snapped his fingers and made talking plants. It would be just as likely. Or maybe talking oil slicks. You get the idea.

God is a simplification to help explain things we don't understand. It is kind of like the concept of 0. God is a placeholder for things we do not know.

 

Currently, there are too many holes in the Evolutionist/Big Bang theory for me to even begin believing in it. Until then, I'm sticking with the "God created the universe" because it is perfectly infallible.

Which is so impossibly contradictory I have no real idea how to reply to it.

 

One word;

Bablefish.

 

Look at the issue of the universe.
Science seems to agree of someone or something eternal, but which is prefered.

I choose the latter!

.............our universe
...............|.....|
.............../......\
............../........\
........had no.......had a
.......beginning....beginning
........................|.....|
......................./.......\
....................../.........\
..................without.......was
...................cause.......caused
..................................|.....|
..................................|.....|
................................./.......\
................................/.........\
...............By some thing By some one
.........................Eternal........Eternal

 

First: Humans have had a long time to figure out that murder/rape etc aren't good for society as a whole. We are taught these values as we grow up. If there were some grand inflexible morality in the universe which had instilled in us the knowledge that rape is wrong, then there wouldn't be any rapists.

Second: As already pointed out, this argument makes no sense whatsoever. If complexity requires a creator, then god either needed a creator himself, or he is the simplest being in existence.

Third: Moral intelligent life didn't just appear out of nowhere. We're talking about a progression of billions of years. As for the morals themselves, they vary from culture to culture.

Finally: I'm afraid I can't agree at all. Which explaination is simpler? 1) God created us, then disappeared, leaving no trace of his existence, or 2) We bring god into this world to stop us feeling so alone and helpless.

 

Only one possible explanation. There is No God. All you have to do is look at the flaws. Thousands of religions cant all be wrong bar one, so they're all wrong.
The bible says that the world was created only 8,000 years ago ish, but that has been proven wrong.
The bible also says that Humans were fully evolved beings 3 days after everything else was made. lol, LMAO. Also proven wrong.

 

Thanks for all the replies.

SaberGiiett7

But what makes those values we make up right? We all in general believe that some things are always good and some things are always bad. Where did the idea of morals come from? How would evolution or the big bang lead to us with morals?

I am not saying that people who do not believe in God cannot be moral; I am saying that if there is no god/God, then there is no such thing as morals. They are all just made up human constructs that are beneficial to some goal, but no deep reason why one should be believed to be overall right.

And your right, these evidences do not say anything about the kind of god, so it is not really proof for the God described in the Bible.

Darth-Seldon

I agree that the evidences are week, I just cannot say or explain how they are.

Again, there is a difference between saying humans are naturally evil creatures and what I am saying, that god made us naturally good. Basically, how did we become good if not from a god of some sort?

IkritMan

Although I love a good evolution/big bang/creationism debate, this is not the place to debate it. Although science is assuming that everything begins and ends with nature, so the creation of the universe had to be a natural process instead of a supernatural process, in short, most scientists will never make a hypothesis with god involved. That may not be a bad thing, but it is (and according to the person I debated this with, religious people explaining the universe are the same way, except they say that there is a god).

Jediflyer

First, people appear to have a sense of orientation, even if they believe in a god or not, where did it come from?

Second and third, I feel that is a good point, however, god has always been. Given that his God must be outside of time, to say He has a beginning is absurd.

Fourth and final statement, Although I agree, you are completely ignoring the possibility that some sort of god may exist. Are you that sure that a god cannot exist?

Dani1138

First: Humans have had a long time to figure out that murder/rape etc aren't good for society as a whole.

Why is society important? What makes acting in the good of society good?

If there were some grand inflexible morality in the universe which had instilled in us the knowledge that rape is wrong, then there wouldn't be any rapists.

Actually that may be a good reason why this is wrong, that some people do not have a sense of morality. Do rapist think that what they are doing is wrong and still do it anyway, or do they somehow think that it is right?

Third: Moral intelligent life didn't just appear out of nowhere. We're talking about a progression of billions of years. As for the morals themselves, they vary from culture to culture.

The morals vary, but we still believe that morals are right and good completely, that we have objective morality. Why do we believe that? Are we all wrong in that?

Finally: I'm afraid I can't agree at all. Which explanation is simpler? 1) God created us, then disappeared, leaving no trace of his existence, or 2) We bring god into this world to stop us feeling so alone and helpless.

From that point of view, it may make sense, but I still feel that the points I presented have some value (maybe).

Cobranaconda

Remember, I said god for most of my post, not God. There is a difference that I pointed out.

darthOB1 Didn?t mean to forget you

I feel that science says there had to be some natural cause to create the universe. I do not see why it must be eternal?

 

Why is society important? What makes acting in the good of society good?

A good for one/good for all type thingy (yeah, that's the technical term). It's all to do with survival, as it is much easier for humans to survive if they are in groups with common purpose. Murder is not good for the group, and therefore not good for the individual.

 

I personally believe in God and I don't need it to be proven to me. I know because I have "felt" that it's true through the spirit. It's one of those things that you have to experience to understand. I imagine I will be flamed for saying this by those who are intolerant of religious people but I don't really care. *shrugs* If you want to understand, you need to pray to him and ask him yourself. Then you need to read the scriptures to gain a better understanding of who he is. Not to mention go to church. He most likely wont appear to you and slap you in the face and tell you what's what but he does have other, more subtle ways of answering. That's what's so cool about God.

I also believe that we don't understand nearly as much about science as God does. What we think is absolute fact and truth may not necessarily be so from a certain point of view (God's). Or we may simply not have all the facts to truly understand the truth. I think most Christians will agree that the Bible doesn't have all of the answers to how God created the world. Just because it says that God created the Earth in 6 days doesn't mean that we understand what that sentence means. Does it mean 6 of our days? 6 of God's days? Are they the same? I don't know. Do I need to know? Not really. I have faith. That's good enough for me and for millions of other people.

EDIT: The part about Prayer.

 

1. there is no objective morality. morality is relative and subjective.

2. we have never seen life or intelligence or order come from nothing (or something that is neither), yet it had to come from somewhere, or be made by something?

it doesn't come from nothing, no, it comes from something slightly less complex, and so on.

3. quarks appeared only seconds after the big bang.

4. god is simpler? come on, enforcer. i know you know better than that.

 

enforcer

Then you fall into the catagory that the universe was created without cause. Created for no particular reason. Therefore all of us and everything we see are simply made up of lots and lots of tenny tiny infintesimally(sp) small strings!

 

Therefore all of us and everything we see are simply made up of lots and lots of tenny tiny infintesimally(sp) small strings!

that makes sense.

 

*shrug*

Suits me, rather than trying to comprehend the bizarre human construct of 'god'.

 

Then you fall into the catagory that the universe was created without cause. Created for no particular reason.

What's the problem with that?

 

First of all, morals come from God. There are no two ways about it.

The ONLY reason any of humanity is "moral" is because they were taught to be so by their parents, who were taught by their parents, who were taught by their parents, etc. If morality were some kind of natural part of the human race, we wouldn't have any depraved people. But we do. So either they are some kind of quark in the human race, or morality must be learned. If they are a quark, how? What makes them different, genetically, than someone else who's considered benevolent and caring?

My only conclusion is that it must be learned. So, the next question is, who taught us? You can't teach morality to wild animals, and they can't learn it on their own. So why on earth do we assume we as humans could have learned it on our own sometime in the distant past? Does a depraved man all of a sudden one day realize, on his own, that he's depraved and needs to change his ways?

Secondly, time is a boundary of this universe. Hence, everything in it, including the universe itself, must have a beginning. And life must come from life. God, being outside the universe, and Creator OF the universe and time, requires no beginning, and, in fact, COULD NOT have a beginning. It would be impossible. If He created time (which deals with beginning and end) then He Himself would not be bound to it, except in instances where He made Himself part of it (but even then He would be able to manipulate His involvement after it's already occured).

 

Fireman, you are saying creation must have a creator, and then giving god an exception. This is a ridiculus double standard that happens to suit your point of view.

 

First of all, morals come from God

They don't for me.

Secondly, time is a boundary of this universe. Hence, everything in it, including the universe itself, must have a beginning. And life must come from life. God, being outside the universe, and Creator OF the universe and time, requires no beginning, and, in fact, COULD NOT have a beginning. It would be impossible. If He created time (which deals with beginning and end) then He Himself would not be bound to it, except in instances where He made Himself part of it (but even then He would be able to manipulate His involvement after it's already occured).

Do /you/ even understand what you're talking about? If god created all then god needs a creator, (now cycnics could say man does that job) and this 'explanation' that he doesn't 'because' is completely contradictory.

 

"Beginning" is only an issue with time. God created time. He has no beginning.

Is that really hard to understand? The argument that "if the universe needs a beginning, God does too" is, I feel, an ignorant fallacy.

 

What did he get up to before he decided to make with the creating, then?

 

And the easter bunny created god.

I win!

 

"What did he get up to before he decided to make with the creating, then?"

Since there was no time, there was no "before". Do I understand that? Not really.

God, I think, just was. "Then", He created the
universe.

Simply put, finite minds cannot fully comprehend the infinite. However, we CAN comprehend the finite, and I comprehend that this finite universe had a starting point, and that something outside the finite can and MUST be infinite.