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?


.

[TRANSPONDER]

[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.

Yes. But the right approach is to find out all we can, not to shrink into believing books of old myths and say 'That's all the answers we need'. That there's more we don't know than we do is no more an excuse for a god than 'There's millions of atoms in a pebble' is a validation of Intelligent Design.

I'll leave alone the particular kind of Abrahamic religion you have signed up to, let alone the hot potato of Zionism vs anti - semitism, given a political dimension, but however it is used, fulfilled prophecy is not good enough to validate any Abrahamic religion. Christians use 'State of Israel' to validate their religion - not Judaism. And while it is one of the better Prophecies it was a sorta self -fulfilling "Next year in Jerusalem" one, wasn't it.

[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.

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.

I will stand by Intelligent Design and Irreducible Complexity. It is obvious to me. I don't think a cell will adapt far enough at the critical moment to make any differences. Evolution is a faith-based pseudoscience that cannot be proven. It does not stand up to the Scientific Method which states that all things must be provable and usually in a scientific lab situation. No one has proven that life can arise from nothing. (I don't respect what the judge appointed by Bush has to say.)

[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.

I will stand by Intelligent Design and Irreducible Complexity. It is obvious to me. I don't think a cell will adapt far enough at the critical moment to make any differences. Evolution is a faith-based pseudoscience that cannot be proven. It does not stand up to the Scientific Method which states that all things must be provable and usually in a scientific lab situation. No one has proven that life can arise from nothing. (I don't respect what the judge appointed by Bush has to say.)

You can stand by whatever you like. It is creationism and I/C that is the pseudoscience, proven in a court of law. What's obvious to you is irrelevant, even if you were qualified in Biology, what's 'obvious'is down to what the Religious apologists call 'Imperfect human perceptions' right? It takes science to say 'What seems obvious is not how it is'. What seemed a plausible case for IC was shown to be false. An ongoing adaptation with the critter being viable all the time has no place for "I don't think a cell will adapt far enough at the critical moment to make any differences." That is so obviously groping for an invalid excuse to push away science that doesn't fit your preferences. THAT is what I call 'Obvious'. Just like the genetic barrier between macro and Micro.There isn't one. And that is standard for religious apologetics.

We can do without your distortion of the scientific method to be what you think science can't do - produce life from non -life in a Lab. Right? Do I see your bit of a trick? The funny thing is that it doesn't even matter. I know that abiogenesis is just an unproven hypothesis that the fossil trail seems to lead back to, just as (for me) the cosmic trail seems to lead back to an eternal stuff that didn't actually need creation. But like I say, even if you could show that a god did it, you still have to argue which god and which religion. And Creationism is just a denial that Genesis is not actually true, and there are Christians who accept that it isn't true.

Oh yes, those cowards who didn't turn up at the Dover trial to support Behe as he was made a laughing stock, came out of the woodwork afterwards to attack the Judge and disrespect him for doing his job just as you do. I don't think you are a bad person. I can hear a good soul there, but trying to prop up that anti - science Genesis - cult makes you go to dark side. It makes you badmouth decent republican Judges who commit the unforgivable sin of not lying to benefit the cult.

It's rather long but 'Intelligent design on trial' is a documentary version of Dover. It only hints at the end of the denial and the massive weight of the anti -science and pro Bible (that is what it is) Creationism cult. They have shifted their method, trying to legally redefine science, separate state from the constitution to have school boards teach religion contrary to the Constitution. The latest thing is of course for the cult to take over the government so they can do what they like.

[JoeyKnothead]

It's sad to know so many would reject the science of today for the ignorance of our past.

To think a global flood,or so many other supernatural claims are real, just doesn't fit with what we know about this planet.

[TRANSPONDER]

Epistemology. I know how much trust has to be put into the science that can look at rocks and claim that there is proof that there was a supercontinent that broke up (not that they deny Panagaea, if it can be fitted into the Flood scenario), and there was a huge sea in the middle of America. I have seen a few vids explaining some of the clues and where Archon rocks can still be found. I have seen pretty convincing geology of old mountain ranges revealed where newer mountain ranges have eroded away. I have seen so many rolled over strata that talk of ancient pressure over millions of years, not a year long flood that did 100 million years of geology and biological evolution in one go. It just isn't reasonable.

I've done the grand canyon, the whale morphology. There is compelling evidence for deep time geology, and evolution rather than creation and no Flood. The apologetics come back to bite them, like shells on mountains. They are fossil sea floors turned into strata and pushed up as mountains like any other strata. The response is to look for excuses - say the Genesis sea floor got pushed up as mountains to make the water appear to go down. But I thought they were there to support the hydroplate lid. They have got to make their theory coherent, not this ad hoc stuff.

There's a possible funny clue to what Creationism is having to do - because the evidence for deep time geology and evolution is so good, they have to make Creationism fit it, but speed it up to a a few hundred years or so. A funny possible clue was Pakicetus on Ken Ham's Ark. Clever. The Cetan sequence is compelling evidence of speciation. So Pakecetus is perhaps on the Ark as a Baryma - a 'Kind' from which all the whales would evolve in the time between the Flood and the pyramids. I suppose that's the idea - to make speciation a feature of the super -evolution after the Ark and before Egypt.

It's been a problem - where are the Baryma - the basic Kinds - in the fossil records? (1) Well it may be that Pakicetus may be made to look like Whale -kind, given a couple of hundred years for macro evolution to a whale. We've been here before, though with less craftiness, ingenuity or expense: 7 days as the 13+ billion years of the universe divided into 7. But that's a terrible cropper as the Bible says day and night, morning and evening not 2 billion yeas call it a 'day'. That's not just science denial but Bible denial, but there... if the Bible disagrees with the claims of he Believer, the Bible itself has to be dismissed.

But here's the gamble They don't read the Bible, or if they do, and it doesn't say what they want (see Slavery), they ignore it and suppose we don't read it either. But half of us to used to be believers, and so know what's there. The battle is not for the best case - that's been long done - but for the media. Whoever controls media, education and input, they are the ideology that will be state ideology.

Didn't we see some poster arguing for teach the controversy? Where? In the science discussion? In Accademia? No, in the classroom where they can indoctrinate the kids. They know that if you control education, half the job is done.

(1) twitchy creationist fingers reach for the Magic Wand again "There were only a few - what Noah needed to start the animals over again.". They can have that one for free.

[brunumb]

Didn't we see some poster arguing for teach the controversy? Where? In the science discussion? In Accademia? No, in the classroom where they can indoctrinate the kids. They know that if you control education, half the job is done.

We no longer need classrooms for indoctrination. TikTok has taken over that role.

[TRANSPONDER]

Didn't we see some poster arguing for teach the controversy? Where? In the science discussion? In Accademia? No, in the classroom where they can indoctrinate the kids. They know that if you control education, half the job is done.

We no longer need classrooms for indoctrination. TikTok has taken over that role.

Tik Tok...isn't that Chinese run internet?

However, I had a look at Behe and his theories online and first up was a disgusting propaganda vid of four of the most shameless clunks of Creationism getting together (using Bach Brandenburg No 3 as the signature music, damn their eyes ) to peddle their faithbased pseudoscience.

But please yourselves as "Lurkio" used to say, whether this appeals or not,

[brunumb]

Tik Tok...isn't that Chinese run internet?

It's China's best weapon to bring down the West.

[TRANSPONDER]

Tik Tok...isn't that Chinese run internet?

It's China's best weapon to bring down the West.

I don't want to derail, but they have done a good job of selling a fake narrative to the West. There are some people telling the facts about what goes on in China as distinct from what they Officially put out, but does anyone listen to them? Well, we shall see. That's not my affair. My business is with Isengard tonight....

[brunumb]

Tik Tok...isn't that Chinese run internet?

It's China's best weapon to bring down the West.

I don't want to derail, but they have done a good job of selling a fake narrative to the West. There are some people telling the facts about what goes on in China as distinct from what they Officially put out, but does anyone listen to them? Well, we shall see. That's not my affair. My business is with Isengard tonight....

They don't have to do anything. The froot-loops infecting TikTok will do all the damage for them. Just look at the farcical transgender epidemic for starters. The people who come to believe in God may do so the same way that people come to believe that men can be women.