Why Believe in a god?

[Lilstu]

Romans 1:19 For what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse.…

Do you believe this?

Yes....this is one of my favorite Scriptures.
The Divine nature of God has been known since the creation of the world.
So how come Israel never believed God is a Trinity.
How come the prophets never warned Israel that God is a Trinity?
No mention of a Trinity in the Bible.
I know you had something else in mind....but this is a very powerful Scripture for One God, and only one God the Father.

 

[Angel4Truth]

So how come Israel never believed God is a Trinity.
How come the prophets never warned Israel that God is a Trinity?
No mention of a Trinity in the Bible.
I know you had something else in mind....but this is a very powerful Scripture for One God, and only one God the Father.

Romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in.

The prophets did call Jesus the Savior of the world, God.

"For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace." (Isaiah 9:6).

Isaiah 45:21 "Declare and set forth your case; Indeed, let them consult together. Who has announced this from of old? Who has long since declared it? Is it not I, the LORD? And there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me.

Beyond this, direct to another thread to discuss the trinity.

 

[quip]

Of course an Intelligent Designer is logical and scientific.
Yesterday i found a book in my attic that says 'Encyclopedia' on the cover. It is both logical and scientific to believe there was an *intelligent designer of this book. . It would be illogical and unscientific to believe a quantum fluctuation created the encyclopedia, placing it in a dusty box in my attic.

Lean that encyclopedia up against a tree then question how the intuition of a designed encyclopedia is so strong in juxtaposition to the tree.

Then explain by what intuitive explication is the tree identically "designed".

 

[Lilstu]

Romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in.

The prophets did call Jesus the Savior of the world, God.

"For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace." (Isaiah 9:6).

Isaiah 45:21 "Declare and set forth your case; Indeed, let them consult together. Who has announced this from of old? Who has long since declared it? Is it not I, the LORD? And there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me.

Beyond this, direct to another thread to discuss the trinity.

I sorry but I'm not sure of the point you are trying to make.

 

[6days]

The Divine nature of God has been known since the creation of the world.

Yes... we see God's eternal power and divine nature from His workmanship...His creation. Men are without excuse.

 

[6days]

We know (the encyclopedia) is intelligently designed because it follows the patterns of human design and there are no processes in nature that produce such things.

Yes... language and codes require intelligence. No process of nature can produce a language that communicates instructions, or knowlege.

However the appearance of design by itself is not enough to claim evidence of a designer. We know processes in nature can mimic design, crystal formations (like snowflakes) look designed...

Snowflakes do look designed. So might a river valley...or a tree...or a fingerprint. I agree with you, that the appearance of design by itself may not be evidence of a designer. However when design is accompanied with specified complexity rather than a design produced by random process,it is logical to assume a designer. For ex. a snowflake could be said to have beauty and complexity (result of laws of nature)...but, a snowflake does not have the high information content / specified complexity of DNA.

BTW... I suppose I could argue that the consistent 109 degree angle in ice crystals is evidence of a lawgiver in the universe...Or, that the design features in water molecules are evidence of a designer.*

bacteria evolving new functions (which had been observed in the lab under controlled conditions) looks like someone reaching in and designing something new for them.

I would agree that the complex sophisticated language of DNA which allows adaptation is evidence of an Intelligent Designer.

They're may be nothing which created everything...

That is an illogical and psuedoscientific answer. *Nothing can't create everything... but that is what atheists must believe.

What caused the energy and matter in the beginning? An uncaused cause?

Yes... an uncaused cause, caused everything. There is evidence that the uncaused Cause has omnipotence and omniscience.

Matter/energy coming into existence is a very different thing to its rearrangement so extrapolation from one can not with confidence be applied to the other. There might be a cause, you can even guess and say probably a cause (but it is a guess), but you can't say must have a cause. At least with the reasoning you have given thus far.

I think we are agreeing. It seems we are both saying that there is an uncaused cause. The evidence that the cause created logically and orderly.

However the range of thing which could fit that description(an orderly universe with the appearance of design) is wide even before considering gods.

I find it amazing that billions of dollars are spent listening for a 'code' in space to indicate intelligence....yet they reject the myriad of indications of intelligence they face everyday.

I consider myself an agnostic atheist. Some versions of god are impossible to disprove and while I find the concept improbable it remains possible so long as details are left vague.

I think you have already agreed that the concept of an uncaused cause is probable. The next step of figuring out 'what' or 'who' is the cause, requires a little faith which of course should be based on logical inference including scientific observation.

 

[Lilstu]

So what do I tell my Atheist neighbor......
What evidence is there that God exists?

As for creation of the universe...he says Science will soon have it all figured out.
What else have we got?

 

[6days]

So what do I tell my Atheist neighbor......
What evidence is there that God exists?

You perhaps shouldn't tell him anything if its someone only wanting to argue...But, if you are a Christian, you should live a life that demonstrates the love of Jesus, and be prepared to answer and share your faith to the best of your ability.

 

[Tyrathca]

Yes... language and codes require intelligence. No process of nature can produce a language that communicates instructions, or knowlege.

If you assume from the start that your conclusion is true then you are destined to show your conclusion is true. You have however proved nothing.

Snowflakes do look designed. So might a river valley...or a tree...or a fingerprint. I agree with you, that the appearance of design by itself may not be evidence of a designer.

I'm glad you agree that nature without intelligence is capable of more than our minds intuitively give it credit for.

However when design is accompanied with specified complexity rather than a design produced by random process,it is logical to assume a designer. For ex. a snowflake could be said to have beauty and complexity (result of laws of nature)...but, a snowflake does not have the high information content / specified complexity of DNA.

Is a pity that when you do provide specific definitions you reference this. Specified complexity isn't a thing, it is the crude creation of one guy (dembski) which has been widely discredited. It is mathematically unsound, does not actually model biology as claimed, is illogical (uses circular reasoning), and is confused (uses terms with different meanings interchangeably)

If you want to use specified complexity to prove anything you must first do what dembski failed to do. Prove mathematically specified complexity and prove that intelligence is its only source.

BTW... I suppose I could argue that the consistent 109 degree angle in ice crystals is evidence of a lawgiver in the universe...Or, that the design features in water molecules are evidence of a designer.*

You could try but that would be a very different argument about a very different thing.

That is an illogical and psuedoscientific answer. *Nothing can't create everything... but that is what atheists must believe.

6days I'm disappointed. It's like you have ignored everything said for the last few posts. I have been making a point that there are many alternative explanations in countless variations such that any claims about what "must" be believed are meaningless.

Yes... an uncaused cause, caused everything. There is evidence that the uncaused Cause has omnipotence and omniscience.

You haven't even shown that there is definitely an uncaused cause or any omnipotence let alone that they are one and the same thing.

Here is a thought experiment. Let's assume there is an omniscient and omnipotent being, how do you prove that it wasn't caused by an uncaused cause but is itself the uncaused cause?

I think we are agreeing. It seems we are both saying that there is an uncaused cause. The evidence that the cause created logically and orderly.

We are not agreeing but I can see the need to pigeonhole me into something simpler and more manageable is strong.

I find it amazing that billions of dollars are spent listening for a 'code' in space to indicate intelligence....yet they reject the myriad of indications of intelligence they face everyday.

I find it amazing that creationists will spend millions on theme parks and museums about their "evidence" yet reject the myriad of research they failed to do themselves showing indications of evolutions power to create.

I think you have already agreed that the concept of an uncaused cause is probable. The next step of figuring out 'what' or 'who' is the cause, requires a little faith which of course should be based on logical inference including scientific observation.

What on earth do you mean by faith here? My understanding of the word is incompatible with using logic and evidence.



Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

 

[George Affleck]

Not at all rambling or confusing. My undergraduate (I'll be graduating in May) field of study is psychology so these are concepts I grapple with frequently. As a fallen-away Catholic I grapple with them even more. One thing I'd like to bring up to you is that if one were to believe there was a soul, one wouldn't necessarily see it as interchangeable with mind. So, in a religious belief, the deterioration of the mind wouldn't mean the deterioration of the soul.

Even though I'm non-practicing, it did hurt to see these words in an article I read recently:

"But as a neuroscientist and psychologist, I have no use for the soul."

It's here: Neuroscience and psychology have rendered it basically unnecessary to have a soul

Anna,

That part of you that only you know and have never been able to describe, explain or share with any other person, regardless of how much you have wanted to or how hard you have tried, is personal evidence from God, to you, that your soul is a reality. The Lord has, in His mercy, allowed you this disability for your good.

This same condition exists in every human. It is a token of love from Him who made us. Tho we have been rendered totally incapable, by the power of sin, when left to our own devices, to find our way back to Him who made us, yet He speaks to His own by this precious flaw.

Every truly born-again Christian on this site, and around the world, will tell you that Jesus is that person you can explain these things to and who knows them before you can even form the words. Neuroscience never bled and died for you so that you could stand before God at the end of your days perfect and blameless because you are covered with His Son's blood. Psychology never conquered death and the enemy of your soul by rising the third day according to the scriptures.

He could have called ten thousand angels to rescue Him and conquer His enemies but He looked two thousand years into the future and knew that you would need His perfect sacrifice. So He stayed on the cross for you. This was His love for your soul. The church has failed you. That is not surprising. Jesus never will.

You cannot believe because you do not have faith. You do not have faith because you will not ask. If you have lost ability to trust Him, even just trust me that these things are true. Ask Him to forgive you for so many years of not loving Him and wandering away. Thank Him for His love in staying on the cross for you and rising the third day for your justification. If you will do that, send me a private message and I will show you where He has hidden your faith. If its not there, I will lay down my Bible and walk away from it.

 

[6days]

If you assume from the start that your conclusion is true then you are destined to show your conclusion is true. You have however proved nothing.

I agree. Atheism starts with the conclusion...So do I.

* I'm glad you agree that nature without intelligence is capable of more than our minds intuitively give it credit for.

A tornado has no intelligence...It is capable of much. But it can never produce complex sophisticated information.

*Is a pity that when you do provide specific definitions you reference this. Specified complexity isn't a thing, it is the crude creation of one guy (dembski) which has been widely discredited. It is mathematically unsound, does not actually model biology as claimed, is illogical (uses circular reasoning), and is confused* (uses terms with different meanings interchangeably)

Ha..... I'm not really a Dembeski fan, although he has produced some good stuff.* 'Specified complexity' is actually a term from Information theorist, Werner Gitt.

*6days I'm disappointed. It's like you have ignored everything said for the last few posts. I have been making a point that there are many alternative explanations in countless variations such that any claims about what "must" be believed are meaningless.

Sorry. *
Yes, I know you have tried to give alternate explanations.* But, you are giving variations of the same thing.* (Other than perhaps *some explanations which seemed to hurt both your head and mine.)

You haven't even shown that there is definitely an uncaused cause or any omnipotence let alone that they are one and the same thing.

I think you agreed that it is possible.**I can't convince you (And the OP is not about convincing).* However, an uncaused cause is the most logical answer.* Various alternative answers still amount to an uncaused cause. And nothing causing everything is not logical.

Here is a thought experiment. Let's assume there is an omniscient and omnipotent being, how do you prove that it wasn't caused by an uncaused cause but is itself the uncaused cause?

Huh... Who's on first?
Not sure I follow, but I think you are suggesting that I could believe that something else caused God? That seems like another variation of 'turtles all the way down'?

*I find it amazing that creationists will spend millions on theme parks and museums about their "evidence"

Sure..... not like evolutionist museums that are funded by taxpayers.*
But, that has nothing to do with the point.* Many seem anxious to accept evidence of design (sound patterns) as proof of intelligence in the universe... yet reject evidence of design we see everywhere in creation.

I think you have already agreed that the concept of an uncaused cause is probable. The next step of figuring out 'what' or 'who' is the cause, requires a little faith which of course should be based on logical inference including scientific observation.

*What on earth do you mean by faith here? My understanding of the word is incompatible with using logic and evidence.

Sure... My understanding of the world is also compatible with using logic and evidence. But both of us have beliefs* about things, although we don't have proof positive (faith).

 

[George Affleck]

Setting the Rules

Setting the Rules

Geo: "Hey 6days, here comes Ty again with his hockey stick!"

6days: "Ya, I see him"

Geo: "Doesn't he know we always play baseball after school?"

6days: "I keep telling him, but he keeps doing it. He doesn't believe in baseball."

Geo: "Why not?"

6days: " I dunno. I can't figure it out! Watch it, here he comes."

Ty: "Hi guys, I'm here to play!!"

Geo: "Ty, why do you bring a hockey stick all the time? You know we play baseball!"

Ty: "Oh, I don't believe in baseball. Look, let me show you how I can score a goal"

6days: "Ty, you can't score goals in baseball! - you score runs. You need a ball and a bat!"

Ty: "Oh no, not at all! I won't believe in this baseball thing you keep talking about unless you can show it to me with this stick."

Geo:"But that's not right. You can't set the rules. At least consider the possibility of baseball!"

Ty: "My understanding of the word baseball is incompatible with using logic and evidence."

6days: "But you can see the field and the grass, and the bases and, besides its summer, not winter."

Ty: "Look, just because that's what you see doesn't mean there aren't countless ways to explain things. Hockey has the power to make itself look like baseball to some people. If you assume from the start that baseball is real then you are destined to show that it is. You have however proved nothing."

Geo: "But why do we have to prove it to you?"

Ty: "Because that's how hockey is played!!! that's why! I didn't make the rules. They are already set. You need to disprove that hockey is what is actually being played here and you need to prove it by using this stick. If you can't play by those rules, then why should I respect anything you say? Hmmmm....?"

 

[Crucible]

The first people to look up at the sky and wonder where it all came from didn't come to conclusion that it came from nothing. That's basically the problem with atheists talking about how they need evidence of God- they're really demanding evidence for something they'd rather not exist.

God being self-evident is a fact, it's not open to rebuke by learned skepticism. Physic's ongoing failure to produce otherwise is an ongoing proof of God.

 

[George Affleck]

P.Z.Meyers is a leading promoter of the atheist belief system. He says that because you Christians are unable to answer basic questions; atheism is end result.

Question, and statement 1
Why should I believe in any god? We don't need an intelligent authority to explain the universe..

You should not believe in any god. That is the fallacy. You should only believe if you find one who, seeing your helpless condition, would come to earth to give up His life for you and take your punishment.

It is a logical fallacy to assume that we can eliminate one explanation for the universe and not replace it with another. Atheists are deceivers of themselves and others when they try to write the rules of engagement and make Christians think that their position is one of negativity. It is not. It is simply changing one worldview for another; one god for another.

It is impossible to believe nothing about a subject that we think about. The very fact that we think about it leads us to reconcile it in any way possible. This information alone verifies that we are made in God's image. That we are forced by who and what we are to believe something, anything, is hard evidence that we are programmed to seek, by our intelligence, ultimate intelligence.

To do otherwise is like trying to understand how a vacuum cleaner came into existence by examining an orange peel.

 

[Tyrathca]

A tornado has no intelligence...It is capable of much. But it can never produce complex sophisticated information.

A tornado can't, but logic and evidence shows processes which behave like evolution can.

Ha..... I'm not really a Dembeski fan, although he has produced some good stuff.* 'Specified complexity' is actually a term from Information theorist, Werner Gitt.

I'll admit I'm not really an expert in which creationist said what, it matters little in the end. Do you have a reference to Gitt's usage because all I have its Dembski's and I don't know what he said different.

Regardless it is still at best an unvalidated term which likely describes no real characteristic of the universe. Why don't other information theorists use the term? Or anyone except creationists talking about evolution. Surely such math would have wider applications.

I think you agreed that it is possible.**I can't convince you (And the OP is not about convincing).* However, an uncaused cause is the most logical answer.* Various alternative answers still amount to an uncaused cause. And nothing causing everything is not logical.

An uncaused cause actually IS nothing causing everything since nothing caused the first cause. The atheist saying something other than a god child be the first cause is no more claiming nothing caused everything than you claiming god. Then again there still is the chance there was no uncaused cause (main alternatives being variations of infinite regressions, causal loops or something mind bending we are yet to think of)

Huh... Who's on first?
Not sure I follow, but I think you are suggesting that I could believe that something else caused God? That seems like another variation of 'turtles all the way down'?

Not titles all the way down in the slightest (that would be an infinite regress ). This is simply seperating the uncaused cause from you omnipotent god, still leaves you with an uncaused cause and no turtles all the way down.

If we assume a god exists how do we know (from logic not his say so) he didn't have a cause? That there wasn't alleging not omnipotent or thinking which caused god and/or the universe?

The point is that is one thing to say there was an uncaused cause (which we can't know for sure) but it's another thing entirely to then claim this cause is one and the same as some being with lots of other attributes.

Sure... My understanding of the world is also compatible with using logic and evidence. But both of us have beliefs* about things, although we don't have proof positive (faith).

Do faith to you is believing in things based on percived probability it being right rather than proof of it?

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk