Why I believe in God.

[I Believe in God]

Why I believe in God

A few days ago, I entered this part of the forum, and I noticed the poll that simply asked the question “Do you believe in God?”

I was intrigued when I noticed the fact that those who don’t believe in God began to challenge the people who do believe in God to provide “evidence” for their beliefs. By no means do I claim to be an expert in the areas of religion or science, but I would like to give my reasons for believing in God, since the challenge was presented. I don’t mind any responses whether they are rude or not, but I would hope for a chance for my reasons to be considered without immediately jumping to conclusions.

By the way, I’m a regular poster on this message board, but I created this profile to separate my football comments from my religious ones.

Anyway, I believe there are a couple of things to consider when questioning the existence of God, and because of these reasons, I have come to the conclusion that not believing in God actually requires more faith than believing in Him.

In my opinion, someone who is trying to figure out his beliefs needs to ask at least three questions. 1) How did the universe begin? 2) How did time begin? 3) How did life begin?

There is a common misconception out there that all scientists are atheists. That’s simply not true. The reason why this misconception is out there is because of the fact that the word “science” has far too often been narrowed down to the word “evolution.” Clearly, most biologists are atheists, but what about those in the field of astronomy, chemistry, and physics? For instance, the greatest scientist of all time, Albert Einstein, believed in God, but he was physicist, and he didn’t pursue biological studies nearly as much as he did physics and mathematics. Granted, he didn’t believe in the Judeo-Christian God, but that’s not the question I’m trying to answer. Percentage wise, many more scientists outside of the field of biology believe in God than this within the field of biology.

When looking at these three questions that I posed, I believe it presents some challenges to atheism.

First, how did the universe begin? Okay, I know the answer you’re going to give me... the Big Bang. But then, a ton of questions arise... how did the Big Bang happen? Was there anything before the Big Bang, or was that it? Did anyone or anything pull the trigger? For me, I had to ask myself something; is it really logical to believe that the Big Bang was the beginning of everything, and that something came from nothing? I don’t think so.

This carries over into the question of time. How did time begin? As we have all learned from our youth, everything has a beginning and an end, so what about time? To me, this is something I have wondered for as long as I could remember. It really is baffling, and it is easier to just not think about it. But, what if there were a being or force, or something that was not subject to the progression of time? This is what I believe. I believe that God exists now, but that He also exists a billion years ago and a billion years in the future, and it is all the same to Him. So then, you could ask “how is that possible?” Yeah, I understand. But, I’m not going to simply play the “faith” card here. What I’m going to do is tell you that if God is real, it would make a ton of sense for Him to have many qualities that I can grasp and understand with my mind, but also that He would have some qualities that I cannot understand. It takes much less faith for me to believe such a thing than to believe that trillions upon trillions of stars and planets came from nothing.

Then, the question of life. 50 years ago, biologists would have told you that they were confident that it was only a matter of time before they came up with a theory that explained how life began on this planet. Today, they’re not nearly as confident. The more they learn and experiment, the more they’re coming to the realization that the origin of organic life on this planet from inorganic material is highly unlikely if not impossible. No series of “accidents” have been able to create life. Some could say that aliens came and planted life here, or that life came through meteors that came into our atmosphere, but then when did those lives begin? Others could offer their hypotheses, but nobody could give a definitive answer yet, and I’m willing to believe that nobody will ever come to a definitive answer.

Because of that, I have decided to look outside of the natural, and into the supernatural. I have decided to come to the conclusion that God created life on this earth. Before the evolutionists pounce on me, how do you explain the origin of life on this planet? At the very least, I believe it is reasonable to believe that the first life form on this earth was created, and then allowed to reproduce and evolve from there. Such a belief does not eliminate any beliefs in evolution. In my opinion though, it is becoming more and more unreasonable to believe that a series of random events created life on this planet.

So, when it all comes down to it, I have to turn the tables and say that there is not enough evidence to boldly say “there is no God.”

I have barely skimmed the surface here, and I would love to discuss more if anybody is willing.

Just so you know, I’m a Christian. I didn’t get into any of the “Christian” part of it since the question posed was simply “do you believe in God?”. If anyone is willing, I’d be glad to get into why I believe that the Bible is the Word of God, and why ************ is the Son of God, but perhaps that could be limited to personal messages. Hopefully some respectful dialogue could come from this.

And, in the spirit of this message board GO PATS!

 

[godef]

If God does exist, where did HE come from?

 

[Mrs.PatsFanInVa]

If God does exist, where did HE come from?

From need.

 

[Wildo7]

From need.

What does that mean? The "need" to invent an artificial end point in an infinite regress? If that's what you meant, then I agree, that's why we invented God. It still doesn't satisfy basic logic though.

 

[Mrs.PatsFanInVa]

Logic doesn't really have anything to do with it, does it?

People need something to believe in - God works.

I can't prove He exists and you can't prove He doesn't. (Or vice-versa, depending on what side we're arguing on today.) Regardless, my non-proven theory and your non-proven theory are equally with or without proof.

The fact is - there's more to gain by believing in God than there is to disbelieving in God and most people are going to go with the Law of Highest Return - and with good reason. It's always wise to err on the side of caution, isn't it? Far better to spend a lifetime believing in God and finding out it was a waste of time than it is to spend a lifetime denying His existance and then finding out when it's too late that He's pissed at you for doing so.

Besides, it's easy enough to believe something without knowing how or why it works. Why should God be any different? I don't understand quantum-physics (although MrPFnV does) but I accept it as factual. I also accept that just because it's beyond the scope of my brain to understand it doesn't make it untrue. I don't quite understand how electricity works either, but that doesn't stop me from taking full advantage of it.

We believe in all kinds of things without demanding proof of it's value or it's existance. I believe there are black holes in space - but I've never seen one. The fact that I, personally, have never met a dinasour doesn't negate the fact that they existed.

There are bones to be found, you say, and fooprints in stone, therefore it's "proven" that dinasours existed. But we have no real idea, do we? We've seen replicas and mock-ups in musuems and we've seen computerized movies and History Channel images - and we accept them as real. But what if they were pink with purple spots? That'd change our image of them, wouldn't it? For all we know - they were pink with purple spots - but we'd reject it as cartoonish if that was an image someone presented to us since we've been conditioned, by someone else's fantasy, to see them as gray or brown.

So it goes with God. Catholics and most Christians have been conditioned to see Jesus as a tall, light haired gentleman with blue/gray eyes. (Which is a stretch of the imagination seeing as how he was Jewish - but oh well, it's what we see when we think of Jesus.) Muslims see an entirely different God. Jews see still another. Buddhists, another.

God is probably none of those things - He's probably pink with purple spots. But in God's case, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter because God is an idea and can, therefore, be anything or anybody (or any non-thing or non-body.)

He's a concept more than anything and concepts aren't always provable. But they exist.

So does God - and as long as people conceive of Him as such, He'll continue to exist.

 

[Wildo7]

Logic doesn't really have anything to do with it, does it?

Clearly not. Sorry, that was cheap, I couldn't resist

People need something to believe in - God works.

Despite the fact that this statement openly disregards whether God(s) are real or not in favor of some vague utilitarian justification, it's also not true. I do not need God, nor should anyone else. But again, one's "need" for superstition has no bearing on the truth.

I can't prove He exists and you can't prove He doesn't. (Or vice-versa, depending on what side we're arguing on today.) Regardless, my non-proven theory and your non-proven theory are equally with or without proof.

I don't have a "non-proven theory," I simply don't believe the thesis that some omnipotent being purposefully created this world. Until you provide evidence to support your assertion, there is no need to believe what you posit as truth either. When you present something as fact, the onus is on you to support it. Unless you are seriously muddled, I'd imagine that there are literally thousands of theories you reject for lack of evidence without feeling the need to provide evidence to the contrary, since, you know, it's impossible to prove anything doesn't exist. I'd be happy to provide real world evidence that indicates a high probability that the Judeo-Christian God isn't real, but again, I don't have to, since I'm not the one saying that magical figures exist. I'd be more than willing to hear the proof you have that Leprachauns don't exist though, unless of course you simply defer to believing in everything that cannot be proven false. This is where logic comes into it btw.

The fact is - there's more to gain by believing in God than there is to disbelieving in God and most people are going to go with the Law of Highest Return - and with good reason. It's always wise to err on the side of caution, isn't it? Far better to spend a lifetime believing in God and finding out it was a waste of time than it is to spend a lifetime denying His existance and then finding out when it's too late that He's pissed at you for doing so.

Right, Pascal's wager. I can assume then, that you will automatically believe in anything that proposes unprovable repercussions just to be "safe?" By this logic (sorry to use that word again), all I need to do is invent a system of beliefs that promise eternal torture unless you do 650 pushups a day and expect you to be the fittest woman in the world in a couple of years? You know, just to be safe. With all these "better safe than sorry" doctrines, one wonders how you could possibly "believe" in conflicting superstitions and still satisfy the requirments of all of them.

Of course, that doesn't even address the ludicrous notion of a God so unreasonable and evil that he would punish those that come to a different logical conclusion based on observation and the intellect he supposedly provided. Or the even sillier oxymoron of "choosing" to believe in something you wouldn't otherwise believe in simply out of fear. Just how does one go about believing in something they don't believe in? I'm afraid my brain isn't that malleable.

Besides, it's easy enough to believe something without knowing how or why it works. Why should God be any different? I don't understand quantum-physics (although MrPFnV does) but I accept it as factual.

I believe that has something to do with verifiable evidence, mathematical theory and the rigors of the scientific method. Putting your trust in a process of truth-seeking that automatically challenges itself to provide evidence is not the same as believing in something just because someone says it's so.

I also accept that just because it's beyond the scope of my brain to understand it doesn't make it untrue. I don't quite understand how electricity works either, but that doesn't stop me from taking full advantage of it.

Because you can prove that electricity is real. To say that electricity isn't real, flies in the face of observable and repeatable facts, no such denial of mythology does the same. It has nothing to do with the "scope" of understanding. None of us are equipped to understand the nature of the universe, so why pretend to? That doesn't mean we can't dismiss childish fairy tales dreamed up by those with the same mental shortcomings as the rest of us.

We believe in all kinds of things without demanding proof of it's value or it's existance. I believe there are black holes in space - but I've never seen one. The fact that I, personally, have never met a dinasour doesn't negate the fact that they existed.

That has something to do with the preponderance of evidence and logical justification for dinosaurs and black holes. This is lacking when it comes to deities.

There are bones to be found, you say, and fooprints in stone, therefore it's "proven" that dinasours existed. But we have no real idea, do we? We've seen replicas and mock-ups in musuems and we've seen computerized movies and History Channel images - and we accept them as real. But what if they were pink with purple spots? That'd change our image of them, wouldn't it? For all we know - they were pink with purple spots - but we'd reject it as cartoonish if that was an image someone presented to us since we've been conditioned, by someone else's fantasy, to see them as gray or brown.

We can't possibly "know" anything, using the narrowest definition of the word (not the common usage one). All we can do is assign a probability based on observable evidence, anything with no evidence is not really worth consideration, especially if it's blatantly illogical. Again, since we can't "know" anything, how exactly do you go about deciding which things to believe in and which not to believe in? Am I to assume you are simultaneously a Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, Muslim and a Jew? After all, the evidence for each one is equal (zilch), and you can't prove they are wrong, so you just defer to believing in all of them?

So it goes with God. Catholics and most Christians have been conditioned to see Jesus as a tall, light haired gentleman with blue/gray eyes. (Which is a stretch of the imagination seeing as how he was Jewish - but oh well, it's what we see when we think of Jesus.) Muslims see an entirely different God. Jews see still another. Buddhists, another.

And by your argument you must see all of them, unless you can prove they are not real. To paraphrase a famous quote; we are all atheists, I just go one God further than you.

Just because you consider yourself free of the fundamentalist conditioning that comes with organized religion doesn't mean you are free from conditioning all together. You admittedly don't view the universe in terms of whether there is a magical figure that created it by accident or free thought, years and years of religious prevalence in our society is responsible for that narrow question of existence. If we truly have no idea, and I agree we do not, then why are those the only alternatives? It seems to me that if we accept we are incapable of understanding it then assigning finite possibilities is fruitless.

Before Darwin, we were convinced (because of our lack of consciousness on the subject) that the only possibilities for human beings were either purposeful creation or random chance. We now have a working theory (with evidence) that defies both of those characterizations. To say that we have somehow stumbled upon the correct answer for the question of overall existence without evidence or logical justification is extremely short sighted; equally as shortsighted as saying the only alternative is that we came from nothing. We don't yet even know how to phrase the question. History and logic, however, give us a pretty good idea that the answer is not likely to be one of superstition without justification. It never has.

God is probably none of those things - He's probably pink with purple spots. But in God's case, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter because God is an idea and can, therefore, be anything or anybody (or any non-thing or non-body.)

So can Santa Claus or Satan, but that still has nothing to do with whether they are real or not.

He's a concept more than anything and concepts aren't always provable. But they exist.

Yes, concepts do exist. That is both proveable and observable.

So does God - and as long as people conceive of Him as such, He'll continue to exist.

Says who? I'm still waiting for evidence of this assertion. Conflating the existence of a fictional character called God in religious literature with the actual existence of a God/Gods is disingenuous at best. You cannot simultaneously believe in every God or Gods and then justify your God's existence simply by the fact that he/she/it cannot be proven not to exist. This is an untenable position.

 

[Mrs.PatsFanInVa]

Am I to assume you are simultaneously a Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, Muslim and a Jew? After all, the evidence for each one is equal (zilch), and you can't prove they are wrong, so you just defer to believing in all of them?

Yes.

If I do not believe in all of them I am left with the sole option of believing in none of them.

It's a long complicated and highly personalized belief, of course. And you'd find it boring, no doubt. But that's ok because I'm not asking you to believe it - or to even believe that I believe it.

Religion is not highly personal - belief in God, however, is.

I, personally, cannot look at a sunset or watch a kitten being born or look back on babies I've delivered without believing there's something greater than all of us out there. I can't look back on the times I've seen ordinary men turn into heroes or every day women turn into SheRa when her children are threatened without knowing that supernatural strength comes from somewhere supernatural. Oh sure, I know all about adrenalin rushs and brain chemisty under stress but still - something, someone made it work that way. The human brain and body is so magnificant and yes, still so mysterious, that I cannot believe it did not happen by design rather than randomness.

I think, personally, that God is all of us. That He exists, in greater and lesser degrees, inside each and every one of us and each of us can chose to accept Him or not....and if we don't, then maybe He leaves. I don't think He demands that we only follow one religion, I don't believe there is one "true" religion, I don't even believe in organized religion at all, in fact. Religion isn't God. Only God can be God. Sometimes I think religion has done more to destroy the God-story than any other singular thing in history.

I don't think it's important what we believe - only that we believe at all. In something. It seems we were programmed to do so. Some people believe in God, some in love, some in family, some in money, some in power - but we all believe in something. Belief does not have to be worship, either. It can be the opposite of worship. But it's our belief in the whatever that motivates us and keeps us strong.

I respect your belief that there is no God. That's your choice and it's probably a fine one for you. It's just not mine. I expect mine to be as respected, however, regardless of the fact that I can offer you no concrete proof other than sunrise and sunset and the intricate construction and working of an ant farm. I understand that you can explain all of those things in some scientific process and I accept the science - but what created the science? If it's enough for you than it is - I, being Irish and not too sure that leprachuns don't exist, do not find it enough.

I like the mystery. I need it.

 

[Wildo7]

Yes.

If I do not believe in all of them I am left with the sole option of believing in none of them.

It's a long complicated and highly personalized belief, of course. And you'd find it boring, no doubt. But that's ok because I'm not asking you to believe it - or to even believe that I believe it.

Religion is not highly personal - belief in God, however, is.

I, personally, cannot look at a sunset or watch a kitten being born or look back on babies I've delivered without believing there's something greater than all of us out there. I can't look back on the times I've seen ordinary men turn into heroes or every day women turn into SheRa when her children are threatened without knowing that supernatural strength comes from somewhere supernatural. Oh sure, I know all about adrenalin rushs and brain chemisty under stress but still - something, someone made it work that way. The human brain and body is so magnificant and yes, still so mysterious, that I cannot believe it did not happen by design rather than randomness.

I think, personally, that God is all of us. That He exists, in greater and lesser degrees, inside each and every one of us and each of us can chose to accept Him or not....and if we don't, then maybe He leaves. I don't think He demands that we only follow one religion, I don't believe there is one "true" religion, I don't even believe in organized religion at all, in fact. Religion isn't God. Only God can be God. Sometimes I think religion has done more to destroy the God-story than any other singular thing in history.

I don't think it's important what we believe - only that we believe at all. In something. It seems we were programmed to do so. Some people believe in God, some in love, some in family, some in money, some in power - but we all believe in something. Belief does not have to be worship, either. It can be the opposite of worship. But it's our belief in the whatever that motivates us and keeps us strong.

I respect your belief that there is no God. That's your choice and it's probably a fine one for you. It's just not mine. I expect mine to be as respected, however, regardless of the fact that I can offer you no concrete proof other than sunrise and sunset and the intricate construction and working of an ant farm. I understand that you can explain all of those things in some scientific process and I accept the science - but what created the science? If it's enough for you than it is - I, being Irish and not too sure that leprachuns don't exist, do not find it enough.

I like the mystery. I need it.

Pees in a pod

 

[Mrs.PatsFanInVa]

Pees in a pod

Better than doing so in your pants.

 

[wistahpatsfan]

...I like the mystery. I need it.

I swearta God (sic)...if more religious people would just admit that instead of drawing lines in the sand between "religious enough" and "not religious enough", this world would be a much better place. The fracture between believers and everyone else would be un-noticeable. There would be so much more peace and progress toward what religious people claim to be seeking. I suppose that would put a lot of psychotherapists out of work, though...not to mention the makers of sedatives.

 

[363839]

Nothing made everything.

 

[Wildo7]

Nothing made everything.

Who says that?

 

[363839]

Who says that?

Don't atheists say that?
Anyways, here is where I got the quote...
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=110293

 

[Wildo7]

Don't atheists say that?
Anyways, here is where I got the quote...
Exposed: The scientific impossibility of evolution

No they don't. In fact I can guarantee that you won't find a single quote from an atheist that says that. It's a pretty classic creationist straw man though, which is why you found it on an evolution-denying website.

 

[363839]

No they don't. In fact I can guarantee that you won't find a single quote from an atheist that says that. It's a pretty classic creationist straw man though, which is why you found it on an evolution-denying website.

So then atheists believe something made everything?

 

[Wildo7]

So then atheists believe something made everything?

Atheists don't "believe" anything without evidence. There's no harm in admitting that you don't have a clue as to how the universe came about and dropping the childish fairy tales.

 

[363839]

Atheists don't "believe" anything without evidence. There's no harm in admitting that you don't have a clue as to how the universe came about and dropping the childish fairy tales.

If you don't have a clue then you can't dismiss the notion of intelligent design.

 

[Wildo7]

If you don't have a clue then you can't dismiss the notion of intelligent design.

Of course you can; it's silly, illogical and directly refuted by known, observable facts.

Just because you don't know the answer to something doesn't mean you don't know what the answer isn't to a pretty high degree of certainty.

You have no idea how the universe came into being, but I bet you're pretty sure that Rex Ryan didn't fart it out.

 

[363839]

Of course you can; it's silly, illogical and directly refuted by known, observable facts.

Please. Enlighten me.
What are those observable facts that disproves intelligent design?

 

[Wildo7]

Please. Enlighten me.
What are those observable facts that disproves intelligent design?

Well let's see, irreducable complexity for one has been repeatedly shot down every single time a fundamentalist whackjob has tried to come up with an example. We have the entire fossil record, observable evolution of microorganisms, DNA continuity, ancestral maps etc. etc.

What observable facts do you have that Rex Ryan didn't shart out the universe?