Why Should I Believe in God?

[Choobus]

WANKER

[nkb]

After introducing yourself thusly:

w_1975 wrote

Hello,

I don't know whether God exists and i don't know whether he doesn't exist. Till all the universe's secrets are explained I would like/have to belief God exists. I want the universe to exist for a reason, and life to have a higher meaning, therefore i would want God to exist. When i think about the universe/nature/physics i try to find arguments in favor of God's probable existance and not his non-existance. I don't understand quantum mechanics, hidden higher dimensions etc. so with my limited capacity as a human being i am a bit carefull to dimiss God in all of this. I disagree with people that uses/misrepresent God/religion for their own motives.

I don't know what to call myself... More theist than atheist...

You now make these arguments:

w_1975 wrote

Sex is a human attribute, which i don't believe applies to God.
...
Because i think there is a better chance of a Beign of higher intelligence having involvement in the existance of the universe, than not.
...
Maybe not, but there is only one thing that can provide a reason for the universe to exist or life to have meaning, that would be God.
...
We have free will, it's up to us to decide what purpose God serve in our lives, it needn't be evil. So God can't exist because all religions got it wrong ?

I call bullshit on your introduction. "More theist than atheist"? Give me a fucking break!

SteelCurtain wrote

How do you know that the Ancient Greeks, Egyptians, Muslims, Jews, etc. got it wrong? What proof do you have that the Christian God is the correct one?

I don't have proof that the Christian God is the correct one, i have to belief it, like you have seemingly choose to believe no God is the correct one.

Basically the dilemma can be illustrated through the following:

So if the Mona Lisa fell out of the South American sky and was discovered by one of the indian tribes that have no contact with civilization, how many of them would correctly conclude the the creator was Leonardo Da Vinci, how many would conclude it had no creator at all, and if they all made incorrect conclusions would that mean Leonardo Da Vinci did not paint it ?


So somewhere, sometime humans on planet earth looks at the universe and make their conclusions...

nkb wrote

So why do you keep referring to "God", and not Zeus, Thor, or the FSM?

Is it unreasonable to keep the door open for every single deity we've ever heard of?

Refer to my previous post.

[Choobus]

Refer to my arsehole you mouth breathing troglodyte. It has all the truth of the bible, plus corn!

[Irreligious]

w_1975 wrote

I don't have proof that the Christian God is the correct one, i have to belief it, like you have seemingly choose to believe no God is the correct one.

Basically the dilemma can be illustrated through the following:

So if the Mona Lisa fell out of the South American sky and was discovered by one of the indian tribes that have no contact with civilization, how many of them would correctly conclude the the creator was Leonardo Da Vinci, how many would conclude it had no creator at all, and if they all made incorrect conclusions would that mean Leonardo Da Vinci did not paint it ?


So somewhere, sometime humans on planet earth looks at the universe and make their conclusions...

Then it seems to me that you already think you know what gave rise to existence and you call this alleged creator, God.

Why attempt to portray yourself as an agnostic on the topic when you clearly are not? I would say that's dishonest.

Erik wrote

... As far as the original argument goes, it is disingenuous on the part of believers when they discuss the possibility of there being a supreme being in the universe. This is because they immediately assume that their belief in a personal god, despite all of the above evidence contra, is justified by the mere possibility. It is the classic fallacy of the excluded middle and I have seen it a million times.

"God" is an inference that can be drawn on a number of grounds. Do you know what they are? Can you state them or, at least, do you know where to find them, so that you can consider them? Can you counter them?

You are starting from an assumption of metaphysical naturalism but that is not a fact; it is a statement of your opinon about the nature of reality. That is fine and good. But what can you prove? The naturalism of science is methodological. It's not so much a statement about the nature of reality as it is about how we should think about reality. It leaves the realm of the supernatural out not because it knows that it doesn't exist but because it cannot make testable claims about it. Now I grant that some scientists are becoming ever more hubristic in their claims but the vast majority of them are still honest enough to say that they cannot rule the supernatural out.

You haven't come close to making a persuasive argument.

[nkb]

w_1975 wrote

I don't have proof that the Christian God is the correct one, i have to belief it, like you have seemingly choose to believe no God is the correct one.

It's not a belief, how many times do we have to tell you that?

Do you hold the belief that fairies do not sprinkle pixie dust on your asshole when you take a shit? Or is that something that you have absolutely no reason to give any credence to, therefore dismiss it as bullshit?

w_1975 wrote

Basically the dilemma can be illustrated through the following:

So if the Mona Lisa fell out of the South American sky and was discovered by one of the indian tribes that have no contact with civilization, how many of them would correctly conclude the the creator was Leonardo Da Vinci, how many would conclude it had no creator at all, and if they all made incorrect conclusions would that mean Leonardo Da Vinci did not paint it ?

And what are the chances that any of these Indians guessed Leonardo Da Vinci correctly? What's that? Statistically insignificant?

That's what your guess on God being the creator is also.

[Irreligious]

Lily wrote

"God" is an inference that can be drawn on a number of grounds.

And, like L. Ron Hubbard did, I can also infer that aliens from another galaxy are responsible for existence. I can infer that a team of gods created the universe, if I want to. The main point is that neither I nor anybody can know for fact what gave rise to it all.

[quote=Choobus;508176]that's why you'll never get anywhere.

What should i do start a war to force everybody else to follow my believes ?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

hidden higher dimensions

what evidence is there for the existence of these?

try reading: WARPED PASSAGES UNRAVELING THE MYSTERIES OF THE UNIVERSE'S HIDDEN DIMENSIONS by LISA RANDALL

-----------------------------------------------------------------------


human existance [sic] violating the second law of thermodynamics

What you are really saying here is that you don't understand the laws of thermodynamics. Human existence violates the second law in the same way that crackers turn into flesh when a man in a dress says a magic spell.



The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics describes basic principles familiar in everyday life. It is partially a universal law of decay; the ultimate cause of why everything ultimately falls apart and disintegrates over time. Material things are not eternal. Everything appears to change eventually, and chaos increases. Nothing stays as fresh as the day one buys it; clothing becomes faded, threadbare, and ultimately returns to dust.2 Everything ages and wears out. Even death is a manifestation of this law. The effects of the 2nd Law are all around, touching everything in the universe.

How did life arise in the face of this ?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

extra terrestrial life

any proof for this?


no, this is still a hidden secret as i indicated.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------


anti-gravity

What the fuck?


You should read this : http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/16/science/16cnd-dark.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
w_1975 wrote
unexplainable/weird experiences like dreams indicating future events
(this one add because, i personally had one about the 2005 tsunami)

Make a prediction that isn't vague, Tell us before it happens. When it happens we will apologize for assuming that you are a gullible lying retard.


This is the truth... Sad thing is i did not realize the significanse till the event occurred. What you do if you dreamed about earthquakes, lots of water, suffering and see the word "INDONESIA", tell it to everybody or think this is a ridiculuos dream ? I did the latter. But now i realize this was a significant event not just here on earth.

I have personal experience with a dream where i did told somebody before it happened, they would confirm, but i guess you would label them as liars to.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
w_1975 wrote
and the list goes on...

more sewage only makes the stink worse.


maybe i should add DNA.

An excellent example of intelligent design is the DNA molecule. Since its discovery by James Watson and Francis Crick in 1953, evolutionists have faced an insurmountable hurdle. Anyone who truly investigates the mystery of the DNA molecule -- this incredible micro, digital, error-correcting, redundant, self duplicating, information storage and retrieval system, with its own inherent language convention, that has the potential to develop any organism from raw biological material -- understands that life is the result of Intelligent Design. In light of recent discoveries such as the DNA molecule, the absurdity of the evolution argument is readily apparent when its basic formula is compared with that of the creation model of origins. Creation states that matter + energy + information = incredibly complex life. Evolution states that matter + energy + random chance = incredibly complex life. The theory of evolution is merely a religion that serves to discredit the Intelligent Designer Himself.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
w_1975 wrote
why can't i choose to add God to the list ?

since it's all bullshit anyway, you should add god.


consider the list of bullshit carefully

[Choobus]

I've read Randalls book. It's a purely speculative book that has no basis in experimental fact, which means that there is no evidence for the existance of higher dimensions.

If the antigravity you refer to is simply that associated with Dark Energy (about which we know almost nothing) then why include both of these things on your retard list?

I won't bother with your idiotic thermnodynamics/DNA drivel because it's so stupid that if I try to read what you wrote it might cost me some IQ points. Plus these asinine arguments have been pwned so many times they now count as freeware. You sir are an idiot of unusually high idiocy.

w_1975 wrote

Evolution states that matter + energy + random chance = incredibly complex life

As Richard Dawkins says on pretty much every page of The Blind Watchmaker:

EVOLUTION BY NATURAL SELECTION IS THE OPPOSITE OF RANDOM CHANCE!

How can you have a discussion about something when you don't even have the first idea about the thing you're discussing?

[Mog]

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics describes basic principles familiar in everyday life. It is partially a universal law of decay; the ultimate cause of why everything ultimately falls apart and disintegrates over time. Material things are not eternal. Everything appears to change eventually, and chaos increases. Nothing stays as fresh as the day one buys it; clothing becomes faded, threadbare, and ultimately returns to dust.2 Everything ages and wears out. Even death is a manifestation of this law. The effects of the 2nd Law are all around, touching everything in the universe.

How did life arise in the face of this ?

You're applying the fallacy of assuming that the earth is a closed system. Look above you. When we add energy to a system, we can increase its apparent order in it. Of course, the sun will eventually die, but until then, your 2nd law of thermodynamics is a fallacy.



maybe i should add DNA.

An excellent example of intelligent design is the DNA molecule. Since its discovery by James Watson and Francis Crick in 1953, evolutionists have faced an insurmountable hurdle. Anyone who truly investigates the mystery of the DNA molecule -- this incredible micro, digital, error-correcting, redundant, self duplicating, information storage and retrieval system, with its own inherent language convention, that has the potential to develop any organism from raw biological material -- understands that life is the result of Intelligent Design. In light of recent discoveries such as the DNA molecule, the absurdity of the evolution argument is readily apparent when its basic formula is compared with that of the creation model of origins. Creation states that matter + energy + information = incredibly complex life. Evolution states that matter + energy + random chance = incredibly complex life. The theory of evolution is merely a religion that serves to discredit the Intelligent Designer Himself.

The problem is that Evolution never states random chance. It states "natural selection". That's a huge difference. When you play Yahtzee, do you throw all the dice each time, or just some of them? I'm not saying that what we call abiogenesis is necessarily easy to figure out, but you have to know that the process from a simple chemical to something that we call life require several steps, mostly decided by natural selection, and even if this process takes a step backwards, it might not be all the way to the beginning.

Where do you get this copy/paste retardedness that you post here under the guise of science, w_1975? Looks like it came straight from Conservapaedia.

Regardless, to even claim that:

Anyone who truly investigates the mystery of the DNA molecule -- this incredible micro, digital, error-correcting, redundant, self duplicating, information storage and retrieval system, with its own inherent language convention, that has the potential to develop any organism from raw biological material -- understands that life is the result of Intelligent Design.

Is just fucking preposterous. In fact, it shows you simply swallow whatever is told to you that fits your world view, instead of looking at things objectively. True Scotsman to the max...

Your extreme lack of understanding of thermodynamics is hilarious. Most significantly that in a closed system(read: universe), entropy can decrease as long as there is an offsetting increase. (ie the fucking SUN pouring energy into our system.) If your understanding were correct, things like snowflakes would be impossible, as they are extremely complex things that arise from disordered parts.

[Professor Chaos]

SteelCurtain wrote

Where do you get this copy/paste retardedness that you post here under the guise of science, w_1975? Looks like it came straight from Conservapaedia.

Google seems to trace the origin to here.