Do You Believe That God Exists?

OK, I started the topic on whether the world was really created in 7 days last week. Nearly everyone said they didn't believe in God, but had no definite reason as to why not. If you answer 'No' to my question, please say why.

L5 8)

This is gonna get ugly real quick.

EDIT: yes

Where did the world from then?

Where did the world from then?

Lansdowne5

"God" or "a creator" is one of countless reasons created by humans to explain that.

I'm agnostic however that defaults to Atheism to keep my sanity.

Santa Claus was a real person so are you denying the fact that he did exist as St. Nicholas or the fact that he is now held as a magical figure who gives children presents at Christmas?

Santa Claus was a real person so are you denying the fact that he did exist as St. Nicholas or the fact that he is now held as a magical figure who gives children presents at Christmas?

Lansdowne5

I'm denying the mythical figure. But it doesn't matter, since you get the point...

Where did the world from then?

Lansdowne5

So where did the idea of a god come from then if you say we created it? Ideas always come from other ideas that are at least remotely related to the original.Lansdowne5

It came from ancient myths. I'm sure cavemen thought that there must be a sun god who raises the sun every morning, but we know that that isn't true. There's night and day because of the way the earth rotates.

Neither, we are talking about the religious figure of God.Lansdowne5

So where did the idea of a god come from then if you say we created it? Ideas always come from other ideas that are at least remotely related to the original.Lansdowne5

Humans create things. Therefore "a creator" is a human explanation for the existence of the universe. A simple explanation for simple people.

Yes, I believe in God. The Bible proofs that he is real.ArmoredCore55

It sure doesn't. That's like saying the Lord of The Rings books are proof that Orcs exist.

[QUOTE="ArmoredCore55"]Yes, I believe in God. The Bible proofs that he is real.dracula_16

It sure doesn't. That's like saying the Lord of The Rings books are proof that Orcs exist.

That made me lol

So why does the Earth rotate in that way?Lansdowne5

OMG yoo ar trappingz uz wiv yoor qweshtans! LIKE JEEBUS! :O

Because of gravity and other such things that can be measured by man using his LOGIC and REASON.

This is heading straight towards evolution so I might as well start talking about it now.

A key factor that we all must recognize is that the vast majority of scientists who believe in evolution are also atheists or agnostics. There are some who hold to some form of theistic evolution, and others who take a deistic view of God (God exists but is not involved in the world...everything proceeds along a natural course). There are some who genuinely and honestly look at the data and arrive at the conclusion that evolution betters fits with the data. Again, though, these represent an insignificant portion of scientists who advocate evolution. The vast majority of evolutionary scientists hold that life evolved entirely without ANY intervention of a higher Being. Evolution is by definition a naturalistic science.

For atheism to be true, there must be an alternate explanation for how the universe and life came into existence. Although beliefs in some form of evolution predated Charles Darwin, Darwin was the first to develop a plausible model for how evolution could have occurred - natural selection. Darwin once identified himself as a Christian, but later renounced the Christian faith and the existence of God as a result of some tragedies that took place in his life. Evolution was "invented" by an atheist. Darwin's goal was not to disprove God's existence, but that is one of the end results of the theory of evolution. Evolution is an enabler of atheism. Evolutionary scientists today likely would not admit that their goal is to give an alternate explanation of the origins of life, and thereby to give a foundation for atheism. However, according to the Bible, that is exactly why the theory of evolution exists.

The Bible tells us, "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'" (Psalm 14:1; 53:1). The Bible also proclaims that people are without excuse for not believing in a Creator God, "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - His eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse" (Romans 1:20). According to the Bible, anyone who denies the existence of God is a fool. Why, then, are so many people, including some Christians, willing to accept that evolutionary scientists are unbiased interpreters of scientific data? According to the Bible, they are all fools! Foolishness does not imply a lack of intelligence. Most evolutionary scientists are brilliant intellectually. Foolishness indicates an inability to properly apply knowledge. Proverbs 1:7 tells us, "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline."

Evolutionary scientists mock Creation and/or Intelligent Design as unscientific and not worthy of scientific examination. In order for something to be considered a "science," they argue, it must be able to be observed and tested, it must be "naturalistic." Creation is by definition "supernatural." God, and the supernatural, cannot be observed or tested (so the argument goes), therefore Creation and/or Intelligent Design cannot be considered a science. As a result, all data is filtered through the preconceived, presupposed, and pre-accepted theory of evolution, without alternate explanations being considered.

However, the origin of the universe and the origin of life cannot be tested or observed. Both Creation and evolution are faith-based systems when they speak of origins. Neither can be tested because we cannot go back billions (or thousands) of years to observe the origin of the universe and life in the universe. Evolutionary scientists reject Creation on grounds that would logically force them to also reject evolution as a "scientific" explanation of origins. Evolution, at least in regards to origins, does not fit the definition of "science" any more than Creation does. Evolution is supposedly the only explanation of origins that can be tested; therefore, it is the only theory of origins that can be considered "scientific." This is foolishness! Scientists who advocate evolution are rejecting a plausible theory of origins without even honestly examining its merits, because it does not fit their illogically narrow definition of "science."

If Creation is true, then there is a Creator to whom we are accountable. Evolution is an enabler for atheism. Evolution gives atheists a basis for explaining how life exists apart from a Creator God. Evolution denies the need for a God to be involved in the universe. Evolution is the "creation theory" for the "religion" of atheism. According to the Bible, the choice is clear. We can believe the Word of our omnipotent and omniscient God, or we can believe the illogically biased, "scientific" explanations of fools.

Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life. Silly. Even if it was god who made the first life form, that life form developed into what you see around you today through evolution.

[QUOTE="ArmoredCore55"]Yes, I believe in God. The Bible proofs that he is real.dracula_16

It sure doesn't. That's like saying the Lord of The Rings books are proof that Orcs exist.

This wasn't heading towards evolution by itself. You pretty much forced it there.
And your post is full of lies.. evolution is not an "enabler" for atheism. :?
Nor is it a creation theory.
Nor is it illogical.DeeJayInphinity

Yes it was in the long run because that is where it always goes on discussions like this. I didn't force it here, I merely started it in a different direction and you didn't have to reply if you didn't want to either. There is a reason enabler is in quotation marks and it must be a creation theory because it explains how humans came to be, which is nothing but creation. Evolution is completely illogical for the simple fact that nothing could be such a coincidence as evolution supposedly is.

So where did the idea of a god come from then if you say we created it? Ideas always come from other ideas that are at least remotely related to the original.Lansdowne5

Current monotheistic Gods have indeed sprung up based on previous ideas. Anthropomorphic spirits controling the various forces of nature seem to have arisen very early on, and as theology and science developed, these beliefs changed with them. Christianity is certainly very similar to earlier religions, such as Mithraism and Buddhism.

Many of the ideas about God also come from religious experiences, due to their noetic qualities, Moses, Jesus, Mohammed and Buddha all had religious experiences that convinced them to found a religion. The person has an experience completely removed from ordinary life. There are ways of explaining religious experiences without resorting to God (if not 100% conclusively), however.

[QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"]This wasn't heading towards evolution by itself. You pretty much forced it there.
And your post is full of lies.. evolution is not an "enabler" for atheism. :?
Nor is it a creation theory.
Nor is it illogical.Lansdowne5

Yes it was in the long run because that is where it always goes on discussions like this. I didn't force it here, I merely started it in a different direction and you didn't have to reply if you didn't want to either. There is a reason enabler is in quotation marks and it must be a creation theory because it explains how humans came to be, which is nothing but creation. Evolution is completely illogical for the simple fact that nothing could be such a coincidence as evolution supposedly is.

[QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"]This wasn't heading towards evolution by itself. You pretty much forced it there.
And your post is full of lies.. evolution is not an "enabler" for atheism. :?
Nor is it a creation theory.
Nor is it illogical.Lansdowne5

Yes it was in the long run because that is where it always goes on discussions like this. I didn't force it here, I merely started it in a different direction and you didn't have to reply if you didn't want to either. There is a reason enabler is in quotation marks and it must be a creation theory because it explains how humans came to be, which is nothing but creation. Evolution is completely illogical for the simple fact that nothing could be such a coincidence as evolution supposedly is.

*6 paragraphs of copied BS*Lansdowne5

Evolution doesn't intend to explain the creation of the universe. It explains the diversity of life-forms. :|

Natural Selection

As far as scientists knowledge extends there was an incredible amount of volatile matter packed into a tiny volume of space which exploded and expanded after The Big Bang. Creating the universe. Where this matter came from scientists don't know, however they don't arrogantly presume to have those answers. They accept the current limitations of human knowledge and don't substitute in incredible, baseless explanations out of blind fervour and "faith". Now that's a step back into the stone age.

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"]

[QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"]This wasn't heading towards evolution by itself. You pretty much forced it there.
And your post is full of lies.. evolution is not an "enabler" for atheism. :?
Nor is it a creation theory.
Nor is it illogical.DeeJayInphinity

Yes it was in the long run because that is where it always goes on discussions like this. I didn't force it here, I merely started it in a different direction and you didn't have to reply if you didn't want to either. There is a reason enabler is in quotation marks and it must be a creation theory because it explains how humans came to be, which is nothing but creation. Evolution is completely illogical for the simple fact that nothing could be such a coincidence as evolution supposedly is.

Were just going round in circles now, whatever I say you won't accept it because you are set against the idea that God is the creator. It is more plausible that God existed in the beginning than believing that there was nothing in the beginning.

Were just going round in circles now, whatever I say you won't accept it because you are set against the idea that God is the creator. It is more plausible that God existed in the beginning than believing that there was nothing in the beginning.

Lansdowne5

[QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"]

[QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"]This wasn't heading towards evolution by itself. You pretty much forced it there.
And your post is full of lies.. evolution is not an "enabler" for atheism. :?
Nor is it a creation theory.
Nor is it illogical.Lansdowne5

Yes it was in the long run because that is where it always goes on discussions like this. I didn't force it here, I merely started it in a different direction and you didn't have to reply if you didn't want to either. There is a reason enabler is in quotation marks and it must be a creation theory because it explains how humans came to be, which is nothing but creation. Evolution is completely illogical for the simple fact that nothing could be such a coincidence as evolution supposedly is.

It is more plausible that God existed in the beginning than believing that there was nothing in the beginning.

It is as equally as plausible as anything else that the excited human imagination can conjure up to fill in the blank before The Big Bang. I'll ask a 6 year old kid to make up a story about the universe before The Big Bang and that has an equal amount of credibility as "a creator", "God" or "enabler", you want to know why? Because no explanation currently has any worthwhile plausiblity or credibility.

This is heading straight towards evolution so I might as well start talking about it now.

A key factor that we all must recognize is that the vast majority of scientists who believe in evolution are also atheists or agnostics. There are some who hold to some form of theistic evolution, and others who take a deistic view of God (God exists but is not involved in the world...everything proceeds along a natural course). There are some who genuinely and honestly look at the data and arrive at the conclusion that evolution betters fits with the data. Again, though, these represent an insignificant portion of scientists who advocate evolution. The vast majority of evolutionary scientists hold that life evolved entirely without ANY intervention of a higher Being. Evolution is by definition a naturalistic science.

For atheism to be true, there must be an alternate explanation for how the universe and life came into existence. Although beliefs in some form of evolution predated Charles Darwin, Darwin was the first to develop a plausible model for how evolution could have occurred - natural selection. Darwin once identified himself as a Christian, but later renounced the Christian faith and the existence of God as a result of some tragedies that took place in his life. Evolution was "invented" by an atheist. Darwin's goal was not to disprove God's existence, but that is one of the end results of the theory of evolution. Evolution is an enabler of atheism. Evolutionary scientists today likely would not admit that their goal is to give an alternate explanation of the origins of life, and thereby to give a foundation for atheism. However, according to the Bible, that is exactly why the theory of evolution exists.

The Bible tells us, "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'" (Psalm 14:1; 53:1). The Bible also proclaims that people are without excuse for not believing in a Creator God, "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - His eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse" (Romans 1:20). According to the Bible, anyone who denies the existence of God is a fool. Why, then, are so many people, including some Christians, willing to accept that evolutionary scientists are unbiased interpreters of scientific data? According to the Bible, they are all fools! Foolishness does not imply a lack of intelligence. Most evolutionary scientists are brilliant intellectually. Foolishness indicates an inability to properly apply knowledge. Proverbs 1:7 tells us, "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline."

Evolutionary scientists mock Creation and/or Intelligent Design as unscientific and not worthy of scientific examination. In order for something to be considered a "science," they argue, it must be able to be observed and tested, it must be "naturalistic." Creation is by definition "supernatural." God, and the supernatural, cannot be observed or tested (so the argument goes), therefore Creation and/or Intelligent Design cannot be considered a science. As a result, all data is filtered through the preconceived, presupposed, and pre-accepted theory of evolution, without alternate explanations being considered.

However, the origin of the universe and the origin of life cannot be tested or observed. Both Creation and evolution are faith-based systems when they speak of origins. Neither can be tested because we cannot go back billions (or thousands) of years to observe the origin of the universe and life in the universe. Evolutionary scientists reject Creation on grounds that would logically force them to also reject evolution as a "scientific" explanation of origins. Evolution, at least in regards to origins, does not fit the definition of "science" any more than Creation does. Evolution is supposedly the only explanation of origins that can be tested; therefore, it is the only theory of origins that can be considered "scientific." This is foolishness! Scientists who advocate evolution are rejecting a plausible theory of origins without even honestly examining its merits, because it does not fit their illogically narrow definition of "science."

If Creation is true, then there is a Creator to whom we are accountable. Evolution is an enabler for atheism. Evolution gives atheists a basis for explaining how life exists apart from a Creator God. Evolution denies the need for a God to be involved in the universe. Evolution is the "creation theory" for the "religion" of atheism. According to the Bible, the choice is clear. We can believe the Word of our omnipotent and omniscient God, or we can believe the illogically biased, "scientific" explanations of fools.

Lansdowne5

You are right on one thing and one thing only. It would be almost impossible to be an atheist without evolution, due to the unimaginable complexity of life. Even Dawkins admitted it. This does not in any way count against evolution, and a fail to see why it could possibly do so. It has plenty of evidence to back it up, or it would never have been accepted at all, Lamarckian evolution wasn't, let alone 150 years. Every year thousands of papers are published expanding or slightly adapting various elements of evolution. The authors will almost certainly never receive any sort of recognition. Do you really not thing that some would be tempted to jump ship in search of the inevitable Nobel Prize? Show me a single paper in a peer-reviewed journal that supports creationism. Revinh failed, I'd like to see you try to do any better

Darwin was a Christian when he wrote "On the Origin of Species", Though Wallace, who submitted a joint paper with Darwin to the Royal Geological Society beforehand was not. Darwin specifically hastened the publishing of his book to prevent Wallace using his ideas to attack the Church. He later became an agnostic due to the cruelty in nature he observed ("it would take a devil's chaplain to write a book on the clumsy, wasteful, bludering low and cruelty of nature") and the death of his daughter. When Darwin boarded the Beagle, he was training to become a priest, after turning his back on becoming a doctor, to the disappointment of his father.

As more scientific discoveries are made, including the intricacies of the human DNA genome (consisting of carefully assembled instructions 3 billion genetic letters long), the complexity of the cell and the millions of missing transitional forms between different animal and plant types, Darwin's theory truly is in trouble.

Patrick Glynn, a former atheist and a Ph.D. from Harvard, in 1997, said "a reasonable person weighing the purely scientific evidence on the issue would likely have come down on the side of skepticism. That is no longer the case. Today the concrete data point strongly in the direction of the God hypothesis"

But many scientists are unwilling to give up evolution because of the theological and philosophical implications.

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs," Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin once candidly admitted, "in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so-stories, because we have a prior commitment . . . to materialism . . . We cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door"

I have a better question... Would knowing whether the world was made by God or not actually matter? Would it change they way anyone would do anything? Would you wake up tomorrow and have your life changed? Or would it just be like you heard something on the news that "it was just discovered that civilization X were the first to build Y" and then forget about it because its completely irrelevant to anything and everything you do in life?XaosII

I don't believe there to be no GOD as I don't know ... but any organized religion is the definition of un-truth

I do not consider it an insult, but rather a compliment to be called an agnostic. I do not pretend to know where many ignorant men are sure -- that is all that agnosticism means

"The philosophy of Atheism represents a concept of life without any metaphysical Beyond or Divine Regulator. It is the concept of an actual, real world with its liberating, expanding and beautifying possibilities, as against an unreal world, which, with its spirits, oracles, and mean contentment has kept humanity in helpless degradation." - Emma Goldman

As more scientific discoveries are made, including the intricacies of the human DNA genome (consisting of carefully assembled instructions 3 billion genetic letters long), the complexity of the cell and the millions of missing transitional forms between different animal and plant types, Darwin's theory truly is in trouble.

Patrick Glynn, a former atheist and a Ph.D. from Harvard, in 1997, said "a reasonable person weighing the purely scientific evidence on the issue would likely have come down on the side of skepticism. That is no longer the case. Today the concrete data point strongly in the direction of the God hypothesis"

But many scientists are unwilling to give up evolution because of the theological and philosophical implications.

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs," Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin once candidly admitted, "in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so-stories, because we have a prior commitment . . . to materialism . . . We cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door"

Lansdowne5

Your source:

http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn71/darwin.htm

nuff said