God created or naturally arised

[Brian2]

Some people see God, as the saying goes, as the Grand Clockmaker. Every natural process is thus one of the tools in the arsenal of the deity. You might be familiar with the famous saying "any science advanced enough will look like magic". The opposite is equally true any "magic" sufficiently understood and detailed is impossible to differentiate from a natural phenomenon. The idea of the Grand Clockmaker is to produce a theology from which magic and the supernatural is absent. There is only the Clock and all of its mysterious working and by understanding the Clock you can understand glimpse of the Grand Clockmaker. Those who hold on to such a belief don't feel that appeals to magic are necessary for their theistic beliefs.

A miracle is a miracle and looks like magic to us if you want to use the term magic. It does not matter if all of God's miracles may be understood one day, this day it looks like an appeal to magic.
What I don't like is the mocking that goes on by atheists who say we are appealing to magic and then to say that science has learned about things that used to be goddidit things and science will learn about anything else that is a godditit thing, but still say that believers make an appeal to magic, no doubt realising that miracles of God in the Bible are even magic to them and so they have to just deny that they happened.
Long sentence, I hope you could follow.

 

[Brian2]

Indeed. I don't believe in any deities or "creator" for that reason. It's not exactly needed for nature to exist.

Sounds like a guess to me. Who told you a creator is not needed for nature to exist?

 

[epronovost]

Sounds like a guess to me. Who told you a creator is not needed for nature to exist?

The fact that it would be impossible for causality to be caused and since causality is a feature of the universe, the universe cannot be caused.

What makes you say it's needed that the universe has a creator?

We are all making guesses here. I follow the "in doubt, abstain" axiom.

 

[Starlight]

What i believe, a answer to the question:

Energy is motion or the potential for it. Energy is the motive force of the universe. Energy is universal , infinitive, never created or destroyed. And this energy is God. God is conscious spiritual energy/force.

I believe it is logical to believe in God. God is universal, infinitive, never destroyed or created.

 

[firedragon]

I see some here that believe in a god and that a god created things but yet in the same breath argue for abiogenesis, evolution and the big bang.

So my question is if you accept everything happened naturally, why do you believe in a god? Why is a god needed in your belief of things?

How does abiogenesis defy God? Or evolution, or the big bang for that matter?

 

[PureX]

I see some here that believe in a god and that a god created things but yet in the same breath argue for abiogenesis, evolution and the big bang.

So my question is if you accept everything happened naturally, why do you believe in a god? Why is a god needed in your belief of things?

It's the idea that God is the origin of "natural order", and that all specific things arise from that natural order.

 

[SigurdReginson]

I see some here that believe in a god and that a god created things but yet in the same breath argue for abiogenesis, evolution and the big bang.

So my question is if you accept everything happened naturally, why do you believe in a god? Why is a god needed in your belief of things?

Depends on what role you want god(s) to fill. They are more than just the shapers and movers of reality to some, and science does very little in the way of spiritual fulfillment.

 

[Brian2]

The fact that it would be impossible for causality to be caused and since causality is a feature of the universe, the universe cannot be caused.

What makes you say it's needed that the universe has a creator?

We are all making guesses here. I follow the "in doubt, abstain" axiom.

It sounds like it is also a guess about causality being only a feature of the universe.
It needs a cause.
One cannot help but take sides. If you do not believe, that is one side,

 

[F1fan]

Without a sense of the Divine, life would have no intrinsic meaning and purpose and my experience is that life has intrinsic meaning and purpose.

But setting goals worthy of the self could be said to be intrinsic. Why the need to apply the idea of a "divine"? How does that help anything?

Isn't setting a goal and accomplishing it enough?

 

[osgart]

Well how does anyone get around the idea that something in existence must be perpetual and eternal otherwise nothing would exist? There is that which has dependent existence and cannot be the reason for itself. There is independent existence where the existent thing is self sufficient for its own existence and can't exit existence nor does it come into being.

It makes sense that something has to be perpetual eternal. Some people might call that God, or the god reality. So it makes sense that the god reality is purely natural or has otherwise possible laws of its own existence.

Or does everyone believe the universe is finite with nothing else going on outside of it. I think that an impossibility; existence at a fixed point is infinite in all directions. Infinite or nothing exists.

What's the truth value of math and logic that it can decide what is natural and what is not possible? How can we dismiss unknown unknowns? This earth is our finite, limited perspective which means possibility could be grander than we ever can imagine.

 

[epronovost]

It sounds like it is also a guess about causality being only a feature of the universe.

Causality is definitely a feature of our universe. That's not even in question. You can't cause the principle which governs causal chains anymore that you could build the process of building things or concepts. It would be a fallacy of stolen concept. We can't speculate if it's also a feature of other universes or if there are even such a thing like other universes. That's pure speculative science-fiction there, at least for the moment.

 

[Magical Wand]

My question... So my question is if you accept everything happened naturally, why do you believe in a god? Why is a god needed in your belief of things?

Well, it depends on what you mean by "needed." For instance, one may argue it is "needed", because it is not possible to have ultimate meaning unless one believes in God.

On other hand, you may mean "needed" in the sense that one can't make sense of the natural world unless one believes in God. If that's the case, there are other arguments for God that do not conflict with naturalistic science. For example, the argument from contingency is compatible with the Big Bang and even with a past-eternal universe.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I see some here that believe in a god and that a god created things but yet in the same breath argue for abiogenesis, evolution and the big bang.

So my question is if you accept everything happened naturally, why do you believe in a god? Why is a god needed in your belief of things?

Well, here's the thing; none of those theories discount a theological view of them.

Abiogenesis is a theory regarding how life arose - specifically on Earth. It's often worded as "life from nothing", but that really only speaks to the physical elemental components. Rather than assume a myth of creation from driftwood and divine breath, or anything else, it could just as easily be framed as "a god created the process of life through amino acids and proteins".

Likewise, the Theory of Biological Evolution regards how life changes or adapts to it's environment. Even for beliefs, this doesn't count out or disprove a deity shaping life, akin to a sculptor molding clay. We're only observing the process by which life adapts, not disproving that there's something driving that adaptation. (That is, if a deity's duty or realm of authority is to shepherd such a process.)

Lastly, there are even some myths that can work quite well with the Big Bang Theory. For example, the beginning of the creation myth for Scandinavian cultures tells of the clashing of Muspellsheimr and Niflheimr, and from that clash came about the materials necessary to form all of existence. That clash can be quite well described as a "big bang", and the subsequent forming of elements as the rime frost, Auðumbla, and the Ymir.

However, more accurately, myths are myths. Stories. They're not to be taken as literal accounts of an event, and below them even Legends shouldn't be taken at face value. Theology needn't always be at odds with scientific process, and exploring the physical world doesn't always push away a god.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I see some here that believe in a god and that a god created things but yet in the same breath argue for abiogenesis, evolution and the big bang.

So my question is if you accept everything happened naturally, why do you believe in a god? Why is a god needed in your belief of things?

At first I come by a 'Need' for it through family, but this is not true in the end. At first it comes to me through trying to understand the background of my family's beliefs and a path for them and for myself. This is the early motivation for me to learn about God, where I get my start, but its not the answer to your question. First of all God is I think invisible and exists not in the physical sense, but I think neither do we. We have the illusion of being physically real.

God is invisible, but I think God is only discovered when we are seeking certain things such as when we exercise our morals. Consider that age old question of how and why humans should live together in peace. We can get closer to the answer but can't seem to reach it. I think seeking this answer is seeking God and the answer is hidden in God. This is where God is encountered -- in seeking invisible answers like how to live together better, that kind of seeking. Its like you're on a road on your way there to find this elusive answer, and a stranger comes alongside. Its not like finding a thing or a place.

As for whether God is real: I think we humans are no more real than unicorns. I arrive at this view honestly. The physical search for underlying evidence of real existence has also shown that our illusion of reality breaks down under close scrutiny, breaks down into no evidence of existence at all. I ask why is there something instead of nothing. I reason about this and try to come up with a satisfying guess, but there isn't one. Observation suggests that everything is real, but then more and closer observation belies that. There are patterns, and we seem to be made of those.

None of the above requires that I deny Evolution, though many of my family members struggle with this idea and think they have to believe in YEC. They don't see things the way I do.

 

[sun rise]

But setting goals worthy of the self could be said to be intrinsic. Why the need to apply the idea of a "divine"? How does that help anything?

Isn't setting a goal and accomplishing it enough?

Back during my search one of my root questioning chains started with "either life has intrinsic meaning or it does not". If it has no intrinsic meaning, than any goals I set are ultimately meaningless. If life has intrinsic meaning, there has to be a source for that meaning.

And I went from there.

 

[rational experiences]

Why does science theory God to know God to gain God then convert God to own energy for a machine god?

As it is a human science practice.

So you prove you don't believe in God or its presence yourselves.

Teaching where did God come from said spiritually the eternal owning language applied a study to the spirit of language. Not the same as their bodies. In spirit. A reason why change was enacted.

Held sounds looking in study of as O o.

Gods.

Language flowed in eternal mass. Holding. sound in mass thinned the surrounding eternal. As it was forced held eternal mass.

Why the basis of all things the same.

It began to stretch abnormally inside the eternal then burst. Bursting caused friction so O O God bodies began to burn. As they burnt the space womb opened.

Spaçe opening slowed burning applied pressure. How gods were formed inside space womb. Held cooled.

Now a separated body out of the eternal. But held in a space womb. Rest of eternal not harmed nor changed.

We were all still in the eternal. Only God owned the fall origin.

O gods ended held. O some gods in womb history exploded destroyed scattered.

Yet gods were hot inside kept bursting.

Space cooled the eruptions. So a spatial plane around earth was filled in.

Eternal crossed it's spirits direct into earths atmosphere at ground Zero. Floated out nature spirit instantly grounded.

As it grounded it's rooting caused new eternal spirits to come out.

Why we always knew we came from the eternal but were never gods journey.

Basic advice.

As a living human I don't agree with cruelty. Which proves I came from a loving place that owned no control over its body released.

Animals living with me prove they came from the same place also. They can love as kindly as I can.

I can claim nature loves me but I own no proof.

God defined spiritually. God defined for science not the same reasons.

 

[We Never Know]

Well, it depends on what you mean by "needed." For instance, one may argue it is "needed", because it is not possible to have ultimate meaning unless one believes in God.

On other hand, you may mean "needed" in the sense that one can't make sense of the natural world unless one believes in God. If that's the case, there are other arguments for God that do not conflict with naturalistic science. For example, the argument from contingency is compatible with the Big Bang and even with a past-eternal universe.

By needed I mean many religious people believe everything is here only because a god created it. Therefore a god was needed to create it.

 

[We Never Know]

How does abiogenesis defy God? Or evolution, or the big bang for that matter?

None defy a god. But naturally arose doesn't need a god to create them.

 

[firedragon]

None defy a god. But naturally arose doesn't need a god to create them.

Thats a misrepresentation of theology. I appreciate your sentiment, but consider where did anything natural came to be, that's the position. There maybe some people who believe that things just came up to be like a magicians work. But I would think you should address the more advance ideas. Lets say Abiogenesis is proven fact, where did the lifeless matter come from?

 

[Magical Wand]

By needed I mean many religious people believe everything is here only because a god created it. Therefore a god was needed to create it.

Sure. That's compatible with the contingency argument. One may believe in the Big Bang and evolution, but the question of why the physical world exists rather than nothing still arises. So, that's one possible way the theist might say God is still needed.