Why do people deny or have various doubts about God?

[outhouse]

Although there is no proof of his nonexistence,

.

Actually there is a mountain of evidence that shows the god concept is solely mans creation.

After all, the concept has evolved for thousands of years, and always mirrors the culture defining him.

Nothing in this world has been perverted as much for so long as the god concept.


Israelites factually plagiarized the Canaanite religions in polytheism.

Israelites by political decision ONLY by king Josiahs reforms to strict worship of Yahweh started the one god concept we now know.


Christians at will added a son to the father god.
Christians 300 years later by a court hearing alone defined jesus and gods divinity in relationship to one another.


islam then plagiarized it all, far removed from any actual events.


John smith redefined god again with his version of what god is.


Only man defines gods, and only man creates gods, and they we have thousands of years of factually creating gods as evidence.

All theist today are hypocritical in the fact they all discount thousands of previously man made gods, the only difference between me and them, is I discount one more god then they do

 

[icehorse]

Any day that God shows up with scientifically good evidence of his existence, I'll change my mind.

 

[suncowiam]

It is an 'out' though, of course it is. You are talking about the semantics I'm talking about the general principle.

Religion can and does morph, change, etc., however it has to, in cases of Doctrinal truths, and theories, have to rationalize new ideas or adherence, have you read the 'trinity' arguments? There are "better" arguments (from Scripture), than others yes but you still have to 'prove' your point, if scince discovers something concrete, that's it, it can change opinion overnight, totally different.

Yes, science can dispute itself. It absolutely should if it was wrong. Regardless of how soon or often science disputes itself, it is based on new data, new observations. The means are emprical. The conclusions should be unbiased, they should be repeated with certainty. There are clear and well defined rules on the process. There is little to no room for interpretation. If two different sets of scientists have different results, there is no way that one group will conclude with its findings. In this community, you can say it is blasphemist to do such a thing.

I asked this in a different thread. If one sect of Christainity does not believe the same of another sect of Christainity but if they draw from the same source. Who is right and who is wrong? How does one prove their point in religion?

 

[icehorse]

Yes, science can dispute itself. It absolutely should if it was wrong. Regardless of how soon or often science disputes itself, it is based on new data, new observations. The means are emprical. The conclusions should be unbiased, they should be repeated with certainty. There are clear and well defined rules on the process. There is little to no room for interpretation. If two different sets of scientists have different results, there is no way that one group will conclude with its findings. In this community, you can say it is blasphemist to do such a thing.

I asked this in a different thread. If one sect of Christainity does not believe the same of another sect of Christainity but if they draw from the same source. Who is right and who is wrong? How does one prove their point in religion?

The evidence would point towards bloodshed.

 

[samosasauce]

I have my own doubts about god because god makes me uncomfortable. The stiffiness and self-centered take on religion bother me to no and.
Also, I get all my morals from empathy and critical thinking. I love making people happy, and making sure they're emotionally and physically well.

 

[Alceste]

I believe it will take you a great deal of time, and you will come back with nothing more than what you have started with, absolutely nothing.

Nope. It would take me five minutes to deliver the evidence you claim does not exist, but since you've already demonstrated a willingness to reject facts (i.e. That plants can’t survive without sunlight), it would be five wasted minutes.

 

[suncowiam]

The evidence would point towards bloodshed.

I'm not quite sure what you mean?

 

[Desert Snake]

I asked this in a different thread. If one sect of Christainity does not believe the same of another sect of Christainity but if they draw from the same source. Who is right and who is wrong? How does one prove their point in religion?

I'll use myself as an example. Going into certain aspects of Xianity, we can take one example, say 'trinity', not sure how familiar you are with these ideas, but anyways, at first, it's sort of hazy, you sort of know what it means, but not really. You are basing your 'conclusion' on the written text (The Bible) for this basically, so, you read different doctrines, different theories, and they vary quite a bit, then using your own basis of Scripture reading and judgement, you 'choose' a position. Theoretically this method would yield similar results if put to the test, and in fact, I was surprised that it actually does.
Anyways, there is an example of 'best argument', and there are so many denominations, proves this is not all sheep like adherence.

 

[suncowiam]

Actually there is a mountain of evidence that shows the god concept is solely mans creation.

After all, the concept has evolved for thousands of years, and always mirrors the culture defining him.

Nothing in this world has been perverted as much for so long as the god concept.


Israelites factually plagiarized the Canaanite religions in polytheism.

Israelites by political decision ONLY by king Josiahs reforms to strict worship of Yahweh started the one god concept we now know.


Christians at will added a son to the father god.
Christians 300 years later by a court hearing alone defined jesus and gods divinity in relationship to one another.


islam then plagiarized it all, far removed from any actual events.


John smith redefined god again with his version of what god is.


Only man defines gods, and only man creates gods, and they we have thousands of years of factually creating gods as evidence.

All theist today are hypocritical in the fact they all discount thousands of previously man made gods, the only difference between me and them, is I discount one more god then they do

I've read many propositions about why God could not exist but they were never definitive in my view.

Here is one by Steven Hawkins. Now, before anyone steams up just please read this first. I don't agree with his recent statement about God even though I don't believe in God also. He simply does not have enough evidence to state this and I feel is using his own popularity as a platform. He needs absolute evidence if he uses the media as an outlet. How many more times will he go to the media simply to say that he doesn't "feel" that God exists. I just find it hurts his credibility and I am a big Hawkins fan. =|

Anyhows, his initial proposition went like this. In a very short summary, space and time did not exist before the big bang. Just go along with that as it would take me a bit more to detail the reasons. So, if there was no space and time, and God is supposedly omnipresence (all places), therefore God cannot exist if there is no space or time for God to exist. It flowed and sounded well, but just simply depended on too many assumptions for me personally to believe as true.

I personally never heard any undeniable evidence to prove God's existence or non-existence. I've heard many but without knowing the true reason of how our universe was born, I don't believe anyone can.

 

[suncowiam]

I'll use myself as an example. Going into certain aspects of Xianity, we can take one example, say 'trinity', not sure how familiar you are with these ideas, but anyways, at first, it's sort of hazy, you sort of know what it means, but not really. You are basing your 'conclusion' on the written text (The Bible) for this basically, so, you read different doctrines, different theories, and they vary quite a bit, then using your own basis of Scripture reading and judgement, you 'choose' a position. Theoretically this method would yield similar results if put to the test, and in fact, I was surprised that it actually does.
Anyways, there is an example of 'best argument', and there are so many denominations, proves this is not all sheep like adherence.

If someone went through the same process as you but drew a different conclusion, then what happens next?

Some Christians are reportedly banning gays from their businesses. I just talked to some Christians on this forum that believe this is wrong and is considered discrimination. So then, overall, who has the best aligned belief here with Christianity? This is where I completely fail to grasp religion on how folks interpret it differently.

 

[Desert Snake]

If someone went through the same process as you but drew a different conclusion, then what happens next?

Idk, a sensible person would admit who has a better interpretation, if it truly is matter of opinion, then either is viable.

 

[outhouse]

I've read many propositions about why God could not exist but they were never definitive in my view.

Here is one by Steven Hawkins. Now, before anyone steams up just please read this first. I don't agree with his recent statement about God even though I don't believe in God also. He simply does not have enough evidence to state this and I feel is using his own popularity as a platform. He needs absolute evidence if he uses the media as an outlet. How many more times will he go to the media simply to say that he doesn't "feel" that God exists. I just find it hurts his credibility and I am a big Hawkins fan. =|

Anyhows, his initial proposition went like this. In a very short summary, space and time did not exist before the big bang. Just go along with that as it would take me a bit more to detail the reasons. So, if there was no space and time, and God is supposedly omnipresence (all places), therefore God cannot exist if there is no space or time for God to exist. It flowed and sounded well, but just simply depended on too many assumptions for me personally to believe as true.

I personally never heard any undeniable evidence to prove God's existence or non-existence. I've heard many but without knowing the true reason of how our universe was born, I don't believe anyone can.

Hawkings view is flawed because faithful people claim god is above space and time.


Man having a factual track record of creating deities at will remains something no one is able to refute. It is fact.

Looking at the evolution of the Abrahamic deity in detail shows only man has defined it.

 

[suncowiam]

Hawkings view is flawed because faithful people claim god is above space and time.


Man having a factual track record of creating deities at will remains something no one is able to refute. It is fact.

Looking at the evolution of the Abrahamic deity in detail shows only man has defined it.

These folks probably made mistakes or fibbed or even lied. I don't know, I wasn't there? But even with those points, it actually still does not prove that God does not exist. Maybe God does exist but he simply doesn't care about humans or life at all compared to a the grand scheme of things. Maybe humans' belief in God is just a huge coincidence and inconsequential to his actual existance?

I personally never argue with history or another person's claim of history. There's just too much room for error on both sides. That's just me though.

 

[McBell]

Religion and science is apples and oranges.

I agree.
Science is able and even encouraged to correct its mistakes.
Religion is encouraged and sometimes even required to defend mistakes to the death instead of correcting said mistakes.

 

[Thruve]

I agree.
Science is able and even encouraged to correct its mistakes.
Religion is encouraged and sometimes even required to defend mistakes to the death instead of correcting said mistakes.

Holy balls, I actually agree with you on something. OH HEAVEN, ARE THY NEAR?

 

[Blackdog22]

These folks probably made mistakes or fibbed or even lied. I don't know, I wasn't there? But even with those points, it actually still does not prove that God does not exist. Maybe God does exist but he simply doesn't care about humans or life at all compared to a the grand scheme of things. Maybe humans' belief in God is just a huge coincidence and inconsequential to his actual existance?

I personally never argue with history or another person's claim of history. There's just too much room for error on both sides. That's just me though.

Wasn't the original point that a God who wanted to make himself known to us and refused to do so kind of a contradiction? If God considered us worthless bacteria then he wouldn't care to make himself known to us and wouldn't have written that in the book he supposedly wrote. So God didn't write the book, because real life says he doesn't make himself known (or for some Christians he intentionally misleads the faithless with evidence that completely negates his existence)so then the God identified by those people doesn't exist. There could be other Gods, but I think the Abrahamic God sealed his own fate by proving he is nothing more than human error.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I don't mean to be condescending. But hear you are again stating that you don't have any evidence that the Sun predates the Earth, that you never have seen any evidence that the Sun predates the Earth, and that you probably couldn't understand the evidence even if you saw it. Yet you believe the sun predates the earth. And to top it off you suggest that this unsupported claim should be accepted because it's come from really smart guys, you know, the kind of smart guys that build operating systems for computers. Honestly, I must admit, if someone out there knows how to build a computer operating system, surely someone exists who knows whether or not the Sun predates the Earth, cause we humans are just that smart.

I am not making any claims about the operating system I am using right now. If I were making some particular claim about this operating system, I ought to have evidence to back up my claim.

I have no idea the degree of faith that you have in your operating system. I don't know what your expectations are of this operating system. Surely, I don't know if your faith in this operating system is reasonable or not, warranted or not, based in evidence or not.

Hi mate,

I actually forgot I'd posted recently in this thread and hadn't checked for your response!!
:sorry1:

I'll take you at your word re: the condescension. Hard to tell tone over the internet, and the fact that our ideas are so far apart can lead to misunderstandings, obviously.

I'll restate what I meant about operating systems, since it's not what you seem to have taken from the comment.
I wasn't suggesting anything like you seem to think. Nothing to do with the intelligence required to create an operating system, and there's no correlation between that and knowing a damn thing about the Sun's age.

It was merely an example of something.

When I buy a computer, I determine which operating system to buy with it. How do I make that decision?

Price is no doubt part of it.
But I would be stunned if anyone went and bought a computer with Win3.1 on it, regardless of price. Why not? Those same people, who make decisions about which operating system to get, don't know a damn thing about how those operating systems work.
The primary information (ie. coding) that drive them are completely foreign to these folk.
Even me, who work in the computer field, and can program, have an element of understanding about what's under the covers. Not complete understanding.

If I walked into a shop offering two brand new operating systems that I'd never seen before, I could still rationally learn information about them, despite not being able to access or measure the primary information (in this case, decode their programming). I could read multiple reviews and compare them. I could see what common points those reviews made, and suppose that there was an element of truth to them. I could see where the reviews disagreed and try to decide why they disagreed. What details do the reviews hint to that suggest where the inconsistency has come from? For example, is one reviewer consistently focused on particular aspects in OTHER reviews?

The whole point is, the pool of people who could POSSIBLY understand the primary evidence regarding the Sun's age is small, compared to the population of the Earth. By reading secondary evidence from those sources, and subjecting it to the same sort of critical evaluation I do with EVERY OTHER SOURCE OF INFORMATION I COME ACROSS, I do have the ability to make rational decisions and determinations.
(capitals purely for emphasis)

So, if you want to disregard all evidence apart from primary source evidence, you will understand next to nothing about the world. That is your right, but in my opinion is a nonsensical approach.

My examples (eg. do you know what the Earth looks like from space) were purely trying to make the point that in fact you DO rely on secondary evidence in many cases. IN this case (Sun's age) you don't want to.

Further my linkages to (for example) German research sites was to show what is ACTUALLY involved in primary research, to hopefully illustrate why trying to get across this is beyond anyone apart from a select group. And in truth I would guess that even that select group are experts in ASPECTS of the research, and there is no-one who is the primary expert on all aspects of planet and star aging.

 

[chinu]

Why do people deny or have various doubts about God?

Hello, hey.
In the beginning we all were one with God in his place. Meanwhile we decided to create a new world for us. God gave the warning that you cannot stay happy in that world for ever, and you have to return back to me one day.

That time, we suspect that God isn't a God and denied his warning.
And from that time we people started deny and have various doubts about God

 

[Sonofason]

Nope. It would take me five minutes to deliver the evidence you claim does not exist, but since you've already demonstrated a willingness to reject facts (i.e. That plants can’t survive without sunlight), it would be five wasted minutes.

I like how you are trying to sidestep your need to provide evidence for your claim that the sun predates the earth. Please, show your evidence, and I will determine if your evidence is convincing. I'm sure the five minutes you take copying and pasting some document you've never read yourself will take me more than 5 minutes to read. But if you present it, I'll do my best to read it.

 

[Sonofason]

Hi mate,

I actually forgot I'd posted recently in this thread and hadn't checked for your response!!
:sorry1:

I'll take you at your word re: the condescension. Hard to tell tone over the internet, and the fact that our ideas are so far apart can lead to misunderstandings, obviously.

I'll restate what I meant about operating systems, since it's not what you seem to have taken from the comment.
I wasn't suggesting anything like you seem to think. Nothing to do with the intelligence required to create an operating system, and there's no correlation between that and knowing a damn thing about the Sun's age.

It was merely an example of something.

When I buy a computer, I determine which operating system to buy with it. How do I make that decision?

Price is no doubt part of it.
But I would be stunned if anyone went and bought a computer with Win3.1 on it, regardless of price. Why not? Those same people, who make decisions about which operating system to get, don't know a damn thing about how those operating systems work.
The primary information (ie. coding) that drive them are completely foreign to these folk.
Even me, who work in the computer field, and can program, have an element of understanding about what's under the covers. Not complete understanding.

If I walked into a shop offering two brand new operating systems that I'd never seen before, I could still rationally learn information about them, despite not being able to access or measure the primary information (in this case, decode their programming). I could read multiple reviews and compare them. I could see what common points those reviews made, and suppose that there was an element of truth to them. I could see where the reviews disagreed and try to decide why they disagreed. What details do the reviews hint to that suggest where the inconsistency has come from? For example, is one reviewer consistently focused on particular aspects in OTHER reviews?

The whole point is, the pool of people who could POSSIBLY understand the primary evidence regarding the Sun's age is small, compared to the population of the Earth. By reading secondary evidence from those sources, and subjecting it to the same sort of critical evaluation I do with EVERY OTHER SOURCE OF INFORMATION I COME ACROSS, I do have the ability to make rational decisions and determinations.
(capitals purely for emphasis)

So, if you want to disregard all evidence apart from primary source evidence, you will understand next to nothing about the world. That is your right, but in my opinion is a nonsensical approach.

My examples (eg. do you know what the Earth looks like from space) were purely trying to make the point that in fact you DO rely on secondary evidence in many cases. IN this case (Sun's age) you don't want to.

Further my linkages to (for example) German research sites was to show what is ACTUALLY involved in primary research, to hopefully illustrate why trying to get across this is beyond anyone apart from a select group. And in truth I would guess that even that select group are experts in ASPECTS of the research, and there is no-one who is the primary expert on all aspects of planet and star aging.

Okay, when it comes to believing that I know what the earth looks like from space, I have a great deal of evidence that the secondary evidences I've seen are real and true. I have been in aeroplanes that fly high above the earth, and I know first hand what the earth looks like from 30,000 ft. When I see the images of earth from space, they do not conflict with my own personal experience of what the earth looks like from high altitudes. Also, I know that cameras exist. It is not inconceivable to me that someone could take a picture of the earth from space. I have seen rockets take off from the earth until they were out of sight, well beyond the 30,000 feet that I've been to; and so it is not inconceivable to me that a person with a camera has been in space taking photographs of the earth.

I have no experience in dating the age of the earth. I have no experience in dating the age of the sun. I have seen no evidence that anyone has such an ability. I have no personal experience whatsoever to confirm any of the secondary evidences that you might be referring to with regard to the age of the sun and earth. I have no reason to believe anyone on this matter until I see at least some compelling evidence.