Why should I believe in the God?

[Natsu Shazneel]

Did God create man or did man create the gods? Does God really exist or did man just create a religion that forsees God?

God created man. God exists because otherwise there would be no reason to exist.

Also, if "God" supposedly created us then why did he know that we would sin?

Because he created us with a mind and will of our own. Meaning we get to choose our own destiny.

Why does he want imperfect creatures just to test his will? Is he arrogant or selfish? What joy does he get out of testing us?

Well seeing something is easier to believe than not seeing something. Testing people on something like that is challenging. Which I am sure nearly every man thrives to do. He is testing us to see if we can overlook this handicap that he has given us. Testing humanity completely on faith instead of showing his visual self.

I could give you a different answer but that would dwell too much in my faith. Which I am sure you have little to no interest in.

 

[Marin]

Problem with that quote is that it doesn't solve the problem of which religion and which god should be worshiped. So in the end you have as much chance of getting it right as anybody else.

And you are asking atheists to pretend as if they believe even when they actually don't.

Once you've established the existence of God, the question of which version is true becomes a task of comparative religion if nothing else. At the very least one can weight the odds for each religion and see which one has more going for it. Additionally, for exclusivistic religions all one has to do is prove his own to be right and he'd by default eliminate all competitors without the need of going through each one.

The question "which God?" should only be asked after one has dealt with "is God?", so nothing really wrong with his post.

Because of overwhelming scientific and mathematical evidences that prove God exists. Unlike our fellow atheists, science and existence of God are in harmony rather in contradiction. The more science discovers, the more we are closer to God's existence. The universe with such complex design and accurate process is the work of a designer, instead of ridiculous assertion that it happened by nothing, as mathematics support.

Well said. Might I add, with the scope of knowledge we currently hold, the odds for atheism are basically null. The only actual point of contention one should take is whether the concepts of theism or deism are right, for the notion of there being no God is currently very unjustified.

 

[Avani]

Lol it wouldn't hurt tho to believe in God.

Problem with that quote is that it doesn't solve the problem of which religion and which god should be worshiped. So in the end you have as much chance of getting it right as anybody else.

And you are asking atheists to pretend as if they believe even when they actually don't.

Once you've established the existence of God, the question of which version is true becomes a task of comparative religion if nothing else. At the very least one can weight the odds for each religion and see which one has more going for it. Additionally, for exclusivistic religions all one has to do is prove his own to be right and he'd by default eliminate all competitors without the need of going through each one.

The question "which God?" should only be asked after one has dealt with "is God?", so nothing really wrong with his post.

Right or wrong is not a word I would use. I am stating the issues with that statement- he made an appeal to emotion in that sentence instead of establishing anything. You are only asking me to ignore them.

 

[Marin]

Right or wrong is not a word I would use. I am stating the issues with that statement- he made an appeal to emotion in that sentence instead of establishing anything. You are only asking me to ignore them.

Appeal to emotion? Not at all.

He gave a pretty solid (rational) reason to believe in a creator God so why pick out only the last sentence? Even if he only wrote the last one it still wouldn't be appeal to emotion for that is a fallacy which intends to manipulate one into conceding when in reality all Omega said was "it wouldn't hurt". I fail to see any attempt of emotional manipulation in his post.

 

[Avani]

i

Appeal to emotion? Not at all.

He gave a pretty solid (rational) reason to believe in a creator God so why pick out only the last sentence? Even if he only wrote the last one it still wouldn't be appeal to emotion for that is a fallacy which intends to manipulate one into conceding when in reality all Omega said was "it wouldn't hurt". I fail to see any attempt of emotional manipulation in his post.

So you chose to NOT address issues at hand but to question me questing the argument itself. Hmm..My reply is -And why not ? That was the closing argument.

Pretty solid for you- because you are already convinced that it's sufficient reason (one that leads to a given kind of theism).

'It wouldn't hurt though' - You fail to see that it's an appeal to emotion and the chance of selecting the incorrect doctrine is irrelevant to you as long as can convince them to at least pretend to believe.. the way Sakura was trying to convince Naruto that she loved him.. I wonder if God will be just as flattered as Naruto was.

Whatever.. good night.

 

[ComplexCity]

Well said. Might I add, with the scope of knowledge we currently hold, the odds for atheism are basically null. The only actual point of contention one should take is whether the concepts of theism or deism are right, for the notion of there being no God is currently very unjustified.

I'd like to see this scientific evidence you both are speaking of since Science is the study of the natural world

 

[Marin]

I'd like to see this scientific evidence you both are speaking of since Science is the study of the natural world

Any form of teleological argument would suffice, be it based on inherent data in each organism, fine-tuning, a specific set of action, nature of evolution or something else. The mere observation of the world is a good reason to believe there is a creator, God being just one way to call it.

 

[ComplexCity]

Any form of teleological argument would suffice, be it based on inherent data in each organism, fine-tuning, a specific set of action, nature of evolution or something else. The mere observation of the world is a good reason to believe there is a creator, God being just one way to call it.

I'm playing the Devil's Advocate here....



Where is the scientific proof that it came from God?

 

[Dannie]

God created man.

Where is your proof? The bible?

Let's talk about how the bible is a product of man. Do you really think this convincing book of fiction was sent from heaven, or do you want to believe that it came from heaven? Does heaven exist? Are you really certain that you will arrive at eternal paradise after you die? After you die, how will you even know if you have reached heaven? Are the other dead people that behaved themselves on earth in heaven? Did they call you to tell you they are in heaven?

The oldest forms of religion was the involvement of spirits in inanimate objects - animism. This developed and became the idea that some spirits were more powerful than others. This led to the belief of a single God and this was brought up later on through time.

Regardless of what any doctrine might say or teach us, or the movement of Christian evangelism in the Christian church promoting people to worship with them, no "loving" or "moral" god would make salvation depend on believing in them with simple nonexistent evidence.

Why should I believe in the idea that a single God created us when there have been multiple gods brought up through time and even those gods were the figment of human imagination?

God exists because otherwise there would be no reason to exist.

This is silly. I have lived for 21 years without the involvement of any supernatural influence and I don't consider my life to be without purpose at all. How can you be so confident and believe something when there is absolutely no proof of? Where has he been all this time for you to even make such a claim? Where has he been hiding? Without him, you are so sure that life would be meaningless, but you just fall back on the idea that a god gives you life and meaning without actually having knowledge on his existence. Belief in a creator does not automatically give life meaning. People have a great misconception of what or who god really is.

Because he created us with a mind and will of our own. Meaning we get to choose our own destiny.

That's right. He gave us free will and look how shit this world has become because of his lax carelessness involving what "he" supposedly created. Speaks a lot about how caring he is, huh?

Well seeing something is easier to believe than not seeing something.

In the absence of evidence, humans created this idea of God to fill the void for their ignorance involving a higher entity. Now there are different religions saying different things hence why the idea of God creating us is tomfoolery.

Testing people on something like that is challenging. Which I am sure nearly every man thrives to do.

Yes because I am sure everyone wants to be the test subject of some jackass that believes homosexuals should be sent to hell.

He is testing us to see if we can overlook this handicap that he has given us.

If I chose to run in the street and die. That was my decision, not his.

Testing humanity completely on faith instead of showing his visual self.

Oh yeah, let us all put faith in an invisible ghost. While we're at it, why don't we all start talking to out imaginary friends too.

 

[Deadlift]

Problem with that quote is that it doesn't solve the problem of which religion and which god should be worshiped. So in the end you have as much chance of getting it right as anybody else.

And you are asking atheists to pretend as if they believe even when they actually don't.

Should such a problem be solved by a theophany?

 

[Marin]

I'm playing the Devil's Advocate here....



Where is the scientific proof that it came from God?

As I already said, there is many with some being listed in the previous post. What are you asking now?

 

[Deadlift]

I'd like to see this scientific evidence you both are speaking of since Science is the study of the natural world

Somebody once said that science is like the loudspeaker of one's conviction: If you believe, science will give you reasons to believe even more, if you don't believe, it will make your atheism even stronger.

However, I've seen more cases of top tier scientists that started believing because of science than vice versa.

Anyway, this is not anywhere close to be a proof that God exists

 

[Natsu Shazneel]

Where is your proof? The bible?

Let's talk about how the bible is a product of man. Do you really think this convincing book of fiction was sent from heaven, or do you want to believe that it came from heaven? Does heaven exist? Are you really certain that you will arrive at eternal paradise after you die? After you die, how will you even know if you have reached heaven? Are the other dead people that behaved themselves on earth in heaven? Did they call you to tell you they are in heaven?

The oldest forms of religion was the involvement of spirits in inanimate objects - animism. This developed and became the idea that some spirits were more powerful than others. This led to the belief of a single God and this was brought up later on through time.

Regardless of what any doctrine might say or teach us, or the movement of Christian evangelism in the Christian church promoting people to worship with them, no "loving" or "moral" god would make salvation depend on believing in them with simple nonexistent evidence.

Why should I believe in the idea that a single God created us when there have been multiple gods brought up through time and even those gods were the figment of human imagination?



This is silly. I have lived for 21 years without the involvement of any supernatural influence and I don't consider my life to be without purpose at all. How can you be so confident and believe something when there is absolutely no proof of? Where has he been all this time for you to even make such a claim? Where has he been hiding? Without him, you are so sure that life would be meaningless, but you just fall back on the idea that a god gives you life and meaning without actually having knowledge on his existence. Belief in a creator does not automatically give life meaning. People have a great misconception of what or who god really is.



That's right. He gave us free will and look how shit this world has become because of his lax carelessness involving what "he" supposedly created. Speaks a lot about how caring he is, huh?



In the absence of evidence, humans created this idea of God to fill the void for their ignorance involving a higher entity. Now there are different religions saying different things hence why the idea of God creating us is tomfoolery.


Yes because I am sure everyone wants to be the test subject of some jackass that believes homosexuals should be sent to hell.


If I chose to run in the street and die. That was my decision, not his.


Oh yeah, let us all put faith in an invisible ghost. While we're at it, why don't we all start talking to out imaginary friends too.

I am not gonna get into this debate of beliefs. If you don't believe in what I do than I will respect it.

 

[ComplexCity]

As I already said, there is many with some being listed in the previous post. What are you asking now?

Nature of evolution doesn't really scientifically prove God exist seeing as not one person has mentioned God in the theory of evolution, this is just one example you gave though

 

[Marin]

Nature of evolution doesn't really scientifically prove God exist seeing as not one person has mentioned God in the theory of evolution, this is just one example you gave though

Scientific proof? We seem to be looking at different directions. I'm laying out arguments founded on scientific discoveries which point to the existence of God, not an actual experiment that got God's DNA collected in a tube. When deducting God's existence and dealing with science we're not talking about science but the philosophy of science.

 

[ComplexCity]

Scientific proof? We seem to be looking at different directions. I'm laying out arguments founded on scientific discoveries which point to the existence of God, not an actual experiment that got God's DNA collected in a tube. When deducting God's existence and dealing with science we're not talking about science but the philosophy of science.

Let me try this a different way. Is there any evidence for Noah's Ark?

 

[Marin]

Let me try this a different way. Is there any evidence for Noah's Ark?

Well there's a drastic change of course. o.o

No, none that I know of.

 

[Deadlift]

Well there's a drastic change of course. o.o

No, none that I know of.

In the Ararat Mount there should be something like that though :sdo:

 

[ComplexCity]

Well there's a drastic change of course. o.o

No, none that I know of.

That was general basis of my question. I don't see how the study of the physical world will allow us to prove something on a plane that we cannot observe. Not saying science can't lean toward God, right now, it's just very unlikely

 

[Marin]

That was general basis of my question. I don't see how the study of the physical world will allow us to prove something on a plane that we cannot observe. Not saying science can't lean toward God, right now, it's just very unlikely

As I said, it can reveal things that would perfectly align with the theistic belief while being pretty improbable on the atheistic side, therefore proving to be a good evidence for God's existence.