"Are there good reasons to believe that a god exists?"
Doesn't seem like much preamble is needed, but expect this largely to be filled (if at all) with arguments in favour of the existence of a God and counter-arguments. (Because the question is not "Are there good reasons to believe that a god does not exist?"). Though if you do think you have a good argument that shows it is reasonable to believe God does not exist, that is also valid.
This question comes up a lot in other threads where various classical arguments (e.g. ontological, axiological, cosmological) have been given in those threads.
If possible, try not to shotgun debate by raising lots of arguments at once. One sound argument should be sufficient.
Are there good reasons to believe that a god exists?
Moderator: Moderators
-
Danmark
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 12697
- Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
- Location: Seattle
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #281
So God kind of 'dumbed it down' for our primitive, 'strong back - weak mind' ancestors like Thales and Pythagoras [6th Century BCE]. But we are so much smarter now God can give us new revelation. If true, it sounds like an argument for the Mormon doctrine of continuing revelation.kenblogton wrote: Stark gives the reason why humans came to believe in gods: because they believed the gods were vital to their survival, and he says they abandoned the initial high gods because they were too demanding and invented more human-like and much less demanding polytheistic gods. The initial gods were more like the real thing, the more easy-going gods were invented.
It is obvious that the creator of the universe does not need meat or anything. So why such stuff in the Bible?
The Bible's purpose is to communicate what God expects of humans. Since it was written for fairly primitive humans, it contains anthropomorphisms to help primitive folk relate to God and to better understand what God expects.
kenblogton
-
Zzyzx
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 25141
- Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
- Location: Bible Belt USA
- Has thanked: 55 times
- Been thanked: 93 times
Post #282
.
Emotion, rather than reasoning, may be involved in BELIEVING those stories.
Perhaps that would be more accurately characterized as personal opinion.kenblogton wrote: Reply to 1. By "research" I meant personal investigation or experience, not research in the academic sense.
No emotion is required to NOT believe stories about gods, fairies, Santa, etc.kenblogton wrote: Reply to 2. In my experience, there are many intellectual arguments for and against God, but I've only discovered the 3 emotional reasons I listed.
Emotion, rather than reasoning, may be involved in BELIEVING those stories.
It appears as though personal conceptions of gods are influenced by what people hear and read (opinions of others) about gods. Do you disagree?kenblogton wrote: In other words, it is people's conceptions of gods that guides them, not the preaching they hear.
.
Non-Theist
ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence
Non-Theist
ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence
Re: Are there good reasons to believe that a god exists?
Post #283[Replying to post 1 by Jashwell]
Theory is theory and not an undisputable fact. Reputable scientists today still admit they have a lot to learn about the universe and its beginning. Until they have learned all there is to learn, their theory is only theory. In the past and even in recent history scientist have openly made claims about the universe and later forced to retract those claims because they were false. Before anything can be accepted as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, everything about it must be perfectly understood and proven beyond ANY doubt. In a nutshell, science will and must remain theory, and need be accepted that it is subject to change, pro or con, until there is no more to learn about the science of the universe. Until then, all claims based on current understanding are subject to change.
To prove science right or wrong you have to be a scientist knowledgeable of EVERYTHING related to it, and have perfect understanding about it. Unless a person fits into this category, it would be a drastic mistake to accept and believe all claims about the universe and all in it, as being the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. No reputable scientist will make this claim. If any of them do, they are foolish, because they openly admit they do not understand all there is to know.
The responses to all my posts in this forum have been negative, based on science, which is not proven facts not subject to change. I will add to this in my next post. This and the next post do concern the subject this sub-forum.
Theory is theory and not an undisputable fact. Reputable scientists today still admit they have a lot to learn about the universe and its beginning. Until they have learned all there is to learn, their theory is only theory. In the past and even in recent history scientist have openly made claims about the universe and later forced to retract those claims because they were false. Before anything can be accepted as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, everything about it must be perfectly understood and proven beyond ANY doubt. In a nutshell, science will and must remain theory, and need be accepted that it is subject to change, pro or con, until there is no more to learn about the science of the universe. Until then, all claims based on current understanding are subject to change.
To prove science right or wrong you have to be a scientist knowledgeable of EVERYTHING related to it, and have perfect understanding about it. Unless a person fits into this category, it would be a drastic mistake to accept and believe all claims about the universe and all in it, as being the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. No reputable scientist will make this claim. If any of them do, they are foolish, because they openly admit they do not understand all there is to know.
The responses to all my posts in this forum have been negative, based on science, which is not proven facts not subject to change. I will add to this in my next post. This and the next post do concern the subject this sub-forum.
Re: Are there good reasons to believe that a god exists?
Post #284[Replying to post 282 by jcb]
Science is the most well respected and ONLY epistemology that allows us reliable data about how the real world works.
Scientists that claim they know they are right are bad scientists - and early, poor models of our understanding of the Universe came from bad data - science is known to get closer and closer to what is extremely reasonably thought to be the truth (for example, the world being round) - many models are made with the expectation that they will be falsified.
Science doesn't need all the knowledge to say it has any knowledge. Aside from maybe on a farm or in the wilderness, most of what you can see anywhere in the modern world is a product of science. Whether it's the material, the design or the technology.
Science is the most well respected and ONLY epistemology that allows us reliable data about how the real world works.
Scientists that claim they know they are right are bad scientists - and early, poor models of our understanding of the Universe came from bad data - science is known to get closer and closer to what is extremely reasonably thought to be the truth (for example, the world being round) - many models are made with the expectation that they will be falsified.
Science doesn't need all the knowledge to say it has any knowledge. Aside from maybe on a farm or in the wilderness, most of what you can see anywhere in the modern world is a product of science. Whether it's the material, the design or the technology.
Re: Are there good reasons to believe that a god exists?
Post #285[Replying to post 283 by Jashwell]
Canyou agree that science has considerable to learn about the beginning of the universe, and after learning this what they now believe may be in a completely different direction than what they now believe?
Can you also agree, that nothing on any subject can be accepted as the last word until EVERYTHING is understood about it and there is nothing more to learn?
Canyou agree that science has considerable to learn about the beginning of the universe, and after learning this what they now believe may be in a completely different direction than what they now believe?
Can you also agree, that nothing on any subject can be accepted as the last word until EVERYTHING is understood about it and there is nothing more to learn?
Re: Are there good reasons to believe that a god exists?
Post #286[Replying to post 284 by jcb]
No. If I say "the age of the universe is between 13.7 and 13.9 billion years", that is a last word. It's not going to be greater than 13.9 or lower than 13.7. But there is more to learn. It could be 13.71, 13.72... etc. (It's actually 13.7980.037 billion years)
Yes, EVERYONE has considerable to learn about the beginning of the Universe. And science is the ONLY epistemology that we know CAN learn about it. Unless you think that it was something other than science that lead us to learn that the Universe began 13.798 billion years ago?
No. If I say "the age of the universe is between 13.7 and 13.9 billion years", that is a last word. It's not going to be greater than 13.9 or lower than 13.7. But there is more to learn. It could be 13.71, 13.72... etc. (It's actually 13.7980.037 billion years)
Yes, EVERYONE has considerable to learn about the beginning of the Universe. And science is the ONLY epistemology that we know CAN learn about it. Unless you think that it was something other than science that lead us to learn that the Universe began 13.798 billion years ago?
Re: Are there good reasons to believe that a god exists?
Post #287[Replying to post 282 by jcb]
Conclusion to Post 282.
Christianity and science today are basically in the same boat. Both have considerable to learn about what is the truth the whole truth and nothing about the truth. Scientific theory about the beginning of the universe will always remain theory. It will because there is no way science can prove beyond question what occurred in the events leading up to what is called the Big Bang.
Christianity is also theory, based on a wide variety of books called the Bible. None of these books fully agree with each other. In fact, as it appears and is understood, none of these books fully agree with the contents in them. These are known facts throughout the world.
To prove or disprove whatever about the science of the universe, a person must be a scientist knowledgeable about whatever trying to prove or disprove. To simply say true or false is foolishness. Until everything there is to know is perfectly understood, everything is subject no, minor, or even major adjustments to what was previously thought to be true.
Everything I have said about science equally applies to Christianity, or any other religion. There is not a person on this earth who in a sane mind can say publicly they have perfect and conclusive understanding of the Bible and much less about who they refer to as God. To simply say true or false about any belief is foolishness, because they themselves have no greater understanding than they who make the claim. It is even greater foolishness to deny or dispute the Bible without having perfect understanding of what is denied or disputed.
First obtain perfect understanding of what is disputed, then make it known of what is true or false.
Conclusion to Post 282.
Christianity and science today are basically in the same boat. Both have considerable to learn about what is the truth the whole truth and nothing about the truth. Scientific theory about the beginning of the universe will always remain theory. It will because there is no way science can prove beyond question what occurred in the events leading up to what is called the Big Bang.
Christianity is also theory, based on a wide variety of books called the Bible. None of these books fully agree with each other. In fact, as it appears and is understood, none of these books fully agree with the contents in them. These are known facts throughout the world.
To prove or disprove whatever about the science of the universe, a person must be a scientist knowledgeable about whatever trying to prove or disprove. To simply say true or false is foolishness. Until everything there is to know is perfectly understood, everything is subject no, minor, or even major adjustments to what was previously thought to be true.
Everything I have said about science equally applies to Christianity, or any other religion. There is not a person on this earth who in a sane mind can say publicly they have perfect and conclusive understanding of the Bible and much less about who they refer to as God. To simply say true or false about any belief is foolishness, because they themselves have no greater understanding than they who make the claim. It is even greater foolishness to deny or dispute the Bible without having perfect understanding of what is denied or disputed.
First obtain perfect understanding of what is disputed, then make it known of what is true or false.
Re: Are there good reasons to believe that a god exists?
Post #288[Replying to post 285 by Jashwell]
I won't agree or disagree with the age of the universe.
You answered my second question in part. You did not answer if what is not understood is subject to change what is understood.
I won't agree or disagree with the age of the universe.
You answered my second question in part. You did not answer if what is not understood is subject to change what is understood.
Re: Are there good reasons to believe that a god exists?
Post #289[Replying to post 286 by jcb]
No justification is required for not accepting the Bible while no epistemological capability has been given.
Unfalsifiable, retrospective claims that no previous bible reader, Christian or otherwise ever observably believed is not justification.
You made a falsifiable, non retrospective claim. You said that the Bible shows us the Universe will end in a big crunch. First, that's not impressive - either the Universe will come back together or it won't, for guessing that's pretty 50-50, meaning that if you are right it's not particularly demonstrative. But if you're wrong, it undermines your epistemology. If it was wrong, you'd likely change your interpretation of the Bible to fit it.
Of course, current science says that it's PROBABLY wrong - not that it IS wrong, that would be unverifiable (you could always say "it'll stop and contract later").
Your claim that the Universe will end in a big crunch is like stating that while driving a car into a brick wall at 100 mph, when 5 metres from the wall, "the car will stop and turn around any minute now"
No justification is required for not accepting the Bible while no epistemological capability has been given.
Unfalsifiable, retrospective claims that no previous bible reader, Christian or otherwise ever observably believed is not justification.
You made a falsifiable, non retrospective claim. You said that the Bible shows us the Universe will end in a big crunch. First, that's not impressive - either the Universe will come back together or it won't, for guessing that's pretty 50-50, meaning that if you are right it's not particularly demonstrative. But if you're wrong, it undermines your epistemology. If it was wrong, you'd likely change your interpretation of the Bible to fit it.
Of course, current science says that it's PROBABLY wrong - not that it IS wrong, that would be unverifiable (you could always say "it'll stop and contract later").
Your claim that the Universe will end in a big crunch is like stating that while driving a car into a brick wall at 100 mph, when 5 metres from the wall, "the car will stop and turn around any minute now"
Re: Are there good reasons to believe that a god exists?
Post #290Yellow: the Bible is the only physical source available for saying anything about God. But you do not accept nor want to hear anything that comes from it.Jashwell wrote: [Replying to post 286 by jcb]
No justification is required for not accepting the Bible while no epistemological capability has been given.
Unfalsifiable, retrospective claims that no previous bible reader, Christian or otherwise ever observably believed is not justification.
You made a falsifiable, non retrospective claim. You said that the Bible shows us the Universe will end in a big crunch. First, that's not impressive - either the Universe will come back together or it won't, for guessing that's pretty 50-50, meaning that if you are right it's not particularly demonstrative. But if you're wrong, it undermines your epistemology. If it was wrong, you'd likely change your interpretation of the Bible to fit it.
Of course, current science says that it's PROBABLY wrong - not that it IS wrong, that would be unverifiable (you could always say "it'll stop and contract later").
Your claim that the Universe will end in a big crunch is like stating that while driving a car into a brick wall at 100 mph, when 5 metres from the wall, "the car will stop and turn around any minute now"
Blue: It is something that cannot be proven true or false at this time. It is something that remains to be seen. And, I was only showing that the Bible does agree with what some scientist believe about the big crunch.
I do not interpret. I find meaning through comparing verses with other verses, as they are written.
I will be satisfied with the red for an answer to my second question. You should realize you are saying you do have some question(s), and I like this because it shows you are being open minded. I just wish everyone would be open minded in the same way about the existence of God and the Bible.
