• 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!

What gives you the idea that a deity is real?

nPeace

Veteran Member
Confirmed how?
You can start in this thread The Bible - Why Trust It.


It's what many people who claims to follow the bible and that it contains "the truth" say. Basically, all the others that claim it contains a different "truth" have got it wrong. The number of totally different interpretations of what it says, it solid evidence that it contains no coherent message at all.
So the different opinions on evolution makes it obsolete nonsense....


So you didn't bother to look at the evidence then?
Is that an assumption, or a question, or both.
I read everything you posted... before you posted it. What's new? Nothing.


Where is it? I haven't seen a hint of any evidence or reasoning in your posts yet...
Then we are both in the same boat... looking for evidence and reason, and not seeing any.


Nobody - and I didn't say that they did. Humanity has invented and believed in thousands of gods, and what I said was, if your god happens (amongst all the candidates) to exist, then....



You have yet to provide even a hint of a reason to think there is one that is "true and living".
I did more than that. What do you want me to do now... beat you over the head until you see?


No - but what it does tell us is that there is no clear message from any god to humanity.
That's not so.
It tells you that? How?


Well you seem to want to ask the question about the universe, in order to try to get people to believe in your favourite deity, and it's you who keeps banging on about "the truth" - suddenly, as soon as it's a bit inconvenient to your narrative, we "puny" humans can't possibly know....
Huh?
What questions do I ask about the universe?


There you go again - ah but wait!



So as soon as you get to what you want to believe, suddenly, you stop asking questions or thinking about it.
What I want to believe? I asked you. You didn't answer. That's a confirmation that the answer is obvious.
Want to try again?
Here we go.
If there is a beginning, would the beginning have had a beginning?
If the beginning is able to plan, must the beginning also be intelligent?


What evidence and what investigations?
Sorry Skepticism may not be terrible, but it must demonstrate open-mindedness
I have not seen that.
You said:
I'm sure lots of people in the past have known lots of things that are true but "The Truth" about how and why everything exists - no. I don't think anybody ever has or probably ever will. I see no merit at all in the incoherent myths of the bible.
Open-minded? No.
See above, anyway.


Yes, from what you've said, thinking too much would probably be a bit of a problem for your variety of Christian.
Yes. Thinking too much foolishness is not recommended for Christians, We are encouraged to reject foolish ideas and reasoning.


I see no evidence or any other reason to think that there is intelligence and it wouldn't be an answer to anything fundamental if there were.

You seem to be very interested in asking lots of questions until you get to what you want to believe and then just switching off your brain....
I don't know how you arrived at that.
You are making statement, but they are not supported by truth. They are simply statements made at whim... it seems. That's not because you have already switched off your brain... is it? :shrug:
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
You can start in this thread The Bible - Why Trust It.

Dear oh, dear - it starts with historically accurate? Not only is that irrelevant to the point, the bible isn't all historically accurate and any non-religious expert will tell you.

So the different opinions on evolution makes it obsolete nonsense....

Firstly, there is no disagreement about the basics of evolution (discounting the tiny, tiny cult with an obvious religious vested interest). Secondly, as far as the details go, we are gathering evidence and testing hypotheses against it. This is science, the evidence isn't meant to be a clear message from some god.

I read everything you posted... before you posted it.

So how do you describe it as "ideas and opinions" when it is quite clearly solid evidence?

I did more than that.

What reasons have you given to think your god is real? Your blind faith in an old, contradictory book of myths and your simplistic intuition about "design", don't even get off the starting block.

That's not so.
It tells you that? How?

Because if the message were clear and unambiguous there wouldn't be so many conflicting interpretations of it. Just look at all the religions, cults, sects, and denominations there are in the world, then tell me with a straight face that there is a clear message from a god in there somewhere.

What questions do I ask about the universe?

Your question: "What is the origin of "design"?" Answer: "my favourite god". Why does your god exist?: "I dunno, who cares?".

I asked you. You didn't answer. That's a confirmation that the answer is obvious.
Want to try again?
Here we go.
If there is a beginning, would the beginning have had a beginning?
If the beginning is able to plan, must the beginning also be intelligent?

I already told you my answer to your questions. These two questions are both nonsensical.

Sorry Skepticism may not be terrible, but it must demonstrate open-mindedness
I have not seen that.
Open-minded? No
Yes. Thinking too much foolishness is not recommended for Christians, We are encouraged to reject foolish ideas and reasoning.

Has that made you feel better?

I don't know how you arrived at that.

Try reading what I said.

You are making statement, but they are not supported by truth.

What truth?

They are simply statements made at whim... it seems.

It seems wrong then.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Dear oh, dear - it starts with historically accurate? Not only is that irrelevant to the point, the bible isn't all historically accurate and any non-religious expert will tell you.
Another claim with no basis.


Firstly, there is no disagreement about the basics of evolution (discounting the tiny, tiny cult with an obvious religious vested interest). Secondly, as far as the details go, we are gathering evidence and testing hypotheses against it. This is science, the evidence isn't meant to be a clear message from some god.
Other claims with no basis.



So how do you describe it as "ideas and opinions" when it is quite clearly solid evidence?
More claims with no basis.


What reasons have you given to think your god is real? Your blind faith in an old, contradictory book of myths and your simplistic intuition about "design", don't even get off the starting block.
More opinion.



Because if the message were clear and unambiguous there wouldn't be so many conflicting interpretations of it. Just look at all the religions, cults, sects, and denominations there are in the world, then tell me with a straight face that there is a clear message from a god in there somewhere.
More opinion.



Your question: "What is the origin of "design"?" Answer: "my favourite god". Why does your god exist?: "I dunno, who cares?".



I already told you my answer to your questions. These two questions are both nonsensical.



Has that made you feel better?



Try reading what I said.



What truth?



It seems wrong then.
More rude comments that require no response.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
No. There are events, such as the decay of a specific radioactive nucleus (rather than another one) that don't appear to have a cause.



I'm not asking you to believe anything - it's you who claimed "physical proof of a creator", remember? I have no idea whether it's sensible to talk of a cause for everything. It's quite easy to come up with ideas based on current science that might suggest otherwise, but that really isn't the point.



If (for the sake of argument) we follow the logic of everything that we know of having a cause, then either there was no first cause and the past is infinite, or there were one or more things that didn't have a cause.

That's it. There is no need for us to postulate anything supernatural, let alone a god or gods, just something(s) we don't know about yet.

So even ignoring all the problems with your assumptions, we are nowhere near "physical proof of a creator".

I would say there's physical proof of a creator in the Bible's record of 100% fulfilled, verifiable, testable, corroborated prophecies.
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
I would say there's physical proof of a creator in the Bible's record of 100% fulfilled, verifiable, testable, corroborated prophecies.
  1. This has nothing to do with your original claim about "the universe, based on the law of conservation and matter and energy".

  2. Is this serious or are you joking? What fulfilled, verifiable, testable, corroborated prophecies? I've never heard of even one that doesn't fall apart under the least bit of scrutiny (much like your initial claim mentioned above).
 

Samantha Rinne

Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
When there is no physical evidence, what made you decide there is or are gods? Do you care about lack of proof? How do you experience this/these deity/deities?


Lack of proof is because atheists say there is a lack of proof. Not because there is.

Suppose for a second thst we are told that an old man named Lord of Heaven and Earth, Father of All Things, created life, the universe, physical objects, and such things as motion/gravity/momentum which allow the moon to orbit Earth and the world we know of to exist.

Okay, how do we prove such a thing exists since we cannot see this? Do we give some complicated proof involving science or scripture or both? No need. It's simple, the easiest evidence of a creator is creation. All of this stuff exists, thereby a creator exists.

But, you say, that's a stupid argument, everyone uses it and it's already been disproven. Firstly, I will lay down cash that no satisfying disproof of something simple like this has ever been given. Oh sure, there are at least two or three major "disproofs" used against theism and another that is commly used which is used even though it carries no weight. Last one, we'll start with.

"But you have no proof (of what you just said) ." This would be a valid idea if we were talking about something that is not in fact self-evident. If you cannot in fact accept that at least on thing in this universe you have seen born (thereby eliminating on of the major arguing points, that the universe is eternal), you are probably deliberately trying to deny basic truth. Too much of this will literally make you insane.

But things aren't just created, they evolve. Sorry, but evolution is not a disproof of creation. When you trace back heritages, everything had a parent, who had a parent, on back until you have to say "if it wasn't created, how tdid this first life exist?"

Or you say, quantum theory says this universe isn't real. Yes, this is a clever theory, except a philosopher already got into this. It's called the Evil Genius or sometimes Evil Demon theory. Basically it goes like this, a demon (unnamed usually), has set up a world that looks, sounds, and even smells real. I can be sure of: the creation (even if it isn't real, someone wove together an illusory canvas), myself, and the demon in question. This is equally true whether or not the world around us is real. In fact, the only thing that changes here is whether or not other people and the created world are real. They exist though, even as illusions, and possibly if they are illusions we can say they're basically the demon talking to us using multiple false bodies. So no, even if you were to propose this world is false, it's still real(ish).

The second one is "we know how all of this stuff works therefore something other than a creator made all of this." Okay, here's the thing. First, let's assume you know everything about the weather, including how to generate it via cloud seeding. It doesn't change the fact that before you came along, weather was operating without human intervention for centuries, no does the knowledge of how something works invalidate it. Or you would basically be saying that because you know how clouds work, they can't exist either. Odds are, you don't actually know, any better than the myth makers of old. You can recite science about it, but neither predict nor control weather so yeah, no. Further, the issue with this is it's basically a fill in. It's like saying, "because I know about how reality works, there cannot be an old man named Lord of Heaven and Earth, Father of All Things. The world is simply too nurturing, to have some old man create it." Congratulations , you turned an old man into an adult woman, and switched Father to Mother. And that's basically all you did. You didn't invalidate the need for a creator, you just shifted their nature. To female. Or to a set of laws like gravity (which you now worship), or to nonexistence which you firmly believe in. Human beings are capable of believing in nothing, but thrpey are not capable of not believing.
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
But, you say, that's a stupid argument, everyone uses it and it's already been disproven. Firstly, I will lay down cash that no satisfying disproof of something simple like this has ever been given.

Nobody's ever provided a satisfying disproof of the universe being sneezed out of the nose of the great green arkleseizure, or of leprechauns, or fairies, or my pet invisible dragon named George.

It's simple, the easiest evidence of a creator is creation.

Or of the nose of the great green arkleseizure. How come this creator or the the great green arkleseizure exists, then? They must, by this "logic", be evidence of a meta-creator or meta-nose.

Or you say, quantum theory says this universe isn't real.
The second one is "we know how all of this stuff works therefore something other than a creator made all of this."

Where are you getting these strange ideas of why people don't believe in gods?

The point is that nobody knows why stuff exists and is the way it is and postulating a god doesn't really help - even if we accept a god (or gods), we still don't know why the god and its created stuff exist and are they way they are.

It's a baseless guess that explains nothing fundamental at all.
 

Samantha Rinne

Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
That's weak, and you know it.

Are there any dragon tracks? No? Then why should we care about dragons? What about pots of gold? Not typically. Sorry leprechauns. Gibberish made up word has zero presence in anything, so also no.

Unicorns, people could at least claim were real. Until they met narwhals.

My dad, yesterday after I wrote this last one, had left for the day. How did I know that he had been here? Finished bowl of cereal. "There is no proof of your dad being there"? Would you also say that? All of us are created. We have a mother and father, but also an original Mother/Father. You can possibly contest whether such still exists (as in "God is dead" spoken by a man, who like many other famous atheists/agnostics (Psychology of atheism - Conservapedia) had a dysfunctional relationship with his own earthly father), but there definitely is the same sort of evidence that you're there as a result of a long process of creation/evolution. Finished bowl of cereal.

Where do I get these strange ideas, you ask? Well, to quote Chrono Trigger, I didn't pick anything up, it's called common sense!

Nobody knows why stuff exists is a copout, as is the declaration that something is a baseless guess. The ancient people once they had free time, had no video games to occupy their attention. Nor were they insane or idiots as you seem to believe. Once work was done, they had most of the day to think about "why are we here?" And they came up with a series of conclusions:
1. I cannot have come from nothing as I was born.
2. While my parents were also born, eventually there had to be a first human.
3. Such a human must have come from somewhere else (evolution as an explanation eventually hits this same point when we get to the earliest bacteria)
4. Natural phenomena doesn't really turn 0 into 1, nonliving into living. So an origin kinda has to have someone else make me who does not also have another making him/her. Otherwise we're left with yet another long chain.
5. There's also all this weather, rocks, trees, ground, sky, stars, sun, and moon.
6. There must be gods/God who did this, cuz whatever did so is so far beyond our power that it can't just have happened.
7. There is a single consistent order to things. There are not gods, but a single God.

Psalm 14:1. "The fool has said in his heart there is no God." You know why he's called a fool? Because everything around him has been given to him, yet he refuses to see any of it. Almost like he feels something would be required if he happened to believe in God, like he'd be forced to worship. Well nothing could be further from the truth. Luke 4:18-19. This is what God wants for us. Not our worship. What do your earthly superiors (bosses, government, etc) demand of you? Oh right. Absolute obedience. Matthew 20:25.
 
Last edited:

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Are there any dragon tracks? No? Then why should we care about dragons? What about pots of gold? Not typically. Sorry leprechauns. Gibberish made up word has zero presence in anything, so also no.

None of this disproves any of my examples. That's the point. Saying that an idea has not been disproved is not an argument that it is correct.

Where do I get these strange ideas, you ask? Well, to quote Chrono Trigger, I didn't pick anything up, it's called common sense!

You don't seem to be paying much attention - I said "Where are you getting these strange ideas of why people don't believe in gods?" You seem to have some odd ideas how atheists come to their conclusions - ones that I don't recognise at all.

Nobody knows why stuff exists is a copout...

No - it's the truth. Even if we accept the existence of a god (or gods), unless you can say why it (or they) exist, you still don't know why things exist.

...as is the declaration that something is a baseless guess.

Unless you can provide a basis (which you haven't), I stand by my statement.

Nor were they insane or idiots as you seem to believe.

I'd ask for your money back from that mind-reading course, if I were you.

Once work was done, they had most of the day to think about "why are we here?" And they came up with a series of conclusions:

Or they liked to tell stories...

So an origin kinda has to have someone else make me who does not also have another making him/her. Otherwise we're left with yet another long chain.

You are begging the question - assuming your conclusion. You have provided no reason at all to think that it is a "someone".

There must be gods/God who did this, cuz whatever did so is so far beyond our power that it can't just have happened.

Baseless day-dreaming. Sure, something must have happened that doesn't fit into the preceding way of thinking but you have provided no basis at all to think it must be anything like "gods" or a "god".

There is a single consistent order to things. There are not gods, but a single God.

Quite apart from the fact that your "reasoning" fell apart before this, this argument is not even valid (it doesn't follow even if its premisses were true).

Psalm 14:1.

Why is it that religious people think that quoting from their holy books is going to impress anybody who is not a believer?

Almost like he feels something would be required if he happened to believe in God, like he'd be forced to worship.

Like I said, that mind-reading course was a waste of money.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
When there is no physical evidence, what made you decide there is or are gods? Do you care about lack of proof? How do you experience this/these deity/deities?
look up

notice the spin, the rotation, the spiral

if the big bang had been "self" starting
the laws of motion would dictate a percussion wave
spherical and empty

but that's not what you see......is it?
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
look up

notice the spin, the rotation, the spiral

if the big bang had been "self" starting
the laws of motion would dictate a percussion wave
spherical and empty

Would it? How does this "self-staring" hypothesis work then? Can we see the maths behind this prediction?
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
proof read it again

I suggest you do that yourself. You started with "if the big bang had been "self" starting..." then made a prediction based on the "laws of motion". You failed to show your working.

I don't believe substance is 'self' starting

I don't think I do either but what do you mean by "substance" and "'self' starting"? What has any of this got to do with your baseless assertions about time and your favourite variety of god?

Spirit first

Mine's a large Scotch, cheers! :grinning:
 

Sand Dancer

Crazy Cat Lady
look up

notice the spin, the rotation, the spiral

if the big bang had been "self" starting
the laws of motion would dictate a percussion wave
spherical and empty

but that's not what you see......is it?

I will have to look into that. Which deity do you see creating everything?
 
Top