Do you believe in God? Simple question

[sport_122]

I must not be making myself clear. It's called inductive reasoning

Outcome: There is a puddle of water on the floor
Previous knowledge: Melted ice creates water
Conclusion: The puddle of water on the floor used to be ice

Obviously the conclusion could very well be wrong. Likewise:

Outcome: Our universe has rules
Previous knowledge: Designers create rules
Conclusion: Our universe was designed

This is equally likely to be incorrect

I hope that clarifies



You're right I'm no expert on Dawkins but non randomness does not mean consciousness or "pseudo-consciousness". If the animals of a species have different height legs and the ones with short legs die in a flood while the ones with long legs survive, the survival was non random but it doesn't mean there was a conscious decision to kill the short leg ones.



I agree that losing abilities does not prove evolution but you're original post was saying that its evidence to disprove evolution and I was just saying it's not. Before you said "why would animals lose abilities if there was evolution" and now you are answering your own question.

As to the fruit flies, send me a link to the study and i'll be glad to discuss it. Evolution doesn't just happen because you have a lot of generations, there has to be a reason to evolve, and there is also no guarantee that the right mutation will occur to meet that need.


Out of curiousity, do you think the animals such as Ardi and Luci are related to humans? Also do you think we may one day find fossils of humans from 250 million years ago?

Its late so I'm gonna be brief...on the subject of reasoning.

there is always a large number of possibilities. but lets say for instance that its not just the puddle of water on the floor, but the puddle of water sits next to the fridge, and the ice box is open and there is a cup sitting on the counter that is full of ice water. And a few moments ago, your spouse came in from a long jog in the hot sun. etc etc.

You give an example as if I believe there is only one piece of evidence that points to a God. I believe there are many things that lead to this conclusion. I believe there are some physical, some logical, and some philosophical and just like any other case of law, or discussion which takes evidence, to look at a single piece could lead one to believe that there is not enough to be convinced or to draw the same conclusion. But the goal has to be to provide several pieces of evidence which point to the same conclusion.

History provides us with eyewitness testimony in the case of Christ (whether you accept it or not), philosophy shows us that our social inclinations and actions follow a greater meaning, science provides us with numerous unanswerable questions and an ever growing truth, that the more we learn the more complex our universe becomes as all of our discovery presents more questions (which is opposite of the simple to complex model demonstrated by evolutionists-meaning life does not start off with the simplicity of a single sell, it starts with the complexity of DNA, which has been called a language in its own right) and as far as we know right now language especially complex language has only been demonstrated to come from conscious minds. But i digress, the evidence exists in all fields of observation for men.

Now it seems that you believe that it is possible for a complex process of carefully orchestrating change in the biology of life to happen naturally. This process is not made up of any specific pattern that has been demonstrated, it is not made up of any means that have been fully documented with any hard "smoking gun" type evidence. It is a broken history and a single thought process which based on the hard science and numbers does not and has not made the case without stretching the interpretation of data. BTW, if this complex process is specific and not random as you seem to agree with Dawkins about, it demonstrates a logic, a methodology, meaning that as you look at it, you can pull logic and theory out of it. this is giving the process the ability to reason logically. If this is the process (generalized of course) then we have just applied a consciousness to this. We could use the same phrasing to describe the actions of a living individual, but try to use it to explain an inanimate object. What makes this process so specific in its intent?

lastly, I do not think that luci and ardi are "pre-humans" and are a part of our ancestry and I don't expect 250 million year old men to surface. I don't think human civilization is that old. I think if we were we would have MUCH MUCH more evidence of it. About lucy and ardi, I think that, much like many would agree, science is looking for something specific. We are trying to find something to fill in a gap. We have been doing so for so long that it is very easy for us to begin to force the issue. I believe that this is the case with the two discoveries. I believe it happens with religion as well.

My point in all of this is not to say that something can be proven one way or the other. I just think my worldview or universe view is supported with much more evidence than many realize. Maybe its because we are in america or maybe its because the evidence that is out there is taken for granted in a passive consumer driven society, but as I weigh the logic of our physical, philosophical, and sociological world I cannot reasonably say that i believe that the cosmos, the spiritual makeup of mankind, and the revelations of the supernatural existence are not the plan of a conscious transcendent mind. Even the very fact that upon our own understanding, men began to ask the questions of our cosmos, and the first questions were not based in a naturalist mindset. we went straight to spiritual. No other life takes this approach to understanding.

[bu villain]

If you believe there is a lot of evidence for God I can't argue that general statement, only specifics. We seem to somewhat be spiraling away from the original issues and arguing logic without regard to the original reason it was brought up.

I have no problem with people believing in a God per se and I have no motive for believing there to be no God or not. I don't feel I would live my life any differently either way. The existence of a God doesn't make this universe any less or more amazing or beautiful. My mind is open should something occur to prove the existence of God but until I find that evidence, I can't just believe He/She/It exists.


If you don't mind, I'm curious as to your answers on these questions. If they don't apply to your concept of God, just say so.

1. What motivates an all powerful being to do anything?
2. Why would you choose to believe in an all powerful benevolent god as apposed to an unfathomably powerful alien who has merely created the universe as an experiment?
3. Do people have free will? If so, why would God give us free only to punish us for making choices He doesn't approve of?

[trini_gsr]

If you don't mind, I'm curious as to your answers on these questions. If they don't apply to your concept of God, just say so.

1. What motivates an all powerful being to do anything?
2. Why would you choose to believe in an all powerful benevolent god as apposed to an unfathomably powerful alien who has merely created the universe as an experiment?
3. Do people have free will? If so, why would God give us free only to punish us for making choices He doesn't approve of?

i know you didn't ask me specifically but i've been following your debate and like to add my . me and sport_122's worldviews are sorta close, although he probably won't agree with my replies:

1) i obviously can't definitively answer this question because i'm not all-powerful LOL. but here's my opinion. i've said this in another thread here, maybe this one...but i believe one of the motivating factors for the creation of cognitive life in the universe is because of the joy that results from watching it grow/evolve.

in a way, it's the same reason why we as adults choose to have or adopt children. our lives might be complete - we might be financially independent, in good health, etc - but to bring a life into the world and watch him/her grow into an adult and share those experiences brings a lot of joy. it's kinda hard to explain it exactly but anyone who has kids (i have a son) will understand exactly what i mean.

now sport_122 and others will argue that God is perfect and thereby unchanging, but i also believe God to be dynamic. it's not to say God is growing or changing from the experiences of his creation, but it makes sense to me that He would feel a sense of satisfaction from it, like a proud parent i guess...

this of course is all speculation on my part...based on what i've learned so far. i have no way of proving it but it appeals to my logic.

2) good question. ultimately we don't KNOW the answer because we don't know what kind of being God is. my worldview starts by assuming God is the beginning of all things - whether he is an alien kid and the universe is his ant farm or not is outside the scope of my worldview so i can't comment on it.

the universe *is* God's experiment/pet-project though. whether He is benevolent or not. it is a figment of God's imagination - but for God, thought can immediately manifest itself into our reality. humans have the same ability but on a much more limited scale. but that's another discussion.

3) ppl do have free will. i don't think it is a matter of God punishing us per se. i think it boils down to the universal laws of action and reaction. the short answer is, the universe is designed to function according to God's will - physically and spiritually. if you CHOOSE to operate outside of these parameters, then just like anything else, those actions have consequences. this doesn't take into account the random sh!t that happens to everybody, good or bad. this is a subject that's debated a lot.

gotta go...more later

[sport_122]

My mind is open should something occur to prove the existence of God but until I find that evidence, I can't just believe He/She/It exists.

I guess I just believe that this evidence is already here, but I can respect your views.

If you don't mind, I'm curious as to your answers on these questions. If they don't apply to your concept of God, just say so.

1. What motivates an all powerful being to do anything?
2. Why would you choose to believe in an all powerful benevolent god as apposed to an unfathomably powerful alien who has merely created the universe as an experiment?
3. Do people have free will? If so, why would God give us free only to punish us for making choices He doesn't approve of?

Great questions...

1. Depends on the character that you believe that being has. I believe that God by definition has to do certain things to maintain His own integrity. Some of these things include anger, jealousy and other emotion type things that we would consider to be bad characteristics, but are justified in the context of which God demonstrates. I believe that there is more to creation than just the universe as we currently understand it. but I'd like to put forward the thought that God is not God if he allows people to act outside of his law, or if he is okay with people worshiping and uplifting other deities above him. these two things under mind the Godhood of God. If he falters on these rules he demonstrates that he is not God at all because he has relinqushed authority to another. Think about parents that you see who relinquish there authority to their children. the kids become the authority unto themselves and the parent has to fight to regain it. This is demonstrated all over the place.

2. Because I don't see reasonable evidence to assume that the universe is designed by the types of aliens that fly around in saucers...even though I believe they are very real, I don't believe that a community of aliens would be exempt from explaining their origins. But the simple answer is that there is no evidence for that...unless you want to call God an alien because he does not originate on earth. But there is evidence that suggests, by theorists that extra terrestrial beings acknowledge a higher presence...but the UFO stuff is a thread that is waiting for BabyJ to get started...I would love to talk about that because it is very intriguing to me and I believe that our biblical history has evidence of extra terrestrial life visiting earth.

3) ppl do have free will. i don't think it is a matter of God punishing us per se. i think it boils down to the universal laws of action and reaction. the short answer is, the universe is designed to function according to God's will - physically and spiritually. if you CHOOSE to operate outside of these parameters, then just like anything else, those actions have consequences. this doesn't take into account the random sh!t that happens to everybody, good or bad. this is a subject that's debated a lot.

yeah we sort of agree on the other questions but not this one.

3. I don't believe people have free will. This is deeper than I can go, but two free wills cannot exist in this case. As soon as the two wills oppose one another then freedom is no longer for one or both of those wills. So the philosophical answer is no. Based on my worldview, my will cannot trump that of God therefore it cannot be free. I can only do that which is allowed based on the will of God. My will is subject to another therefore I cannot have a free will. I do not believe that I can act outside of his will. Even though I have the ability to make choices, the options on the table are limited. They are limited to the revelation of the universe that has provided me. I will not choose to do things that I have no knowledge or awareness of. ***Think of a multiple choice question where you can choose A,B,C, or D, but you don't have the ability to write in your answer. You demonstrate the ability to choose freely, but your options are limited based on what has been provided to you. I wrote more about this in a previous post in this thread.

[trini_gsr]

1. Depends on the character that you believe that being has. I believe that God by definition has to do certain things to maintain His own integrity. Some of these things include anger, jealousy and other emotion type things that we would consider to be bad characteristics, but are justified in the context of which God demonstrates. I believe that there is more to creation than just the universe as we currently understand it. but I'd like to put forward the thought that God is not God if he allows people to act outside of his law, or if he is okay with people worshiping and uplifting other deities above him. these two things under mind the Godhood of God. If he falters on these rules he demonstrates that he is not God at all because he has relinqushed authority to another. Think about parents that you see who relinquish there authority to their children. the kids become the authority unto themselves and the parent has to fight to regain it. This is demonstrated all over the place.

just because you choose to defy God doesn't in any way shape or form undermine his Godliness or ultimate authority. it doesn't change the nature of who or what He is. to use your example with kids, my son has the FREE WILL to defy me if he wants, but because i currently define the parameters of his immediate reality (lol), if he CHOOSES not to obey my rules, those actions come with specific consequences (being grounded, no tv, etc).

the universal law of cause and effect still works, even in his 6 yr old context. whether he wants to listen to me or not, it still doesn't change the situation (i'm his dad and I make the d@mn rules). my authority isn't remotely in question or even debatable . either he can listen to me and live pretty comfortably, or defy me and have a pretty miserable young life. it's his call. LOL.

it works the same for God. it's not a matter of whether God is "okay" with us defying Him. The parameters for how the universe operate have already been set. There's NOTHING we can do to undermine what God has established. It already IS what it IS. We've been left with the ability to choose. You can either work in harmony with it, or fight against it and make things harder on yourself. It's our choice.

3. I don't believe people have free will. This is deeper than I can go, but two free wills cannot exist in this case. As soon as the two wills oppose one another then freedom is no longer for one or both of those wills. So the philosophical answer is no. Based on my worldview, my will cannot trump that of God therefore it cannot be free. I can only do that which is allowed based on the will of God. My will is subject to another therefore I cannot have a free will. I do not believe that I can act outside of his will. Even though I have the ability to make choices, the options on the table are limited. They are limited to the revelation of the universe that has provided me. I will not choose to do things that I have no knowledge or awareness of. ***Think of a multiple choice question where you can choose A,B,C, or D, but you don't have the ability to write in your answer. You demonstrate the ability to choose freely, but your options are limited based on what has been provided to you. I wrote more about this in a previous post in this thread.

yeah, we do disagree here, but just a bit. maybe a better word for "free will" as i see it is self-determination. i agree with you, we don't have ultimate freedom because we have to work within the context of the reality we were created in. our universe operates by rules that we have no control over.

but within that context, we have the freedom to make whatever choices we want. however, the choices that we make are subject to the rules of cause and effect, so these choices come with consequences that are destined to happen as a result. free will and destiny to me are 2 sides to the same coin - they are intertwined. here's an example - everyone born is destined to die at some point, but how long you live and what you do with your life is subject to your free will.

[bu villain]

Interesting responses...maybe as a couple followup questions:

1. Why must God be all powerful instead of just unfathomably smart and powerful, although not infinitely?
2. Why can their only be one God and not two? (This question is only relevant if you do not feel God must be all powerful)

[trini_gsr]

Interesting responses...maybe as a couple followup questions:

1. Why must God be all powerful instead of just unfathomably smart and powerful, although not infinitely?

From our perspective, it kinda doesn't matter if God is reaaaallllly powerful but maybe not infinitely so, etc. It's so far outside of our potential that it's basically infinite by our standards anyhow.

2. Why can their only be one God and not two? (This question is only relevant if you do not feel God must be all powerful)

This is actually a good question. The Bible implies that God had an audience (of at least one) when he created the universe. There's different schools of thought on this, one of them being that God 1st created (or chose to define himself) as 3 distinct beings - Himself, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. And these 3 beings are responsible for the creation of the universe. That's why Jesus is called God's "only begotten" son. Other religions have other ideas, and a lot of them include a plurality of Godlike beings responsible for the universe's creation.

I have a developing opinion about this though. I think that God existed in the absolute in the beginning (everything = God, and there is no basis for differentiation), and He decided to redefine His existence in the relative.

Another way to say it is before creation, the totality of existence = everything = something + nothing/void = God. God then decided to take the "something" part of himself and contain or define it against (or relative to) the "nothing" - which I think is what we currently call the Big Bang. This happened on a physical and spiritual/conscious level. The latter part being the basis for cognitive life (or souls) in the universe.

It's really abstract and probably sounds a little crazy and I haven't finished fleshing that idea out, but that's where I am right now with it . This has really been an interesting conversation...

[sport_122]

This is actually a good question. The Bible implies that God had an audience (of at least one) when he created the universe.

this may be a popular thought but it is very clear that the Bible says that the spirit and Christ were present at the creation. Yes they are all the same according to the Bible. but it never gives an account of the creation of Christ. Nor the creation of the holy spirit.

And both of them are in the creation account. Christ"in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God" this is referring to Christ.

also in the beginning the holy spirit covered the earth upon its creation so it was there as well.

sorry. I had to interject this because it is not Biblically accurate to say that Christ or the holy spirit was created. The Bible puts both of them there with the Father during creation.

[sport_122]

just because you choose to defy God doesn't in any way shape or form undermine his Godliness or ultimate authority. it doesn't change the nature of who or what He is. to use your example with kids, my son has the FREE WILL to defy me if he wants, but because i currently define the parameters of his immediate reality (lol), if he CHOOSES not to obey my rules, those actions come with specific consequences (being grounded, no tv, etc).

the universal law of cause and effect still works, even in his 6 yr old context. whether he wants to listen to me or not, it still doesn't change the situation (i'm his dad and I make the d@mn rules). my authority isn't remotely in question or even debatable . either he can listen to me and live pretty comfortably, or defy me and have a pretty miserable young life. it's his call. LOL.

it works the same for God. it's not a matter of whether God is "okay" with us defying Him. The parameters for how the universe operate have already been set. There's NOTHING we can do to undermine what God has established. It already IS what it IS. We've been left with the ability to choose. You can either work in harmony with it, or fight against it and make things harder on yourself. It's our choice.



yeah, we do disagree here, but just a bit. maybe a better word for "free will" as i see it is self-determination. i agree with you, we don't have ultimate freedom because we have to work within the context of the reality we were created in. our universe operates by rules that we have no control over.

but within that context, we have the freedom to make whatever choices we want. however, the choices that we make are subject to the rules of cause and effect, so these choices come with consequences that are destined to happen as a result. free will and destiny to me are 2 sides to the same coin - they are intertwined. here's an example - everyone born is destined to die at some point, but how long you live and what you do with your life is subject to your free will.

Your actions do not affect God or his Godhood because you cannot act according to your own will, but allowing you to defy his authority is in the character of God, but doing so without penalty is NOT and this is were we see God punishing nations for their choices. Much like a law that you ignore. If the police just let you speed then your authority has trumped theirs with regards to speeding. When the character of God, as i believe is revealed to us, is demonstrated he very intent on making sure that you understand who is boss.

also if we don't have ultimate freedom then we don't have free will. If we don't have the ability to make any choice and to know and act on the infinite possibilities without any worries of consequences then we do not have free will. Our will is subjected to another authority. Whether you believe its just the laws of nature or you believe its God. We cannot do whatever we want. No matter how determined you are to do so, you cannot cut out your own organs and give them to someone else and survive. You cannot skydive without some sort of parachute, you cannot and will never make a decision to do something that you have no knowledge of. Free choices within limitations is not free will. Thats just the simplicity of it.

Hmmm... let's say that there is one "correct" answer.

If you choose wrong and go to hell b/c of it - what role did God play in you going to hell- he limited you to 1 right answer, and 3 wrong - yet allowed you to choose wrong. He also PROVIDED the 3 incorrect answers.

Elaborate

Not sure what the question is that presents the one correct answer? what is the question?

This is a very difficult question to answer for people who already don't understand the character of God (or who want to argue for his non-existence through emotional appeals) as presented in the Bible. But in short, there is much more to the question you ask than can be covered this quickly.

For instance, the whole thing about salvation. Most people think that YOU choose to be "saved". I don't. I think its grace I think that the decision is a response to things that God does in your life and in your heart. I think without him doing those things, then you will never make the choice.

I also believe there is another thing missing. The understanding that we are incapable of attaining a level of spiritual salvation without God. So in essence I believe we are on our way to hell before God intervenes and his intervention is what saves us. You understand the difference in that order?

Then we get into the mindset that some take...if God is so good then why does he send people to hell? Well because he cannot defy his own character or he defaults on his godhood.

Now to answer the question:
I believe that a just (as in- the embodiment of Justice) God created law. A part of law is justice and certainty of punishment for breaking the law. It seems like when people want to argue with the existence or character of God, they try to fault him for being who he has to be by definition. We get upset with God because he punishes and condemns us for breaking his laws. This is not the sign of a tyrannical God, it is the sign of a just God. Even now in our societies we are talking about the lack of justice. People wanting to let a child molester go, a kidnapper walks free, murderers walk out of our court system everyday and politician...well we wont even go there, but we are shocked by these things. Yet when we run across God and he does not waver in his law and in the implementation of his justice then we are shocked.

So in essence what we are seeing is not a question where god provided three wrong answers. He actually added in the ability to select a right answer when none was previously provided. Why was none provided, because the standard of Gods law is out of our reach on our own power. God created a law that is presented as the highest law. We created laws based off of his law. We cannot live up to our own standards let alone his. But maybe just maybe he didn't say I am going to give them one right answer and three wrong ones. Maybe he said "I see that they have no right answer because of the law that I gave them, I will provide them with one." This action of grace is much more in the character of the God that is seen in the Bible.



BabyJ...if I send you my number could we discuss this one by phone...its way more involved than even this, and I am always learning more about this one everyday.

Interesting responses...maybe as a couple followup questions:

1. Why must God be all powerful instead of just unfathomably smart and powerful, although not infinitely?
2. Why can their only be one God and not two? (This question is only relevant if you do not feel God must be all powerful)

You ask great questions, but the answers are more in depth than I can really go on a forum like this. This is better as a verbal discussion.
1. Because an all intelligent being without power has not ability to follow through on his planned justice. To be just and to be righteous he must have the authority in power to do so. A court with now police and no agents handing down rules of law is a powerless court. It is only when those rules and law can be enforced that the law is taken seriously. That is a sociological thing. He has to have the power to assert his authority over us and to enforce the laws which he has decreed. Again this depends on your understanding of the character of God. I don't believe God created and then stepped back. I believe he is much more involved.

Also we can only define infinite based on our universe and the understanding of how it works. There are postulations about other universes etc, but even in understanding those we are going to be limited to the understanding presented by the universe we live in. If God is the creator of this universe and all things in it then when do we come to the point of being able to define his (unfathombly-which is the same as infinite) mind? We don't because the nature of the universe is such that we live in it. We cannot understand a universe outside of it because the rules (hypothetically) would change, and we cannot get our hands around this one to make fully understood observations. By that methodology I believe it is reasonable for us to assume that the creator who is described as infinite, and non created, would hold all of the knowledge of his creation and then some as he can exist outside of it and in it at the same time.
2. For the same reason as the first. If there are two separate Gods then the authority gets split which way. Also the claims that I believe God has made about himself could not be true...in that he claims to be God of gods, Lord of lords, King of kings. If there are two separate Gods then the idea that Gods power is equally match eliminates the ability to be God as I think we all are perceiving.

[trini_gsr]

Your actions do not affect God or his Godhood because you cannot act according to your own will, but allowing you to defy his authority is in the character of God, but doing so without penalty is NOT and this is were we see God punishing nations for their choices. Much like a law that you ignore. If the police just let you speed then your authority has trumped theirs with regards to speeding. When the character of God, as i believe is revealed to us, is demonstrated he very intent on making sure that you understand who is boss.

also if we don't have ultimate freedom then we don't have free will. If we don't have the ability to make any choice and to know and act on the infinite possibilities without any worries of consequences then we do not have free will. Our will is subjected to another authority. Whether you believe its just the laws of nature or you believe its God. We cannot do whatever we want. No matter how determined you are to do so, you cannot cut out your own organs and give them to someone else and survive. You cannot skydive without some sort of parachute, you cannot and will never make a decision to do something that you have no knowledge of. Free choices within limitations is not free will. Thats just the simplicity of it.

our definition of what free will is clearly differs. because i think that free will is the ability to make whatever CHOICES you want, accepting the consequences that comes as a result. You can CHOOSE to skydive without a parachute, but in doing so you realize will probably die. You can CHOOSE to speed on the hwy, but in doing so you realize that eventually you will get a ticket. A slave might not have any freedom, but yet he can still CHOOSE to defy his master, although doing so might mean punishment or death. Just because you can't control the consequences of your choice, doesn't make that choice any less yours to make. This is what it means to have free will.

[BABY J]

3. I don't believe people have free will. This is deeper than I can go, but two free wills cannot exist in this case. As soon as the two wills oppose one another then freedom is no longer for one or both of those wills. So the philosophical answer is no. Based on my worldview, my will cannot trump that of God therefore it cannot be free. I can only do that which is allowed based on the will of God. My will is subject to another therefore I cannot have a free will. I do not believe that I can act outside of his will. Even though I have the ability to make choices, the options on the table are limited. They are limited to the revelation of the universe that has provided me. I will not choose to do things that I have no knowledge or awareness of. ***Think of a multiple choice question where you can choose A,B,C, or D, but you don't have the ability to write in your answer. You demonstrate the ability to choose freely, but your options are limited based on what has been provided to you. I wrote more about this in a previous post in this thread.

Hmmm... let's say that there is one "correct" answer.

If you choose wrong and go to hell b/c of it - what role did God play in you going to hell- he limited you to 1 right answer, and 3 wrong - yet allowed you to choose wrong. He also PROVIDED the 3 incorrect answers.

Elaborate