Why do people deny or have various doubts about God?

[LuisDantas]

If you are willing to go that far, you can't even trust that we exist at all.

 

[Sonofason]

All of this is barefaced lies.

I am constantly amazed by the destructive effect of religion on human morality.

I am constantly amazed by the destructive effect of science on morality.

 

[Parsimony]

If you can't confirm it, and I can't confirm it, how can we conclude that it is true?

You're talking about the 60 million light-year supernova, right? Don't worry about that one right now. It may or may not be true. I'll have to look into it further at a later time.

The 168,000 light-year SN 1987A, however, is confirmed (as my links show).

 

[Sonofason]

Yes. I agree. But do you agree with me? And all of its implications? If not then how do you reconcile those implications?

In my statement I was merely suggesting that faith and hope are important motivators. To me, this is how faith is employed: If we thought our homes would cave in on us, we wouldn't enter into our homes. If we thought the floor wasn't stable enough to hold our weight, we wouldn't get out of bed in the morning. We see, and we learn to trust.

This is how I believe hope is employed: We hear that something is good. We have learned that those from whom we've heard are trustworthy. We employ faith in those we trust. We hope in that which we hear from those whom we trust, which motivates us to seek out that which we had heard.

Going forward:
You had said,

But lets go back to walking. The only thing that changed was the baby. The baby learned to walk. The same thing for the believer. They were conditioned to believe. But that just means that no matter if there is or isn't a god they would believe. This is still an argument that if there is not a god you would believe anyway. Because that is what you strived for. Its what you were conditioned for.

Let us suppose that the baby has a problem. Let's suppose the baby can't walk. The baby will never experience walking. The baby's complete inability to walk could be analogous to there being no God, for if there is no God, one could never actually experience God. But at a very early age, no one knows this. He was too young to walk. He wasn't strong enough to walk. To reiterate, experiencing walking would be analogous to experiencing God.

So the baby has hope. He sees people walking. Those around him have hope that he will one day walk. This baby is programmed to walk. He has great faith that he will walk. But he never does. At some point, this baby will lose all hope of walking, for this baby actually has no hope of walking. He will lose all faith that he will one day experience walking. He will stop believing that he will ever walk. To him, there is no walking.

Yet, still everyone around him is walking. This child would have to believe that God exists, but that he is incapable of experiencing God like everyone else around him.

And those people are walking, they are experiencing God. But the growing child never does. He has a problem.

So I think the analogy has fallen apart.

Now we could go around in another fashion. It could be that everyone is pushing the child to walk, while no one is actually walking. Why should a child even try to learn to walk when he sees no one else walking. Where is the hope?

 

[Sonofason]

Well actually its instinct that drives us to walk. Its learning a skill. However this is a very very very very interesting way to put this analogy. And I love it.

You have a baby. They can't walk. But they are primed and ready to walk because after they obtain the strength to do so they can. They learn from others around them and its expected. They "hope" for it. So they try and try and try and eventually they can walk.

Its the same with belief. We start off as weak babies. But eventually we are trained enough and are surrounded by enough people "believing" that we in turn believe. And suddenly we have an unshakable resolve.

But lets go back to walking. The only thing that changed was the baby. The baby learned to walk. The same thing for the believer. They were conditioned to believe. But that just means that no matter if there is or isn't a god they would believe. This is still an argument that if there is not a god you would believe anyway. Because that is what you strived for. Its what you were conditioned for.

Your belief is a product of your conditioning. Not of a god. Even if one exists this continues to be the case.

Your belief in evolution is a product of your conditioning. Not of evolution. Even if evolution is true, this continues to be the case.

 

[Sonofason]

At the end of the day, that is the bottom line.

Should a god that needed us to lie to ourselves even received any respect?

A god that needs us to lie to ourselves doesn't deserve nor receive my respect.

 

[Sonofason]

The study of the sequence of occurrence of fossils in rocks, biostratigraphy, reveals the relative time order in which organisms lived. Although this relative time scale indicates that one layer of rock is younger or older than another, it does not pinpoint the age of a fossil or rock in years. The discovery of radioactivity late in the 19th century enabled scientists to develop techniques for accurately determining the ages of fossils, rocks, and events in Earth's history in the distant past. For example, through isotopic dating we've learned that Cambrian fossils are about 540-500 million years old, that the oldest known fossils are found in rocks that are about 3.8 billion years old, and that planet Earth is about 4.6 billion years old.

Determining the age of a rock involves using minerals that contain naturally-occurring radioactive elements and measuring the amount of change or decay in those elements to calculate approximately how many years ago the rock formed. Radioactive elements are unstable. They emit particles and energy at a relatively constant rate, transforming themselves through the process of radioactive decay into other elements that are stable - not radioactive. Radioactive elements can serve as natural clocks, because the rate of emission or decay is measurable and because it is not affected by external factors.

About 90 chemical elements occur naturally in the Earth. By definition an element is a substance that cannot be broken into a simpler form by ordinary chemical means. The basic structural units of elements are minute atoms. They are made up of the even tinier subatomic particles called protons, neutrons, and electrons.

To help in the identification and classification of elements, scientists have assigned an atomic number to each kind of atom. The atomic number for each element is the number of protons in an atom. An atom of potassium (K), for example, has 19 protons in its nucleus so the atomic number for potassium is 19.

Although all atoms of a given element contain the same number of protons, they do not contain the same number of neutrons. Each kind of atom has also been assigned a mass number. That number, which is equal to the number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus, identifies the various forms or isotopes of an element. The isotopes of a given element have similar or very closely related chemical properties but their atomic mass differs.

Potassium (atomic number 19) has several isotopes. Its radioactive isotope potassium-40 has 19 protons and 21 neutrons in the nucleus (19 protons + 21 neutrons = mass number 40). Atoms of its stable isotopes potassium-39 and potassium-41 contain 19 protons plus 20 and 22 neutrons respectively.

Radioactive isotopes are useful in dating geological materials, because they convert or decay at a constant, and therefore measurable, rate. An unstable radioactive isotope, which is the 'parent' of one chemical element, naturally decays to form a stable nonradioactive isotope, or 'daughter,' of another element by emitting particles such as protons from the nucleus. The decay from parent to daughter happens at a constant rate called the half-life. The half-life of a radioactive isotope is the length of time it takes for exactly one-half of the parent atoms to decay to daughter atoms. No naturally occurring physical or chemical conditions on Earth can appreciably change the decay rate of radioactive isotopes. Precise laboratory measurements of the number of remaining atoms of the parent and the number of atoms of the daughter result in a ratio that is used to compute the age of a fossil or rock in years.

Age determinations using radioactive isotopes have reached the point where they are subject to very small errors of measurement, now usually less than 1%. For example, minerals from a volcanic ash bed in southern Saskatchewan, Canada, have been dated by three independent isotopic methods (Baadsgaard, et al., 1993). The potassium/argon method gave an age of 72.5 plus or minus 0.2 million years ago (mya), a possible error of 0.27%; the uranium/lead method gave an age of 72.4 plus or minus 0.4 mya, a possible error of 0.55%; and the rubidium/strontium method gave an age of 72.54 plus or minus 0.18 mya, a possible error of 0.25%. The possible errors in these measurements are well under 1%. For comparison, 1% of an hour is 36 seconds. For most scientific investigations an error of less than 1% is insignificant.

As we have learned more, and as our instrumentation has improved, geoscientists have reevaluated the ages obtained from the rocks. These refinements have resulted in an unmistakable trend of smaller and smaller revisions of the radiometric time scale. This trend will continue as we collect and analyze more samples.


Isotopic dating techniques are used to measure the time when a particular mineral within a rock was formed. To allow assignment of numeric ages to the biologically based components of the geologic time scale, such as Cambrian... Permian... Cretaceous... Quaternary, a mineral that can be dated radiometrically must be found together with rocks that can be assigned relative ages because of the contained fossils. A classic, real-life example of using K-40/Ar-40 to date Upper Cretaceous rocks and fossils is described in Gill and Cobban (1973).

Evolution and the Fossil Record by John Pojeta, Jr. and Dale A. Springer



More info:

Dating Rocks and Fossils Using Geologic Methods | Learn Science at Scitable

Dating | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

How do scientists determine the age of dinosaur bones? - HowStuffWorks

This could be very useful information to someone.

 

[Sonofason]

Eh... you have any idea of how ironic your question sounds?

Yes, of course. It is intended to show the irony.

 

[Sonofason]

Why do you think I should even worry?

On the contrary, I don't think you should worry. I am just wishing you good luck.

 

[columbus]

This could be very useful information to someone.

People who want to know the truth instead believing that they already know everything important.

Tom

 

[Sonofason]

Looking at your last couple of posts, are you promoting a kind of extreme skepticism that doesn't allow for any kind of working knowledge about the world? Isn't that just solipsism?

I don't know. I believe you exist. I believe the world exists. I believe the universe exists. I believe in atoms, and electrons. I believe in gravity. I believe in universal truth. I believe in God, and much much more. But that doesn't seem like solipsism to me.

I tend to base my beliefs on evidence, not mere speculation. And furthermore, if I can't understand it, I see no reason to believe it.

 

[Sonofason]

That just isn't true. I have no faith in the evidence. I have trust in the people who explain it. I can see the evidence for myself.
I trust them far more than anyone telling me about God because I have found them to be worthy of trust. When the true answer is "I don't know" that's what they say. When they disagree they look for more information. Religious people cannot be trusted that much. They tell me things that are obviously untrue and tell me I'm the one at fault for not believing.

Tom

You see, that's just it. I have never known anyone that has dated any fossil, and I have never known anyone who has witnessed that the sun predates the earth. And so I have a hard time believing them. I rarely trust people I do not know, unless I can easily put to the test what they say, and confirm what they say for myself.

I was prompted to seek God by someone I trusted. I was most inclined to believe when he said that God does exist, and that he himself experiences God, that He experienced God. So I sought God. And as a result, I experience God too. And so, and nevertheless, what that man said to me, I have confirmed for myself.

I am curious what people are telling you. Some people do lie. And that is very sad. Some people state as facts mere beliefs, and that too is very sad. We really should be more honest with one another.

I promise, I will continue to be honest with you.

 

[Sonofason]

I can't confirm biblical events

I can't either. But I have confirmed the God spoken of in the same book that describes those biblical events.

 

[Sonofason]

If you are willing to go that far, you can't even trust that we exist at all.

I believe we do.

 

[Sonofason]

You're talking about the 60 million light-year supernova, right? Don't worry about that one right now. It may or may not be true. I'll have to look into it further at a later time.

The 168,000 light-year SN 1987A, however, is confirmed (as my links show).

I read it, but I don't really see what they confirmed. Perhaps you can explain.

 

[Sonofason]

People who want to know the truth instead believing that they already know everything important.

Tom

Perhaps you can explain why it is important to know the age of a fossil?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

In my statement I was merely suggesting that faith and hope are important motivators. To me, this is how faith is employed: If we thought our homes would cave in on us, we wouldn't enter into our homes. If we thought the floor wasn't stable enough to hold our weight, we wouldn't get out of bed in the morning. We see, and we learn to trust.

This is how I believe hope is employed: We hear that something is good. We have learned that those from whom we've heard are trustworthy. We employ faith in those we trust. We hope in that which we hear from those whom we trust, which motivates us to seek out that which we had heard.

Even if those we "trust" end up being wrong? Even if there is no evidence? Have you ever heard of the five monkey experiment?

Going forward:
You had said,




Let us suppose that the baby has a problem. Let's suppose the baby can't walk. The baby will never experience walking. The baby's complete inability to walk could be analogous to there being no God, for if there is no God, one could never actually experience God. But at a very early age, no one knows this. He was too young to walk. He wasn't strong enough to walk. To reiterate, experiencing walking would be analogous to experiencing God.

So the baby has hope. He sees people walking. Those around him have hope that he will one day walk. This baby is programmed to walk. He has great faith that he will walk. But he never does. At some point, this baby will lose all hope of walking, for this baby actually has no hope of walking. He will lose all faith that he will one day experience walking. He will stop believing that he will ever walk. To him, there is no walking.

Yet, still everyone around him is walking. This child would have to believe that God exists, but that he is incapable of experiencing God like everyone else around him.

And those people are walking, they are experiencing God. But the growing child never does. He has a problem.

So I think the analogy has fallen apart.

Now we could go around in another fashion. It could be that everyone is pushing the child to walk, while no one is actually walking. Why should a child even try to learn to walk when he sees no one else walking. Where is the hope?

I feel like this is getting stretched. Far to much to be useful. We can re-word it however you want and changing it really doesn't do anything. I used it in a way that would hopefully show you what I am trying to convey. It didn't go through.

But let me ask you this.
What if we were able to find out that your god was false? That there was no god or even if there was a god he was a deistic god. Would you want to know or would you rather stay the way you are in your faith? I get that nothing would convince you that your belief is wrong but just for a hypothetical. Would you want to know?

Your belief in evolution is a product of your conditioning. Not of evolution. Even if evolution is true, this continues to be the case.

That my belief in evolution which is conditioned by empirical evidence would be true even if all the evidence ended up being falsely planted by a trickster god? Yeah I guess so.

That is the point of a theory. Is that it is our best explanation given the evidence. Everything boils down to that. We don't know directly that the sun doesn't revolve around the Earth. But we have sufficient evidence for a heliocentric solar system. So my belief is shaped by what the evidence provides.

However "god" doesn't match this same description. Which is the fundamental difference between the two.

 

[Parsimony]

I read it, but I don't really see what they confirmed. Perhaps you can explain.

The "light-curve characteristics reflecting the respective decay times" means that the radioactive elements discovered in the spectra of the supernova decreased in abundance over time at the rate expected of their known decay rates. Since the light from that supernova is 168,000 years old, then the decay rates of those elements must have been the same 168,000 years ago as they are today. If they weren't, then the decay rates observed of the spectra would not have matched that known to be true of the radionuclides today. That would have been major scientific news if it was found to be different.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't know. I believe you exist. I believe the world exists. I believe the universe exists. I believe in atoms, and electrons. I believe in gravity. I believe in universal truth. I believe in God, and much much more. But that doesn't seem like solipsism to me.

I tend to base my beliefs on evidence, not mere speculation. And furthermore, if I can't understand it, I see no reason to believe it.

Gravity has even the leading scientists scratching their heads. Nobody really understands how exactly it works. We can see it's effects, but how does it work? "It remains untamed" to quote Stephen Hawking from a documentary from a few years ago.
And why is current lack of understanding at all any valid reason to dismiss something? I doubt you understand quantum physics, plate tectonic movement, but do you question them? Do you really even understand how your computer and the internet works?

 

[Sonofason]

Even if those we "trust" end up being wrong? Even if there is no evidence? Have you ever heard of the five monkey experiment?


I feel like this is getting stretched. Far to much to be useful. We can re-word it however you want and changing it really doesn't do anything. I used it in a way that would hopefully show you what I am trying to convey. It didn't go through.

But let me ask you this.
What if we were able to find out that your god was false? That there was no god or even if there was a god he was a deistic god. Would you want to know or would you rather stay the way you are in your faith? I get that nothing would convince you that your belief is wrong but just for a hypothetical. Would you want to know?



That my belief in evolution which is conditioned by empirical evidence would be true even if all the evidence ended up being falsely planted by a trickster god? Yeah I guess so.

That is the point of a theory. Is that it is our best explanation given the evidence. Everything boils down to that. We don't know directly that the sun doesn't revolve around the Earth. But we have sufficient evidence for a heliocentric solar system. So my belief is shaped by what the evidence provides.

However "god" doesn't match this same description. Which is the fundamental difference between the two.

If I had not experienced God for myself, I don't know what exactly I would believe. I suppose I could have been convinced that some sort of deistic God existed, but I think it would be difficult to believe in a personal, loving God, if I did not experience a personal, loving relationship with God.