This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
SW-User
@FetishFox
1. The first thing that I think about in terms of why a God exists is that if we just simply rewind to the beginning, there cannot be any worldly, scientifically measurable force before the big bang. All of physics and science that we rely on TODAY are based on a universe that expanded past the point of the big bang. Whatever came before HAD to have existed because of the time dimension. There simply is a time that is before the big bang considering that we observe time THROUGHOUT the result of the big bang. Considering the expansion rate of the universe, there is no explainable force that could have held or even simply brought together all of the mass and material of the universe and whatever may be beyond into a single spot so dense that it shrinks past subatomic size. That kind of force and power and what came BEFORE that makes sense to me to have an Originator, considering that would be the starting point.
2. Any system of operation that serves a purpose had to have been designed.
A simple example: A stop sign.
[image deleted]Most people say that because there is no evidence or claiming of the Creator of all existence that there is no reason to believe the Creator existed in the first place. In the same sense, if I claimed that because I don't know who made a stop sign, there is no creator of the stop sign and it came to existence because of the slim possibility that the material just happen to be there. One would argue with me that the stop sign has a specific, reflective red paint, octagonal shape, red center which indicates warning, white outline for reflectance and that the combination of all of these purposes cannot happen by nature and require a designer.
A complex example:
Geographic environment and habitat.
Any geographic location has a system of operation that is much more complex than a simple stop sign. If the universe did happen to exist by chance, then there would not be as much order as just so "happens" in the real world we see and live in and it would not follow rules so precise and consistent, without any imperfections, to the extent that we study it, call it physics, biology, etc. and live our lives depending on and relying on accumulated facts.
To the point of the more complex example:
A geographic environment has systems, that although they don't operate with human-made mechanics, rely on a different set of components. For example:
A geographic environment has a top layer of a magnetic flow field that protects the earth from charged particles from the sun, which provides warmth, another layer of heat that destroys and vaporizes most dangerous articles that intermittently enter the earth's atmosphere and traps gases, and a layer of particles that protect from ultraviolet radiation. Let's assume that these layers, given that they are a system that is sustained and serve a purpose, just happened. At the bottom of the atmosphere is air. It does not appear to me to be a coincidence that the layer of air that exists stays on ground level just where all living things reside. We can still assume so to be. Next comes the water cycle, in which I believe you are familiar with, with which it evaporates water, allows relocation, and releases water on a new location that sustains life as its function in relation to the environment mechanics. Upon all of this exist animals and plants. These have life cycles that have plants that reproduce and are sustained by the sun, animals that eat plants to live and reproduce, and animals that eat plant-eating animals that just so happen to stop their numbers from multiplying and growing to the extent that they consume all plants and end their own existence. These environmental systems rely heavily on the mentioned atmospheric systems that if just ONE was missing, all of the components of the habitat and life cycle would fall apart. This goes to further length in relation to the human body and all of the functions PERFECTLY executed. People can predict how a human will turn out based on genes, which are proof that the human body follows a design.
Given all of these structures, how perfectly they are executed, how we can study and appreciate their functionings, how larger systems considering the very large [on the planetary and astronomic scale] break down seemingly infinitely into smaller and smaller subsystems that pass scales of atmosphere, surface, [path 1 regarding earth mantle, to bedrock, to the geographic layers and happenings underneath] and [path 2 regarding the breakdown into the water cycle, animal ecosystems and life cycles, sociology/psychology, biology, chemistry, physics, quantum physics and beyond to whatever it is that can be], it just surpasses the definition of chance that we know and appreciate when we cannot appreciate a stop sign existing by chance. In the same sense that I believe that just because I observed a street sign and I know and respect its physical existence was designed and is made by a creature that wants it to serve a purpose, observing the universe forces me to believe that all happenings of the sort are not by chance in the same way and that a working system requires a designer.
3. Consider that at the start of the earth, there was only scattered dust. As the dust collects and forms mass and collects material, during the formation of the earth, there was a time where it was just rock. Huge packets of ice or water bombarded the earth, because it is proven that water is relative only to earth. There is no possible way for "life" to form on the earth and there is no explanation or possible proof of how life can exist at a time where it simply didn't, especially given that it is scientifically proven that the earth started off with no life. [Given the proposed argument that life could have landed on earth, it is impossible to assume such with the big bang theory relative to how life as we know it today can function] If all life happened based on genes, which have proven to be the structure by which the chemical construct of the human cell expansion follows as a blueprint, then that simply proves to say that genes HAD to have had a start and could not have ever been the byproduct of chance and any other remotely human concept, and there is no possibility that this could have happened during a time where only rocks and dust existed. It is at this point where I cannot go further with the belief that all of these biological systems perfectly functioning and coming together just work and exist by a chance. We established that order does not come from a chaos. (Except for the order meaning a perfect distribution of materials). Therefore, the DESIGN of the human body and how genes work are not a chance. They follow a structure and purpose as does a stop sign, engine of a car, and they produce and work appropriately with a system that is observable, actually works, and can be studied and experimented on.
I have more, but they get deeper than this :/
1. The first thing that I think about in terms of why a God exists is that if we just simply rewind to the beginning, there cannot be any worldly, scientifically measurable force before the big bang. All of physics and science that we rely on TODAY are based on a universe that expanded past the point of the big bang. Whatever came before HAD to have existed because of the time dimension. There simply is a time that is before the big bang considering that we observe time THROUGHOUT the result of the big bang. Considering the expansion rate of the universe, there is no explainable force that could have held or even simply brought together all of the mass and material of the universe and whatever may be beyond into a single spot so dense that it shrinks past subatomic size. That kind of force and power and what came BEFORE that makes sense to me to have an Originator, considering that would be the starting point.
2. Any system of operation that serves a purpose had to have been designed.
A simple example: A stop sign.
[image deleted]Most people say that because there is no evidence or claiming of the Creator of all existence that there is no reason to believe the Creator existed in the first place. In the same sense, if I claimed that because I don't know who made a stop sign, there is no creator of the stop sign and it came to existence because of the slim possibility that the material just happen to be there. One would argue with me that the stop sign has a specific, reflective red paint, octagonal shape, red center which indicates warning, white outline for reflectance and that the combination of all of these purposes cannot happen by nature and require a designer.
A complex example:
Geographic environment and habitat.
Any geographic location has a system of operation that is much more complex than a simple stop sign. If the universe did happen to exist by chance, then there would not be as much order as just so "happens" in the real world we see and live in and it would not follow rules so precise and consistent, without any imperfections, to the extent that we study it, call it physics, biology, etc. and live our lives depending on and relying on accumulated facts.
To the point of the more complex example:
A geographic environment has systems, that although they don't operate with human-made mechanics, rely on a different set of components. For example:
A geographic environment has a top layer of a magnetic flow field that protects the earth from charged particles from the sun, which provides warmth, another layer of heat that destroys and vaporizes most dangerous articles that intermittently enter the earth's atmosphere and traps gases, and a layer of particles that protect from ultraviolet radiation. Let's assume that these layers, given that they are a system that is sustained and serve a purpose, just happened. At the bottom of the atmosphere is air. It does not appear to me to be a coincidence that the layer of air that exists stays on ground level just where all living things reside. We can still assume so to be. Next comes the water cycle, in which I believe you are familiar with, with which it evaporates water, allows relocation, and releases water on a new location that sustains life as its function in relation to the environment mechanics. Upon all of this exist animals and plants. These have life cycles that have plants that reproduce and are sustained by the sun, animals that eat plants to live and reproduce, and animals that eat plant-eating animals that just so happen to stop their numbers from multiplying and growing to the extent that they consume all plants and end their own existence. These environmental systems rely heavily on the mentioned atmospheric systems that if just ONE was missing, all of the components of the habitat and life cycle would fall apart. This goes to further length in relation to the human body and all of the functions PERFECTLY executed. People can predict how a human will turn out based on genes, which are proof that the human body follows a design.
Given all of these structures, how perfectly they are executed, how we can study and appreciate their functionings, how larger systems considering the very large [on the planetary and astronomic scale] break down seemingly infinitely into smaller and smaller subsystems that pass scales of atmosphere, surface, [path 1 regarding earth mantle, to bedrock, to the geographic layers and happenings underneath] and [path 2 regarding the breakdown into the water cycle, animal ecosystems and life cycles, sociology/psychology, biology, chemistry, physics, quantum physics and beyond to whatever it is that can be], it just surpasses the definition of chance that we know and appreciate when we cannot appreciate a stop sign existing by chance. In the same sense that I believe that just because I observed a street sign and I know and respect its physical existence was designed and is made by a creature that wants it to serve a purpose, observing the universe forces me to believe that all happenings of the sort are not by chance in the same way and that a working system requires a designer.
3. Consider that at the start of the earth, there was only scattered dust. As the dust collects and forms mass and collects material, during the formation of the earth, there was a time where it was just rock. Huge packets of ice or water bombarded the earth, because it is proven that water is relative only to earth. There is no possible way for "life" to form on the earth and there is no explanation or possible proof of how life can exist at a time where it simply didn't, especially given that it is scientifically proven that the earth started off with no life. [Given the proposed argument that life could have landed on earth, it is impossible to assume such with the big bang theory relative to how life as we know it today can function] If all life happened based on genes, which have proven to be the structure by which the chemical construct of the human cell expansion follows as a blueprint, then that simply proves to say that genes HAD to have had a start and could not have ever been the byproduct of chance and any other remotely human concept, and there is no possibility that this could have happened during a time where only rocks and dust existed. It is at this point where I cannot go further with the belief that all of these biological systems perfectly functioning and coming together just work and exist by a chance. We established that order does not come from a chaos. (Except for the order meaning a perfect distribution of materials). Therefore, the DESIGN of the human body and how genes work are not a chance. They follow a structure and purpose as does a stop sign, engine of a car, and they produce and work appropriately with a system that is observable, actually works, and can be studied and experimented on.
I have more, but they get deeper than this :/
SW-User
@FetishFox May you please answer my question and give me a logical reason as to why you don't believe in God? :o
Ozdharma · 61-69, M
@SW-User so where was god before the big bang and why is it only a figment of our brain .... order does not exist the world is chaotic and no amount of predicting can really tell us what the weather will be in two months what will happen economically etc etc the human body has evolved over billions of years from some swampy pond life ... life evolved through a complex interaction of chemicals and energy from the sun on earth and scientists are pretty sure there is life under the surface of mars as the same chemical compounds and water exist there
SW-User
@fazer1k if what governs compelling heads towards live scientific experiments and/or empirical proof, I am NOT able to give you anything :p
Only my reasoning
Only my reasoning
SW-User
@fazer1k what governs evidence between us is different. I recognize something as a sure sign of creation and I believe that I did not happen by chance or some random intelligence in accidental, unguided chaos, whereas, you find evidence to be govern by something else and follow the idea that if we do not have firsthand or secondhand, repeatable, proof scientifically compiled and tested proof, it is not evidence. Therefore, we will never come to common grounds :v
No use in exchange v.v
We hold different STANDARDS. It's like me saying that the only thing that can make me believe slavery is real is that I SEE it happen. Or that if the sun really produces ultraviolet rays, I have to SEE it. Or maybe, some random mythological creature, I need REAL PROOF or someting :v
(Real being physical evidence [and evidence being described as how YOU tend to see it in every aspect])
No use in exchange v.v
We hold different STANDARDS. It's like me saying that the only thing that can make me believe slavery is real is that I SEE it happen. Or that if the sun really produces ultraviolet rays, I have to SEE it. Or maybe, some random mythological creature, I need REAL PROOF or someting :v
(Real being physical evidence [and evidence being described as how YOU tend to see it in every aspect])
fazer1k · 56-60, M
@SW-User Yes, I need evidence as per the dictionary definition. In that context there is no evidence of creation. In fact, there is evidence against it as evolution contains many quirks along the way which couldn't be classed as any form of 'intelligent' design. If design is involved it would actually be extremely unintelligent. What intelligent designer would include junk DNA originally from bacteria in a species designed in his own image? Why would an intelligent designer include knuckle bones in whales when they have no use for them and medical susceptibilities in genes. The list goes on. If a creator was involved, his design was very unintelligent. It is, therefore, almost certain a creator was not involved.
fazer1k · 56-60, M
@SW-User The dictionary definition is just non-belief in deities. Whether or not they exist really doesn't cross my mind unless these questions or claims of proof a deity exists come up. That's when people think about the logical aspects to it all. For me, as there is no compelling evidence that deities exist I don't accept claims that they do. I don't rule out the possibility but would place very low odds on that being the case.
SW-User
@fazer1k maybe you don't want to view what is there as proof. You are looking for a different definition of proof.
fazer1k · 56-60, M
@SW-User There is also evidence against deities existing, certainly as creators, as I outlined in another post in this thread. I read your long post prior to posting that but saw nothing compelling there in terms of the dictionary definition of proof - if there were, what you say would stand up to scientific scrutiny and it doesn't.
I can understand how having faith helps and supports believers in many ways. It must be comforting to believe there is an afterlife where you get to spend eternal bliss with your dead relatives and friends, for example, but there is no evidence of its truth. What is clear is that claims such as that and others about how if you are evil or an infidel you will go to hell have been a remarkable control mechanism for the masses in past times. Religious leaders used to be able to exercise control through fear - that's obvious by the claims I cited and others from the bible (I haven't read other religious texts). That suggests the possibility of there being a false motive for claiming deities exist, if not now then in the past when belief was pretty much universal. It was all about controlling people during relatively lawless times.
These things and those explained in my other post about evolution add to make me a non-believer, I guess. I will say, I had never thought so much about my reasons for non-belief before joining this site!
I can understand how having faith helps and supports believers in many ways. It must be comforting to believe there is an afterlife where you get to spend eternal bliss with your dead relatives and friends, for example, but there is no evidence of its truth. What is clear is that claims such as that and others about how if you are evil or an infidel you will go to hell have been a remarkable control mechanism for the masses in past times. Religious leaders used to be able to exercise control through fear - that's obvious by the claims I cited and others from the bible (I haven't read other religious texts). That suggests the possibility of there being a false motive for claiming deities exist, if not now then in the past when belief was pretty much universal. It was all about controlling people during relatively lawless times.
These things and those explained in my other post about evolution add to make me a non-believer, I guess. I will say, I had never thought so much about my reasons for non-belief before joining this site!
SW-User
@fazer1k I want you to understand that disproving God and proving God have no relations to the human being, if God exists. Just understand that I know where you are coming from and understand you. You will never have scientific proof for God, but that also means that you cannot scientifically disprove God, either.
:p
You have to think outside the box in how you want to approach God. If you don't believe in God, how can one prove it? And if one DOES believe in God, how can you disprove it?
:p
You have to think outside the box in how you want to approach God. If you don't believe in God, how can one prove it? And if one DOES believe in God, how can you disprove it?
fazer1k · 56-60, M
@SW-User Haha, true, but the burden of proof is always on those making the claim. I just don't accept claims that something exists without evidence to back then up. And I certainly don't accept claims that completely contradict scientific evidence - such as those from the religious community who claim evolution didn't happen.
SW-User
@fazer1k just know that most religious people are not Christian XD
Angeleyez · 51-55, F
@SW-User I’m Christian I have faith but also see and except scientific things. science and God don’t compete only the ppl on either side fight the two. Science is logical, faith isn’t. I have faith in God’s existence and don’t need any proof for that faith to be real to me. I also see the value in science and the advancement it has given us as human beings. I have no concrete proof of God’s existence, but there isn’t any to disprove it either. I don’t harbor hate or resentment to anyone that disagrees with my faith, either by practicing different faiths or simply don’t believe. My faith is mine unique unto me as someone else’s faith is to them. My relationship with God is just that my relationship if someone else chooses to have a relationship with him. Then that is theirs. 🤗🤗 @fazer1k