Indeed! There's many thousands of religions in the world. Too much attention is placed on the "big three".
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why do people deny or have various doubts about God?
- Thread starter DawudTalut
- Start date
Indeed! There's many thousands of religions in the world. Too much attention is placed on the "big three".
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
Please show your evidence, and explain how gravity has caused the sun to predate the earth.
Shad
Veteran Member
If reading a few articles is beyond you there is nothing I can do. You are willfully ignorant as you refuse to even do any basic work yourself such as reading and clicking. Heck some are videos so you can not even be bothered to click a link and press play. If you want knowledge spoon fed to you go back to highschool. "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink"
Last edited:
I believe in many Gods/Goddesses and Spirits.
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
No, people need to stop pretending they know things that they don't actually know. You don't know if the sun predates the earth or not. But with blind faith you belch out theories as if they were facts. You're building a fortress that has no foundation.
I really don't care either way which came first. It doesn't effect my life at all, really. You're the one whose entire worldview depends on having the Earth come before the Sun.
No. But it sure seems to help in accepting certain findings.
If anything, that is an understatement.
dgirl1986
Big Queer Chesticles!
Most people who do not believe god exists usually have a religious background. Perhaps it is experience that tells them that there is no god, or it is not logical in their mind. It is different for each person though.
Morality can have a few sources, our brains from an evolutionary perspective. Environmental, what you grow up with. Social, what is expected from society.
Alceste
Vagabond
Look it up or don't. Your ignorance is not my responsibility. You've given me no reason to believe you would be in any way affected by evidence, given that you are willing to argue that plants can exist without sunlight. So why should I waste my time?
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Actually it was only one day, plants would do fine lol.
Alceste
Vagabond
The idea that it was six literal days brings in a whole heap of other problems. For example, how could three of them pass before the sun was created? Literally impossible.
*sighs*
You're just being condescending. What I am saying is that OF COURSE I cannot personally prove the Sun is older the the Earth. And, amazingly, some of the work that people have spent their entire lives on is a little beyond me personally being able to prove or disprove. This might seem like earth-shattering news, but if you ramp down your need to bag science as 'blind faith' you'll realise that this applies, more or less, to most every scientific principle, and most every piece of technology on the planet.
How equipped are you to explain to me the coding of the operating system you're using right now? Want to have a crack? Can I go online and read reviews about said operating system? Can I make some determinations as to it's strength and weakness? Sure.
So, is my knowledge of the operating system I am using 'blind faith'?
You believe you'd understand primary source evidence? Then you should be submitting it here, not me to you. What is your problem WITH said primary source evidence, given that you think yourself capable of understanding it? I have to admit, it's a little complex in the maths area for me. So I rely on more simplistic interpretations of it. My admittance of this, that you might see as a weakness of my position, or some such, is actually simple truth. I have no need to defend science, really, but I was hoping to explain my position to you honestly.
'We' have, have 'we'? Either you have voices in your head, or you're being condescending again. I'd suggest NOT to be condescending, honestly. It's not becoming. So, no...'we' haven't proven any such thing.
Science is probably wrong on pretty much everything, if what you are looking for is PROOF. Science doesn't prove things. It offers theories, which are considered 'right' until proven otherwise. Our knowledge grows.
I fear I know the answer, but what's your opinion on the following, both in terms of credibility, and in terms of the information as it pertains to our discussion?
NRL Scientist Explores Birth of a Planet - U.S. Naval Research Laboratory
You're jumping too far ahead from a simple statement. What I am saying to you is that I can't 'KNOW' what the Earth looks like from space. Correct? I am reliant on information conveyed to me. You can never KNOW everything, and ultimately you are reliant on other sources of information. The key is how you judge these sources, and what rigour you place them under. That was my point.
Beyond that, pictures of the earth say nothing about the age of the earth.
My understanding of the world in it's entirety? Interesting claim, and a little more existentialist than I would have thought I'd hear from you. If you mean in relation to the Earth, then there is certainly an element of faith in it. Describing this as 'blind faith' is simply an attempt to proscribe to me a position of bald-arsed guessing and an inability to judge source information. I don't find that is generally the case with me.
There simply isn't anywhere you're going to find a 'A+B=C' type answer for the question of 'How was the Sun and Planets formed' if you're determined to look at primary source information (which I think you're not, but hey, that's just my opinion).
Example of how research is actually conducted in this area at a credible university...
http://www.rzuser.uni-heidelberg.de/~ia2/
[edit]When reading through the above, it took me a while to realise there were translated pages, and I didn't have to use Google translate, so when you get to the German pages, look top right for English link[/edit]
If that's too confusing for you, welcome to reality. So, do you find my link earlier in this post interesting, challenging, mildly informative, or nonsense? And if nonsense, are you at all interested in actually trying to understand the full complexities of this issue, or am I wasting my time?
You did mention earlier on in this thread that 'I'd rather put my faith in a God I experience than a model I can't understand.'
Does that apply to everything? If you got cancer, you'd refuse treatment? What are your views on set theory?
Meh, I dunno. Sounds to me like you're going to read the Bible first, work out what that means, and then only accept science where it doesn't contradict your interpretation of the Bible. And if that's the case, a more honest position would be to simply state that, instead of getting people to waste their time trying to posit evidence you either won't read, won't understand or won't find compelling, regardless of content, assuming that content doesn't agree with your interpretation of the Bible.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
I think it means time-periods. The 'day' as counted by the Sun, the ancients knew that, of course.
Triumphant_Loser
Libertarian Egalitarian
McBell
Unbound
If your counter argument to such things is "my all powerful deity took care of it" why would you feel compelled to present explanations at all, let alone ones that fall flat under scrutiny?
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Not in -455°F weather they wouldn't. They would freeze almost instantly.
Some plants are very sensitive and can die from slightest temperature change.
I don't understand why God would create plants without a Sun. Sounds like a very bad planned implementation of the design. It's like writing the software before making the computer. Did God get his inspiration from Babbage and Lady Ada?
Alceste
Vagabond
Yes, we have always known that a day is defined by the sun (and we now also know it is a full rotation of the earth). What I'm asking is how there could have been THREE of them before God created the sun. Especially since the rate of spin and the orbit of the earth (a year) are caused by the gravity of the sun.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
And my favorite question that hasn't been answered by any apologist so far, which time zone?
On our planet right now, there is a day and a night, simultaneous. On the side that's facing the Sun, there's day. On the opposite side, it's night. And this is a constant process that moves around constantly without stopping. We have a day and night always on this planet.
So, the day and night in the Genesis story must be relating to a specific time zone. Which one? Greenwich?
Anything considered spiritual is by definition not physical...
The way we know and understand anything is through reason (logic); experiments, testing, and evidence.
If something is spiritual, it can't be held up to the scientific method -- it can't be tested... And something that's un-testable is hard to buy into. Imagine someone suggesting you believe what they said because a book said it (by an author people considered crazy -- which is true of most religious books), and because they said they knew it was true...
Would you believe them?
Probably not...
So it's unusual to have an area in our lives where we accept things without testable evidence... If there was a consistent way to evaluate truth and somehow test spiritual claims, that would be one thing, but there isn't, so some people claim it false, withhold belief, or just stay away from it all together.
It's hard to invest in and sacrifice for something you can't see, can't know if it's good or bad for you, or if it's even true at all...
Summary:
It's not just having no evidence to believe, it's that by definition there can't be evidence
The way we know and understand anything is through reason (logic); experiments, testing, and evidence.
If something is spiritual, it can't be held up to the scientific method -- it can't be tested... And something that's un-testable is hard to buy into. Imagine someone suggesting you believe what they said because a book said it (by an author people considered crazy -- which is true of most religious books), and because they said they knew it was true...
Would you believe them?
Probably not...
So it's unusual to have an area in our lives where we accept things without testable evidence... If there was a consistent way to evaluate truth and somehow test spiritual claims, that would be one thing, but there isn't, so some people claim it false, withhold belief, or just stay away from it all together.
It's hard to invest in and sacrifice for something you can't see, can't know if it's good or bad for you, or if it's even true at all...
Summary:
It's not just having no evidence to believe, it's that by definition there can't be evidence
Last edited: