Do You Believe In God, Why? Don't You Believe In God, Why?

[rational experiences]

Science a human group agreed status proven design machine reaction.

Correct.

Status other statements belief by agreement. Group.

Yet you are only one self.

A male owning billions of male experiences or a female experience. Status human.
One self plus over consciousness of the self

Not any God.

Self however aware owns all the experience.

What I learnt

Science agreed a higher state forced to change owns creation.

What was that state

Unknown.

Other humans thinking quote it spiritual.

How does a higher state choose to lower it's status.

Mistake the descriptive term used.

Humans use words to explain meaning.

If we know mistake does or would it change purpose?

No.

God therefore can only be wrong.

The teaching pre theme quoted Satan in hell changed and sealed as God jail.

Entombed spirit gas state.

The seal. God as stone.

Unseal stone you get to see evil.

 

[rational experiences]

Science a human group agreed status proven design machine reaction.

Correct.

Status other statements belief by agreement. Group.

Yet you are only one self.

A male owning billions of male experiences or a female experience. Status human.
One self plus over consciousness of the self

Not any God.

Self however aware owns all the experience.

What I learnt

Science agreed a higher state forced to change owns creation.

What was that state

Unknown.

Other humans thinking quote it spiritual.

How does a higher state choose to lower it's status.

Mistake the descriptive term used.

Humans use words to explain meaning.

If we know mistake does or would it change purpose?

No.

God therefore can only be wrong.

The teaching pre theme quoted Satan in hell changed and sealed as God jail.

Entombed spirit gas state.

The seal. God as stone.

Unseal stone you get to see evil.

Who has seen evil?

The multi human observer.

Who unsealed stone?

First the sun did. An evil body.

 

[Moses_UK]

There are roughly 3000 religions with a few hundred thousand denominations. Why should I investigate any of them or one especially?
Christianity so far has convinced the most people but is far from a consensus. Independent from being "right" or even consistent, I know for a fact that there is no religion that is convincing. And most of them have failed to convince a majority for millennia.
Tell me:

Why isn't your religion/denomination accepted by a vast majority?
Why should I look into your religion and not others?
Given that there are 3000+ religions, how much time should one invest into one before going to the next?

Islam is a continuation from Judaism and Christianity. Islam means Submitting to the will of God. At one point in history both Christians and Jews submitted to the will of God, and Muslims believe that there was truth in both the abrahamic religions before scribes changed the word of god for worldly gains. more then 20% of the worlds population is muslims and its growing.

I am 100% certain that you have not read a single islamic book (Quran) because of your internal perceived arrogance and misconceptions.

 

[Heyo]

Islam is a continuation from Judaism and Christianity. Islam means Submitting to the will of God. At one point in history both Christians and Jews submitted to the will of God, and Muslims believe that there was truth in both the abrahamic religions before scribes changed the word of god for worldly gains.

And Baha'i is a continuation of Islam, so continuation isn't a good argument.

more then 20% of the worlds population is muslims and its growing.

And more than 30% are Christian - which is still a minority. So sheer numbers are not a good argument.

I am 100% certain that you have not read a single islamic book (Quran) because of your internal perceived arrogance and misconceptions.

No one, including you, has brought up an argument that it would be worth my while.

And, btw, anyone who is trying to put me into submission will face fierce opposition.

 

[ratiocinator]

There is evidence for the LUCA, just as there is for the loving creator.

There is nothing remotely like the genetic evidence for a common ancestor with respect to god. All you have actually pointed out is that we find something pleasurable for no obvious reason. Either you have no conception of evidence at all, or no conception of the actual evidence for a common ancestor - otherwise you couldn't possibly compare the two.

It's made doubly absurd by all the 'evidence' (in the same sense as beautiful landscapes are for god) that there isn't a loving god: all the suffering, ugliness, pain, and injustice in the world.

You call God the God of the gaps and by the same reasoning... the LUCA is the LUCA of the gaps

Again you don't seem to understand the logic - there is lots of actual evidence for LUCA whereas all you've offered for god is a mystery. There is no comparison and the fact you keep comparing the two suggests that you lack either understanding (of the logic) or information (about the evidence).

 

[QuestioningMind]

let me try.
Here is a beautiful landscape.
The perceived beauty of it may serve as evidence that there is a loving Creator-God

View attachment 46561
https://pixabay.com/photos/trees-forest-river-valley-bridge-5822351/
it's close to where I currently live.

Yes, the perceived beauty MAY serve as evidence for a loving creator god. However, it might ALSO serve as evidence that beauty loving magical pixies exist... or that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists... or PERHAPS that human beings naturally evolved to perceive beauty in their surroundings.

You see something can be seen as 'evidence' for any number of different things is NOT sufficient 'evidence' for me to believe that any one of the many different possibilities is actually true. Just like it's not sufficient evidence for me to believe in magical pixies, it's also not sufficient evidence for me to believe in some creator god.

I'd be interested to know how you went about eliminating all of the other possibilities and decided that it served as evidence for a god.

 

[thomas t]

I think I do know what evidence is and I understand the logic behind, even if you don't like, now...
can we stick to the subject level?
or are you running out of arguments all of a sudden?
Sometimes, here on RF, my dear atheist conversation partners suddenly switch to the personal level...

All you have actually pointed out is that we find something pleasurable for no obvious reason.

We find something pleasurable that cannot be explained by evolution.
You call it "for no obvious reason", I call it evidence for a loving crator-God.

There is nothing remotely like the genetic evidence for a common ancestor with respect to god.

the genetic evidence you're talking about, is the similarities between living creatures. and nothing else. Show me if I'm wrong here.
The gifts that I assume are made by God... resemble those made by loving people when they want to cheer up each other.
This is remotely like the evidence for the LUCA, I think.

It's made doubly absurd by all the 'evidence' (in the same sense as beautiful landscapes are for god) that there isn't a loving god: all the suffering, ugliness, pain, and injustice in the world.

... inflicted by man.
Don't just shift the blame.
Man however, die not create the landscape posted above.

Again you don't seem to understand the logic - there is lots of actual evidence for LUCA whereas all you've offered for god is a mystery.

the perceived beauty is still a mystery you say?
How much money went into exploring the similarities of the DNA structure and how much money went into exploring how man perceives beauty in nature?
That's why the latter is a mystery... and the similarities of DNA are well explored, I guess.

EDITED to change the blue word

 

[thomas t]

However, it might ALSO serve as evidence that beauty loving magical pixies exist... or that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists...

ah yes, if this makes sense to you, explore it.

 

[ratiocinator]

I think I do know what evidence is and I understand the logic behind, even if you don't like, now...
can we stick to the subject level?

The problem is that it's becoming repetitive because you keep on just contradicting me rather than actually engaging with the points I'm making.

We find something pleasurable that cannot be explained by evolution.

I accepted this for the sake of argument - in fact there are explanations, it's a whole area of research. I linked to the before: Evolutionary aesthetics - Wikipedia

Also there could be endless other explanations, especially if we allow for the 'supernatural' - even if we exclude evolution, your god is only one guess amongst countless others.

You call it "for no obvious reason", I call it evidence for a loving crator-God.

I know, but that's still just an argument from ignorance (assuming no natural explanation because we haven't got one yet), which is a logical fallacy, then adding your favourite story to fill the gap (god of the gaps).

the genetic evidence you're talking about, is the similarities between living creatures. and nothing else. Show me if I'm wrong here.

No, it isn't just similarities. There are things like fossil genes. For example, humans have a broken gene for making egg yoke in exactly the same place (relative to functioning genes) as chickens. We can construct the relationship between humans, chimpanzees, orangutans, and gorillas, just using the disabling mutations of olfactory receptor genes (for enhanced sense of smell that we lost) and it confirms the relationship that had already been deduced from other evidence.

... inflicted by man.

By no means all of it.

Man however, die not create the landscape posted above.

Neither did he create childhood leukaemia or tsunamis (for example).

 

[thomas t]

The problem is that it's becoming repetitive because you keep on just contradicting me rather than actually engaging with the points I'm making.

try to find a point of yours that I didn't address.
Don't just say I didn't address something, prove it by providing an actual quote.
Empty claims, however, I like to dismiss like without giving arguments...

I accepted this for the sake of argument - in fact there are explanations, it's a whole area of research. I linked to the before: Evolutionary aesthetics - Wikipedia

I answered this already.
So this is really repetetive here.
Evolution is about the rise of species as I understand it, as opposed to the rise of entire landscapes.

Neither did he create childhood leukaemia or tsunamis (for example).

haven't we been over it already? Are you stealing my time making repetitions of what was stated before?
Every single child suffering from childhood leukaemia can go outside and enjoy the sun.
However, not every sunbather must have childhood leukaemia...
So please don't make me repeat myself again and again, I have things to do, like everyone else has.

I know, but that's still just an argument from ignorance (assuming no natural explanation because we haven't got one yet), which is a logical fallacy, then adding your favourite story to fill the gap (god of the gaps).

it's filling the gap very much in the way the LUCA is filling a gap.
There is evidence for the LUCA, there is the beauty pointing to the loving God ... so put them on level ground, please.

Also there could be endless other explanations, especially if we allow for the 'supernatural' - even if we exclude evolution, your god is only one guess amongst countless others.

I wasn't excluding evolution.
Merely mentioning it does not work here as an explanatory help, as I said. Evolution is about the rise of species if I'm not enitirely mistaken.

There are things like fossil genes. For example, humans have a broken gene for making egg yoke in exactly the same place (relative to functioning genes) as chickens.

are you telling me this in an attempt to bolster the LUCA?
But this is similarities in genetic structure, you are talking about.
You even went on claiming "in the same pleace", so it is about similarities.

 

[ratiocinator]

Evolution is about the rise of species as I understand it, as opposed to the rise of entire landscapes.

So you didn't bother to even look at the article.

Every single child suffering from childhood leukaemia can go outside and enjoy the sun.

Sorry, but if you consider a god that would give an innocent child a deadly and horrible disease as loving just because it gives it something nice to look at (disregarding those dying in inner-city hospitals, of course) then, as far as I can see, you really have lost any sense of what 'loving' means.

it's filling the gap very much in the way the LUCA is filling a gap.

What gap do you think LUCA is filling? What mystery is it just a made up story to explain? Let's be clear, LUCA is a place-holder, nobody is saying exactly what it was - it's just that the evidence points to there being something that was the ancestor of all life.

If you were going to do something directly comparable with beautiful landscapes, you'd just be saying that there is some reason why humans find landscapes beautiful, not giving it the characteristics of your favourite species of deity.

But this is similarities in genetic structure, you are talking about.
You even went on claiming "in the same pleace", so it is about similarities.

But it's not about similarities of things that are functional, it's the traces of what was functional in our ancestors and is now not. This is direct evidence of humans having evolved from egg-laying ancestors. This is just a small sample of the evidence that all life shares a common ancestor.

 

[Moses_UK]

And Baha'i is a continuation of Islam, so continuation isn't a good argument.


And more than 30% are Christian - which is still a minority. So sheer numbers are not a good argument.

No one, including you, has brought up an argument that it would be worth my while.

And, btw, anyone who is trying to put me into submission will face fierce opposition.

Baabism and Baha’ism are a movement that originated from a Shi’ah sect called the Shaykhiyyah in 1260 AH/ 1844 CE, under the protection of Russian, Jewish and English colonialism, with the aim of corrupting Islamic belief and dividing the Muslims and diverting them from their basic aims.

Men of all ages have tried and desired to corrupt the true teachings of Islam. But to no avail, as they have not succeeded. Islam is growing considerable and is expected to be the largest religion within our life time.

i have a question for you, what evidence do you need to believe? God coming down to chill with you?

 

[thomas t]

civil tone... thank you.

So you didn't bother to even look at the article.

That's true.
Now I took a look at it. Oh, yes they try to explain why humans say some landscapes are more beautiful than others.
Certainly true.
But that wasn't what my point was about.
My point was about humans ascribing beauty to landcapes ... like at all.
Now they say this is due to the fact that humans value landscapes with good hunting opportunities better than those who have bad ones.
But look at this one: certainly beautiful:


no hunting opportunities whatsoever.
And yet we find it beautiful.

Sorry, but if you consider a god that would give an innocent child a deadly and horrible disease as loving just because it gives it something nice to look at (disregarding those dying in inner-city hospitals, of course) then, as far as I can see, you really have lost any sense of what 'loving' means.

basically all humans die. To show dying humans a landscape that's beautiful... is love, in my opinion.
Some children die.
I compare it to going to cinema and leaving it half an hour later, as horrible as it may be.

If you were going to do something directly comparable with beautiful landscapes, you'd just be saying that there is some reason why humans find landscapes beautiful, not giving it the characteristics of your favourite species of deity.

but that's what I'm doing here. I'm not saying it's the Bible God.
I say.... the Bible God is loving, so it could be him.

Which gap the LUCA is filling you ask?
Luca (and first life on earth in general terms) is filling the gap of explaining how life came into existence.

it's the traces of what was functional in our ancestors and is now not.

this in and of itself can't count as evidence for the LUCA, I think, unless you find the same traces elsewhere, I mean in other animals... and this is what I call similarities. Tell me, If I'm wrong here.

EDIT: This is the source of the picture: https://pixabay.com/photos/switzerland-zermatt-mountains-snow-862870/

 

[Subduction Zone]

civil tone... thank you.
That's true.
Now I took a look at it. Oh, yes they try to explain why humans say some landscapes are more beautiful than others.
Certainly true.
But that wasn't what my point was about.
My point was about humans ascribing beauty to landcapes ... like at all.
Now they say this is due to the fact that humans value landscapes with good hunting opportunities better than those who have bad ones.
But look at this one: certainly beautiful:

View attachment 46569
no hunting opportunities whatsoever.
And yet we find it beautiful.
basically all humans die. To show dying humans a landscape that's beautiful... is love, in my opinion.
Some children die.
I compare it to going to cinema and leaving it half an hour later, as horrible as it may be.

but that's what I'm doing here. I'm not saying it's the Bible God.
I say.... the Bible God is loving, so it could be him.

Which gap the LUCA is filling you ask?
Luca (and first life on earth in general terms) is filling the gap of explaining who life came into existence.
this in and of itself can't count as evidence for the LUCA, I think, unless you find the same traces elsewhere, I mean in other animals... and this is what I call similarities. Tell me, If I'm wrong here.

Still pushing that failed argument.
Too bad.

 

[thomas t]

Still pushing that failed argument.
Too bad.

except that it isn't a failed argument, in my view.

 

[Heyo]

i have a question for you, what evidence do you need to believe? God coming down to chill with you?

I'm far away from asking for evidence or proof. I first want to know what a god is. If it is real, it needs evidence, if it's transcendent, it needs proof. Do you know what category your god is?

 

[Subduction Zone]

except that it isn't a failed argument, in my view.

Yes, that is why you end up getting what you call "rude responses". It is one of the worst arguments ever given. That is why the claim is given by several that you are not arguing rationally. I can use the exact same argument for atheism. It is a pointless test.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Baabism and Baha’ism are a movement that originated from a Shi’ah sect called the Shaykhiyyah in 1260 AH/ 1844 CE, under the protection of Russian, Jewish and English colonialism, with the aim of corrupting Islamic belief and dividing the Muslims and diverting them from their basic aims.

Men of all ages have tried and desired to corrupt the true teachings of Islam. But to no avail, as they have not succeeded. Islam is growing considerable and is expected to be the largest religion within our life time.

i have a question for you, what evidence do you need to believe? God coming down to chill with you?

By sheer numbers Islam is growing the quickest right now. Of course that does not mean that will always be the case. What many sources ignore is the growth of secularism. By percentage rate it beats Islam and Christianity in growth. It is now a major world "religion":

The World's Newest Major Religion: No Religion

And you are currently using what may be a major factor in the demise of religions like Christianity and Islam. Ever since Christianity's rise to power in Rome and Islam's rise to power in Arabia those two religions controlled the media that their participants used. With the internet those days are over. Education is the enemy of religion. And the internet enables education.

Lastly there is the saying "Follow the money". Right now the most successful countries economically are the secular countries. Largely because they are freer and freedom leads to greater production and therefore greater wealth:

Secular countries can expect future economic growth, confirms new study

Though Islam may rise in power for a limited time they may not even make it to number one. Who knows what the next thirty years hold.

 

[QuestioningMind]

ah yes, if this makes sense to you, explore it.

Any reason why you didn't answer my question? How did you eliminate magical pixies or the possibility that we evolved to appreciate beauty in nature and land on a creator god as the only answer?

 

[Audie]

Here is the question! What do you think?

No reason to and stories about it can generally
be proven to be phony.