Why do people deny or have various doubts about God?

[Sonofason]

According to the BBC, renowned for its documentaries, the planets and sun formed at the same time. They built off each other, to compose the solar system that we know today.

Thanks for your answer. I'm not sure I would take the BBC's word for it, and I'm not sure their position is based on evidence. Surely, the BBC has been informed of scientific theories regarding the formation of our solar system, but I seriously doubt the BBC has any knowledge of any actual evidence validating those theories. I'd surely like to see that evidence if it should exist.

But I do appreciate the mature response.

I'm wondering, when one conceives of, and endeavors with determination to create something, at what point can it be considered a creation? Can a creation exist only in the mind, or does it not exist as a creation until that which is conceived, or destined to exist, actually physically exists?

For example:
Do thoughts exist? If we so desire, we are capable of putting our thoughts on paper. But do thoughts actually exist if they are not put onto paper?

 

[LuisDantas]

I remember using such debate tactics when I was a child.

"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."
(Corinthians 13:11)

Instead of spouting ad hominems, how about you try to avoid using non sequiturs and actually put forth a valid argument?

I had asked Alceste to provide some evidence to support her claim that the sun predates the earth. She could not provide any. Instead, Alceste did what you are now doing, by degrading the converstaion with ad hominums and non sequiturs in the stead of evidence and a valid argument. Perhaps she forgets her claim. Perhaps you never understood her claim. But I saw it, and I demand she backs up her claim. What you do, I couldn't care less.

That is what I earn by attempting to be gentle and considerate... o well.

Okay then.

First, it takes quite some hubris to attempt to ignore scientific evidence just to make a point of stating superstitious belief. It is your privilege to do so, but don't expect your credibility to stand such abuse.

Second, you may want to check what an "ad hominem" is.

Third, it is a good thing that you have such fond memories of your childhood. Then again, it is hardly surprising, come to think of it.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

So I take it, you can't. I understand.

No-one can prove how the Earth was formed, to the best of my knowledge. I'm out of date on this (I'd say it's a couple of years since I've read anything actually scientific about this), but my understanding is there's a couple of different models most commonly proposed by science.

'Core Accretion' surmises that the dust and gas of our solar system began to spin, causing gravity to collapse some of the materials in on themselves. This formed the Sun at the centre of the nebula (ie. preformed solar system).

The gravitational effect then impacted on other materials within the developing solar system, causing them to form denser masses, which became planets. Dependant on the formation, and whether it was interupted (eg. meteor strikes), some material might break away from the main planet. If it was trapped in the planet's own developing gravity, then it formed a moon.

The material layers of the planets themselves offer support to this theory, but more recently there have been questions around it's ability to form gas giants (eg. Jupiter and Saturn), due to the amount of light material they contain, and the time it would take such a planet to form in this scenario. They wouldn't develop enough gravity quickly enough to form as large as they have, in simple terms. Core Accretion's ability to form gas giants has not been successfully modelled (as far as I am aware), which suggests a flaw somewhere, I guess. It has been modelled in terms of the formation of earth-like planets.

'Disk Instability' is a newer variation. It is very similar, but surmises that planets didn't fully form initially, but instead form enough to trap required materials within the planet's orbit, then fully form over a much longer time period.

The benefits of this model are that they better explain gas giants, and they seem to better explain why Mercury (for one) didn't get sucked back into the Sun.

No idea if the last has been modelled. My guess is it's more difficult to model, but I might be talking through my hat there.

These aren't primary evidential sources, of course, just my take. To be honest, the primary evidence would be far too technical for me to understand, as is the case with most science. But if you google either of the terms I put in the post, you'll get a decent mix of information if you're interested.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

According to the BBC, renowned for its documentaries, the planets and sun formed at the same time. They built off each other, to compose the solar system that we know today.

From Wikipedia:

Age of the Sun: 4.567 billion years
Age of the Earth: 4.54 billion years

About the same, but the Sun is a tad bit older.

 

[Sonofason]

That is what I earn by attempting to be gentle and considerate... o well.

Okay then.

First, it takes quite some hubris to attempt to ignore scientific evidence just to make a point of stating superstitious belief. It is your privilege to do so, but don't expect your credibility to stand such abuse.

Second, you may want to check what an "ad hominem" is.

Third, it is a good thing that you have such fond memories of your childhood. Then again, it is hardly surprising, come to think of it.

Still, no evidence. This is not surprising.

 

[Sonofason]

No-one can prove how the Earth was formed, to the best of my knowledge. I'm out of date on this (I'd say it's a couple of years since I've read anything actually scientific about this), but my understanding is there's a couple of different models most commonly proposed by science.

'Core Accretion' surmises that the dust and gas of our solar system began to spin, causing gravity to collapse some of the materials in on themselves. This formed the Sun at the centre of the nebula (ie. preformed solar system).

The gravitational effect then impacted on other materials within the developing solar system, causing them to form denser masses, which became planets. Dependant on the formation, and whether it was interupted (eg. meteor strikes), some material might break away from the main planet. If it was trapped in the planet's own developing gravity, then it formed a moon.

The material layers of the planets themselves offer support to this theory, but more recently there have been questions around it's ability to form gas giants (eg. Jupiter and Saturn), due to the amount of light material they contain, and the time it would take such a planet to form in this scenario. They wouldn't develop enough gravity quickly enough to form as large as they have, in simple terms. Core Accretion's ability to form gas giants has not been successfully modelled (as far as I am aware), which suggests a flaw somewhere, I guess. It has been modelled in terms of the formation of earth-like planets.

'Disk Instability' is a newer variation. It is very similar, but surmises that planets didn't fully form initially, but instead form enough to trap required materials within the planet's orbit, then fully form over a much longer time period.

The benefits of this model are that they better explain gas giants, and they seem to better explain why Mercury (for one) didn't get sucked back into the Sun.

No idea if the last has been modelled. My guess is it's more difficult to model, but I might be talking through my hat there.

These aren't primary evidential sources, of course, just my take. To be honest, the primary evidence would be far too technical for me to understand, as is the case with most science. But if you google either of the terms I put in the post, you'll get a decent mix of information if you're interested.

Here is my question. Everyone says there's all this proof, yet it's apparently too complicated for anyone to really follow and truly understand, but they believe it anyway. Why? Because some guy with a PhD says so.

No thanks man, I'd rather put my faith in a God I experience than a model I can't understand. It seems to me, these days, science is it's own religion, and it requires a whole lot of blind faith. But My God, I experience. That requires only faith in me. If I can believe I'm not a lunatic, then I can feel quite secure in my experience, and so my faith in God.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You can still believe in a creator god and accept current scientific fact, you know.

 

[Sonofason]

You can still believe in a creator god and accept current scientific fact, you know.

Convince me of your supposed scientific facts, and I'll believe. Show me the evidence that convinced you.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Convince me of your supposed scientific facts, and I'll believe. Show me the evidence that convinced you.

Evidence for what, exactly?

 

[Sonofason]

Evidence for what, exactly?

Well, presently, I was asking for evidence that the Sun predates the earth.

Alceste had said, "beyond the shadow of a doubt that the sun predated the earth by millions of years."

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Well, presently, I was asking for evidence that the Sun predates the earth.

Well, I posted the age of the Sun and the Age of the Earth:

From Wikipedia:

Age of the Sun: 4.567 billion years
Age of the Earth: 4.54 billion years

About the same, but the Sun is a tad bit older.

The Sun isn't that older, really. But Alceste does appear to be correct.

Stanford SOLAR Center -- Ask A Solar Physicist FAQs - Answer

I'm not sure why you're having such a problem with this. Isn't the point of the Genesis just to say that God created all things? Do you really have to take it so literally? Jews and most Christians don't take it literally.

 

[s2a]

Peace be on everyone.

Why do people deny or have various doubts about God?

Edit / add: and what is the source of morality in life, of above mentioned people?

I dunno. Maybe all those trillions of stars in the night skies instill doubts?

Too many unanswered questions about nuns heading off a cliff for no apparent or explained reason? Or maybe 100 other events that evidence no existence of a singular "god" of compassion, caring, or sympathy to human suffering, disease, and avoidably pointless death and infirmity?

Why would anyone question thus?

Your extra credit inquiry:
"Morality" is a construct of human nature, bred of millennia of evolution from human existence and civilization, derived from instincts of survival and perpetuation of the species.WE all tend to make more offspring when we live in less fear, and posses greater awareness of our surroundings. "Morality" is a byproduct of "civilized" survival. The less we attempt to kill each other, the more likely the rest of us may survive to witness another sunrise.

Just a guess...but it does make more sense than abject and irrational fear of that bear in the back of the cave.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Here is my question. Everyone says there's all this proof, yet it's apparently too complicated for anyone to really follow and truly understand, but they believe it anyway. Why? Because some guy with a PhD says so.

No thanks man, I'd rather put my faith in a God I experience than a model I can't understand. It seems to me, these days, science is it's own religion, and it requires a whole lot of blind faith. But My God, I experience. That requires only faith in me. If I can believe I'm not a lunatic, then I can feel quite secure in my experience, and so my faith in God.

No, it's not too complicated for anyone to follow. It's too complicated for ME to follow. I get the basics, don't get me wrong, but if you start talking about primary sources, then nope...lost me.

That doesn't mean I'm taking it on faith to the degree you mean. Yes, I am reliant on others for information. And those others could be wrong. In fact, I expect they are. But science isn't an 'answer' in the way religion is. I don't need to think it's right.

It's an approach. So if you want to argue that I have faith in scientific method, then sure, that's probably valid. I would submit that my faith is based on tangible evidence that scientific method is our best method for answering previously unanswered questions, and for producing new technologies and insights to the world around us.

As for the specifics about the Sun being older than the Earth, I don't need to trust science, nor trust a scientist. I trust lots of scientists independently trying to determine the truth by scientific method. Where they do a shoddy job, I trust other scientists to call them out. Where they do a good job, I trust other scientists to take their research and try to improve on it just a little and get some kudos/grant money/chicks for themselves. Okay, so the chicks was a stretch, but you get the idea.

Next time I turn on my tv, I see evidence that science works. Air con. Car. Next time I can google the layers of the Earth and get independently sourced information which I can cross reference and which agrees. I don't need to dig to the centre of the Earth.

Heck, I know what the Earth looks like in space. Never been in space. Never experienced the wonder. But I know what it looks like. Do you doubt what the Earth looks like from space?

For the age of the Sun to be something I personally could verify, for the age of the Earth to be something I could personally verify, and for me to be able to build a simple narrative to explain to others how I KNOW the relative ages of these would require two things;

1) A level of hubris I don't have.
2) For me to want to waste my breath, since everyone else would already know anyway.

The fact is, things can be complicated. And people can spend their whole lives studying what has come before them in a certain field, with the hope of advancing that field in one meaningful way.

So instead, I rely on the preponderance of evidence as I understand it to be to make my life choices, and update my view of the world as my understanding of the world develops.

 

[Thruve]

Well, presently, I was asking for evidence that the Sun predates the earth.

Alceste had said, "beyond the shadow of a doubt that the sun predated the earth by millions of years."

I think she was just making reference to the order of which god created things in genesis. Plants, Light, living things, so forth.

 

[LuisDantas]

Still, no evidence. This is not surprising.

It is not surprising that you say so, because it is not the first time.

Shows how honest you are.

 

[Thruve]

Do you deny the existence of "spiritual experiences" in normal sane people? And on what do you base your religious views?

No, I don't deny that at all.
Firstly, in reference to spirituality, believing in a deity is not typically relevant in my opinion. I know two people who are very spiritual and whos ideas are similar to mine but they are agnostic. They are sane. My spirituality derived off Christianity. Theirs from religion as well, only to become agnostic later on. They have some pretty cool views though about human relations, and paint the picture of all of us being a point or intersection on a grid. It is something they've adopted off Christianity I believe.

 

[Desert Snake]

I think she was just making reference to the order of which god created things in genesis. Plants, Light, living things, so forth.

Plants don't need sunlight constantly, it's a non-argument.

 

[Alceste]

I remember using such debate tactics when I was a child.

"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."
(Corinthians 13:11)

Instead of spouting ad hominems, how about you try to avoid using non sequiturs and actually put forth a valid argument?

I had asked Alceste to provide some evidence to support her claim that the sun predates the earth. She could not provide any. Instead, Alceste did what you are now doing, by degrading the converstaion with ad hominums and non sequiturs in the stead of evidence and a valid argument. Perhaps she forgets her claim. Perhaps you never understood her claim. But I saw it, and I demand she backs up her claim. What you do, I couldn't care less.

I shouldn't need to back that one up at all. It's basic primary school science education. You could google it yourself in ten seconds, or go to Wikipedia and look up the respective ages of the sun, earth and moon. It's a fact, and common knowledge as well. You might as well ask me to prove that the sky is blue.

I think you're trying to waste my time. I don't think you are open to admitting the bible got the order wrong regardless of the evidence I give you, so why bother? You found a way to convince yourself plants can exist without sunlight. You'd surely find a way to convince yourself planets can form without the gravitational influence of a star. God's gravity, perhaps. Don't know or care.

 

[TheGunShoj]

Plants don't need sunlight constantly, it's a non-argument.

A little off topic from genesis but how about the flood? Plants were underwater for 40 days without sunlight. How does that work?

 

[YmirGF]

I shouldn't need to back that one up at all. It's basic primary school science education. You could google it yourself in ten seconds, or go to Wikipedia and look up the respective ages of the sun, earth and moon. It's a fact, and common knowledge as well. You might as well ask me to prove that the sky is blue.

I think you're trying to waste my time. I don't think you are open to admitting the bible got the order wrong regardless of the evidence I give you, so why bother? You found a way to convince yourself plants can exist without sunlight. You'd surely find a way to convince yourself planets can form without the gravitational influence of a star. God's gravity, perhaps. Don't know or care.

Have another drink, life is too short to waste on some things...