Why Do YOU Think People Believe in God?

[Miles]

.

.... Any god!

"Why do people believe in God? For most people in the world, the answer seems obvious: Because it’s self-evident that God exists. From the point of view of the believer, the really puzzling question is how anyone could not believe.

And yet, as University of California at Irvine psychologist Brett Mercier and his colleagues point out in a recent article, there was once a time in the prehistory of our species when nobody believed in a god of any sort. Our evolutionary ancestors were all atheists, but somewhere along the way they found religion. So we’re back to our original question: Why do people believe in God?"
source

So, why do you think people believe in god?


.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #40]

Needless to say, many people find fault with the Flood situation. Why don't we just set it on the back burner for now and wait for the day when all things are explained clearly? There may be many details not written down in the Scriptures. We get just a bare-bones description of the Flood and many other things. We are giving Jehovah honor by waiting patiently for explanations. There are many reasons to believe in God, e.g., as merely looking at His creations can tell us.

"For God's wrath is being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who are suppressing the truth in an unrighteous way, because what may be known about God is manifest among them, for God made it manifest to them. For the invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world's creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable." (Romans 1:18-20)

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #40]

Needless to say, many people find fault with the Flood situation. Why don't we just set it on the back burner for now and wait for the day when all things are explained clearly? There may be many details not written down in the Scriptures. We get just a bare-bones description of the Flood and many other things. We are giving Jehovah honor by waiting patiently for explanations. There are many reasons to believe in God, e.g., as merely looking at His creations can tell us.

"For God's wrath is being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who are suppressing the truth in an unrighteous way, because what may be known about God is manifest among them, for God made it manifest to them. For the invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world's creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable." (Romans 1:18-20)

That's not how epistemology works. You do not say 'We know nothing for sure'.You have, in the words of the old atheist -stumper 'You have faith that your car will start'. Because we know how it works.It is internal combustion, not invisible engine gnomes. If it goes wrong you take it to the garage to be fixed and if the mechanic says you need new cylinders you do not say 'Why don't we pray to the engine gnomes instead?'

"That's no good; there are no engine - gnomes; nothing will happen; we know how engines work."

"If nothing happens, it's the will of the gnomes. You can't prove they don't exist."

"If we want to get this done, you have to go with mechanics,not superstition."

"Why don't we just leave it on the back burner until in Gnomes good time, evidence proves the gnomes."

We don't work like that, not about mechanics, medicine,astronomy, geology or history. We go with the evidence as the theory that best fits the evidence. And despite Paul's appeal to ID in Romans (shown to be not science in a court of Law at the Dover trial) We do not leave it on the'back burner'in the hopes that evidence that supports one holy Book out of several will be one day forthcoming. We are not honoring anything but superstition and blind faith by taking a 'bare bones' claim and ignoring the evidence it can't really work and preferring to wait for missing evidence. We already have the evidence. It is all against the Flood.

Even if we did what you suggested, it would not mean that the Bible was the default theory that goes in the text -books. It would mean that the theory that best fits the evidence, goes in the text books. Which is how it works.
I doubt whether you really want no text books. How could we operate like that? Let me guess; you want to text books to accept the tall stories of Genesis as the default theory to honor Genesis literalism.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #40]

Needless to say, many people find fault with the Flood situation. Why don't we just set it on the back burner for now and wait for the day when all things are explained clearly? There may be many details not written down in the Scriptures. We get just a bare-bones description of the Flood and many other things. We are giving Jehovah honor by waiting patiently for explanations. There are many reasons to believe in God, e.g., as merely looking at His creations can tell us.

"For God's wrath is being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who are suppressing the truth in an unrighteous way, because what may be known about God is manifest among them, for God made it manifest to them. For the invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world's creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable." (Romans 1:18-20)

That's not how epistemology works. You do not say 'We know nothing for sure'.You have, in the words of the old atheist -stumper 'You have faith that your car will start'. Because we know how it works.It is internal combustion, not invisible engine gnomes. If it goes wrong you take it to the garage to be fixed and if the mechanic says you need new cylinders you do not say 'Why don't we pray to the engine gnomes instead?'

"That's no good; there are no engine - gnomes; nothing will happen; we know how engines work."

"If nothing happens, it's the will of the gnomes. You can't prove they don't exist."

"If we want to get this done, you have to go with mechanics,not superstition."

"Why don't we just leave it on the back burner until in Gnomes good time, evidence proves the gnomes."

We don't work like that, not about mechanics, medicine,astronomy, geology or history. We go with the evidence as the theory that best fits the evidence. And despite Paul's appeal to ID in Romans (shown to be not science in a court of Law at the Dover trial) We do not leave it on the'back burner'in the hopes that evidence that supports one holy Book out of several will be one day forthcoming. We are not honoring anything but superstition and blind faith by taking a 'bare bones' claim and ignoring the evidence it can't really work and preferring to wait for missing evidence. We already have the evidence. It is all against the Flood.

Even if we did what you suggested, it would not mean that the Bible was the default theory that goes in the text -books. It would mean that the theory that best fits the evidence, goes in the text books. Which is how it works.
I doubt whether you really want no text books. How could we operate like that? Let me guess; you want to text books to accept the tall stories of Genesis as the default theory to honor Genesis literalism.

Yes, I would like text books to give both sides of the story---evolution and creation by God. People are intelligent enough to be able to weigh both points of view and make up their own minds as to which makes more sense.

There is much more than the Flood story that causes me to believe in Intelligent Design. When you look at the complexity of even a single cell, I marvel at the work of God.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #40]

Needless to say, many people find fault with the Flood situation. Why don't we just set it on the back burner for now and wait for the day when all things are explained clearly? There may be many details not written down in the Scriptures. We get just a bare-bones description of the Flood and many other things. We are giving Jehovah honor by waiting patiently for explanations. There are many reasons to believe in God, e.g., as merely looking at His creations can tell us.

"For God's wrath is being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who are suppressing the truth in an unrighteous way, because what may be known about God is manifest among them, for God made it manifest to them. For the invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world's creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable." (Romans 1:18-20)

That's not how epistemology works. You do not say 'We know nothing for sure'.You have, in the words of the old atheist -stumper 'You have faith that your car will start'. Because we know how it works.It is internal combustion, not invisible engine gnomes. If it goes wrong you take it to the garage to be fixed and if the mechanic says you need new cylinders you do not say 'Why don't we pray to the engine gnomes instead?'

"That's no good; there are no engine - gnomes; nothing will happen; we know how engines work."

"If nothing happens, it's the will of the gnomes. You can't prove they don't exist."

"If we want to get this done, you have to go with mechanics,not superstition."

"Why don't we just leave it on the back burner until in Gnomes good time, evidence proves the gnomes."

We don't work like that, not about mechanics, medicine,astronomy, geology or history. We go with the evidence as the theory that best fits the evidence. And despite Paul's appeal to ID in Romans (shown to be not science in a court of Law at the Dover trial) We do not leave it on the'back burner'in the hopes that evidence that supports one holy Book out of several will be one day forthcoming. We are not honoring anything but superstition and blind faith by taking a 'bare bones' claim and ignoring the evidence it can't really work and preferring to wait for missing evidence. We already have the evidence. It is all against the Flood.

Even if we did what you suggested, it would not mean that the Bible was the default theory that goes in the text -books. It would mean that the theory that best fits the evidence, goes in the text books. Which is how it works.
I doubt whether you really want no text books. How could we operate like that? Let me guess; you want to text books to accept the tall stories of Genesis as the default theory to honor Genesis literalism.

Yes, I would like text books to give both sides of the story---evolution and creation by God. People are intelligent enough to be able to weigh both points of view and make up their own minds as to which makes more sense.

There is much more than the Flood story that causes me to believe in Intelligent Design. When you look at the complexity of even a single cell, I marvel at the work of God.

Ah. Well,when physicists say 'God' they mean natural forces. Or I'd say 'Nature'. So I marvel at the work of "God" too. But I look for the way it works rather than just say 'God did it'. You can't put that in the text books. That's the problem. ID is not science - it is failed science The hypotheses do not stand up. Take the Biggie - Irreducible Complexity, argued out in a law - court. The idea that evolution can't work naturally because the organism couldn't function was shown false because a feature for one purpose adapts to another while the critter remains viable but getting better adapted. And that was the best shot ID ever had. The rest is just wrong thinking. Size and complexity - even order - doesn't mean ID. A pebble has more atoms in it than your library has books, but who says a pebble was Made other than by erosion? A snowflake is a beautiful piece of work, but who says God made each one? Even if they do, the process is known and God is no more needed than the Engine -gnomes. No, Creationism has no place in the text books and the '#Controversy' belongs here, not in the science -class, and online i suppose until they come up with something that does better than ID. Until then, Creationism is just Religion -based pseudoscience. And that's a legal ruling, by a Judge appointed by George W. Bush.

[Avoice]

Most likely because there has to be something greater than us. We can barely tie our shoes.

[Clownboat]

We'll see how silly the Bible is when Jesus comes back to get rid of wickedness. I think many people will be amazed.

I would think we could leave the scare tactics to the terrorists. Ask yourself as to why scare tactics and empty threats are the best you have. IMO, it's very telling.

[Clownboat]

Yes, I would like text books to give both sides of the story---evolution and creation by God.

Which god concept are you wanting to include and why that one over the others? Or are you suggesting we include all creation stories? If that is what you propose, why not just take a mythology class? That way, science classes could teach science and mythology classes could teach mythology.

Surely you agree that we should keep myths out of science, right? Right!?

[Clownboat]

Most likely because there has to be something greater than us. We can barely tie our shoes.

If I could help you to learn how to tie your shoes, would you still need something greater than yourself? Wouldn't that greater thing be me in this instance? Not to boast, but I'm pretty good at tying shoes.

[Avoice]

I believe in the God of Israel. More importantly I believe what he said.

And I don’t have to look any further than the nation of Israel to know that he is God Almighty. Everything is going just as we have been told it would. Predictions that would have seemed impossible even 70 years ago.

The Christian Testament writers don’t make such great predictions. They didn’t dare say anything else besides There will be wars etc. Big deal. Of course there will be. General predictions that we would expect to happen.
Notice how they don’t predict things that they can’t control. Like “believe in Jesus or the rain will cease to fall”. Because they can’t. False religions , like Christianity threaten you with things you can’t disprove. Like going to hell after you die.

[Avoice]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #48]

It’s a big world out there. How big? We don’t even know how big it is. I can’t nor can any human comprehend the distance of space and all that’s in it. We barely know about our planet and have a lot to learn about it yet.

We may think we are smart. To us we may think so. But we are imbeciles.