Reason to believe in God

[dyanaprajna2011]

The reason to belive in god, is that all things testify there is a god. the stars above and the earth beneath. the human body, the trees, the animals in there respective elements. all these things testify of a divine creator. I think of it as this. if there is a design there is a designer

While I'm willing to admit to a first cause that is uncaused, along the lines of Aristotle, I see no reason that this has to be a god or deified in some way. It's simply nothing more than the initial creative force of the universe. This doesn't automatically imply that said force has a will, or a personality, or cares what happens to it's creation. Creating was simply it's function.

 

[Midnight Pete]

It's simply nothing more than the initial creative force of the universe.

And what is this initial creative force if it wasn't God? Can you describe it any detail?

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

And what is this initial creative force if it wasn't God? Can you describe it any detail?

No, other than it is a force, or energy, would be the more proper scientific word. It doesn't have to be anything supernatural or spiritual. It's simply an energy. Past that, no, I cannot describe it any further.

 

[Midnight Pete]

Why do you prefer that to Genesis 1:1 if it's equally cryptic?

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Ok, I posted, but it didn't take, so here goes again. I prefer that to Genesis 1:1 because the Biblical account isn't as logical. In the line of Aristotle, the first cause is a force, transcendent, unknowable, and completely unconcerned with human affairs. It's the whole god-idea that I don't accept, anymore. The Judeo-Christian view of god, as all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-benevolent, is illogical, and doesn't work in the real world. My view, to me, is more logical, and it goes better with my experiences.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

Actually the reason I thing we something as opposed to nothing is because nothingness itself is an extremely unstable equilibrium.
It is hard to imagine "nothing" in its purest sense. Nothing would mean no things at all, no even time, but as soon as there is so much as a Planck length of time of 10^-44 seconds you would have something, nothingness in an instance becomes unstable. Nothingness would be inherently destabilized by the most insignificant dimension. Soon everything will let loose as there is no intelligent governing force to control it. So the reason why we have something as opposed to nothing is because there was nothing to prevent everything from happening.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Actually the reason I thing we something as opposed to nothing is because nothingness itself is an extremely unstable equilibrium.
It is hard to imagine "nothing" in its purest sense. Nothing would mean no things at all, no even time, but as soon as there is so much as a Planck length of time of 10^-44 seconds you would have something, nothingness in an instance becomes unstable. Nothingness would be inherently destabilized by the most insignificant dimension. Soon everything will let loose as there is no intelligent governing force to control it. So the reason why we have something as opposed to nothing is because there was nothing to prevent everything from happening.

Can time exist without space? If there were no space to have time, then there would be nothing. I might be completely wrong about that, but that's my view on it.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

Can time exist without space? If there were no space to have time, then there would be nothing. I might be completely wrong about that, but that's my view on it.

Then where would be the space for God? If there is no space for God then I cannot possibly see how there could be a God.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Then it would be equally illogical to suggest that god came from nothing. "But he was always here", then why can't that also apply to the universe?

and let's face it, there is far more evidence for the existence of the universe than a deity of some sort.

 

[sandandfoam]

and let's face it, there is far more evidence for the existence of the universe than a deity of some sort.

So show me the evidence that both are not a figment of your (or my) imagination

 

[Midnight Pete]

Ok, I posted, but it didn't take, so here goes again. I prefer that to Genesis 1:1 because the Biblical account isn't as logical. In the line of Aristotle, the first cause is a force, transcendent, unknowable, and completely unconcerned with human affairs. It's the whole god-idea that I don't accept, anymore. The Judeo-Christian view of god, as all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-benevolent, is illogical, and doesn't work in the real world. My view, to me, is more logical, and it goes better with my experiences.

Don't criticize others for simply believing what they want to believe if you do it yourself.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The reason to belive in god, is that all things testify there is a god. the stars above and the earth beneath. the human body, the trees, the animals in there respective elements. all these things testify of a divine creator. I think of it as this. if there is a design there is a designer

Directly there is absolutely nothing that is testifying and attributing whatsoever anything specific as to confirm there is any type of creating god. There are no voices nor any type of manufacturing seal or even a inspection sticker claiming creation anywhere except maybe in that new package of underwear or socks.

People habitually tend to paste words and attributes towards processes and conditions in the universe that essentially have nothing to say on the subject or indicates such.
Its only attestable and "confirmable" as a creation of divinity to an number of people solely because this is simply desired and wanted to be viewed in that manner irregardless as to what is directly occurring and transpiring.

Although mysterious, bizarre, and wonderful to most of us humans, the universe simply is not stating or putting out any indications that god(s) created me, it, or whatever.

 

[ellenjanuary]

Why do you prefer that to Genesis 1:1 if it's equally cryptic?

A scientific theory is one based upon the available evidence, and is useful for making predictions. Let us say all the evidence agrees: In the beginning, god created the heavens and the earth...

See the problem? There is definitely no predicting what god is going to do next.

 

[Penumbra]

Is the question of God only important if you believe there are objects seperate from yourself?

So show me the evidence that both are not a figment of your (or my) imagination

Do you suppose that I am a character in your imagination rather than an independent sentient being?

 

[sandandfoam]

Do you suppose that I am a character in your imagination rather than an independent sentient being?

Nope I do not believe so.
But I cannot prove it. Can I?

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Then where would be the space for God? If there is no space for God then I cannot possibly see how there could be a God.

Here's another question: does god take up space? Theists would say no, especially those of the Abrahamic religions. They would say he's outside of time and space, hence, eternal. But if he's outside space, how does he act in space? Even things without material being take up space, like air. Air can be weighed and measured. Can god? If god exists outside of space and time, then where does he exist? Outside the universe? Is that even feasible? It's certainly not logical. And if Jesus exists bodily in 'heaven', then this would imply 'space outside of space'. Which raises a whole host of other problems. So, this is another reason why I simply cannot believe in a god.

 

[sandandfoam]

Theists would say no

Would they?
I suggest you presume too much.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Don't criticize others for simply believing what they want to believe if you do it yourself.

I never criticized anyone for their beliefs. As I've made clear here in other threads, I believe all religions to be valid and important and equal. The topic was reasons to believe in god, so I was offering my reasons for rejecting belief in god. I never criticized. I never would, intentionally, anyway. So, if I came across as critical of those who believe in god, then I apologize.

 

[Penumbra]

Nope I do not believe so.
But I cannot prove it. Can I?

Not really, no.

But if it's true, then only you exist and you're basically god.

 

[Dan4reason]

The reason to belive in god, is that all things testify there is a god. the stars above and the earth beneath. the human body, the trees, the animals in there respective elements. all these things testify of a divine creator. I think of it as this. if there is a design there is a designer

Well, not necessarily. When we see things which are complex, design obviously pops into mind because it is one of the things that can create complexity. However, that does not mean that there aren't other things that can create complexity. It would be foolish for us to assume that complexity can only come about ONE way because it is the only way we know. We know so little about our universe and it seems impatient to assume that things happened in the way that we are familiar with (design). We are just learning about how anti-intuitive our universe is with relative time, black holes and relative gravity.

The theory of evolution is evidence that complexity can indeed come about through non-design means. This theory seems to have an abundance of evidence.

I question that design is a good explanation. Design does not solve the issue of why there is complexity, order, and marvelous things in our universe because the designer himself requires some explanation. Who make the designer?

I look forward to having a fulfilling and fruitful discussion with you.