Why Do People Believe in God?

[Kazikli Bey]

Have you seen evidence of God's existence?

Do you believe in unicorns, and leprechauns, and pixies, and jackalopes too?

False premise. You believe that for something to exist, it must be able to be seen.

Not even God?

God would explain His own existence, would he not?

 

[Kazikli Bey]

While Kazikli Bey's reason may not be sound, it does not refute that science has merit. In the contrary it's a simpletons reason for believing, convenience as such. Because of his reasoning though should science ever come with proof then he would have to alter his belief, and that would be the true test of whether he is a logical person or grasping at myths to avoid truth.

You are right, if science ever proved that an absolute nothing could spontaneously create something, i would give up my belief in God but i doubt that that would happen in my life time anyway.

And besides, i have come to the belief that God chose to be unthinkable to prove that all people are morons, or at least, to unmask cosmic moronism.

 

[LOki]

False premise. You believe that for something to exist, it must be able to be seen.

False presumption. I have not offered the notion that the existence of anything is contingent upon being able to be seen.

I offered the notion that evidence of the existence of someting is validiation of the belief in the existence of that something.

You however, have offered the notion that without "true refutation" (whatever the fuck that might be) of the existence of something, the belief in the existence of that something is valid.

So, do you believe in unicorns, and leprechauns, and pixies, and jackalopes too?

God would explain His own existence, would he not?

Question begging.

 

[LOki]

Actually.......I have.

You have my attention. Please direct it to the evidence of God's existence.

And.....jackalopes are the only things that are fictional.

I see. I'd like to examine the evidence for the existence of unicorns, and leprechauns, and pixies too.

Ever been to Ireland?

Ireland certainly exists.

And.....if you'd like some help with the something from nothing deal, read a book called "The Tao of Pooh", and then, start in on "The Tao Te Ching". Red Pine's translation is the best one IMHO.

Despite having read both of those works, I'm not one one here with need of help.

 

[Lycurgus]

Kittynip has 25 posts LOL, why am I not surprised.

 

[Kazikli Bey]

False presumption. I have not offered the notion that the existence of anything is contingent upon being able to be seen.

I offered the notion that evidence of the existence of someting is validiation of the belief in the existence of that something.

You however, have offered the notion that without "true refutation" (whatever the fuck that might be) of the existence of something, the belief in the existence of that something is valid.

So, do you believe in unicorns, and leprechauns, and pixies, and jackalopes too?

You are confusing two different objects. You are applying human laws to something that is not confined by them. I have no reason to believe unicorns, and leprechauns, and pixies, and jackalopes because they fall under human laws whilst God does not.

 

[LOki]

You are confusing two different objects.

Oh lolz! I am confusing nothing. You are just making shit up.

You are applying human laws to something that is not confined by them.

Non-sequitur. I have applied no human laws.

I have no reason to believe unicorns, and leprechauns, and pixies, and jackalopes . . .

Yet according to you, without "true refutation" (whatever the fuck that might be) of the existence of something, the belief in the existence of that something is valid. The fact that there's no reason to believe in unicorns, and leprechauns, and pixies, and jackalopes is no reason, according to you, for you to not believe in them, while no "true refutation" (whatever the fuck that might be), IS REASON to believe in them.

So, if there's no "true refutation" (whatever the fuck that might be) of the existence of God, and that's the REASON you belive in God, why do you not believe in unicorns, and leprechauns, and pixies, and jackalopes when no "true refutation" (whatever the fuck that might be) of the existence of unicorns, and leprechauns, and pixies, and jackalopes has been presented?

. . . because they fall under human laws . . .

Error of fact. Unicorns, and leprechauns, and pixies, and jackalopes arer irrelevent to human laws, and human laws are irrelevent to unicorns, and leprechauns, and pixies, and jackalopes .

. . . whilst God does not.

True; for the exact same reason unicorns, and leprechauns, and pixies, and jackalopes do not fall under human laws.

 

[Kazikli Bey]

Non-sequitur. I have applied no human laws.

No, you're right, but you still have applied the laws within this universe to a being that is not confined by them. The unicorns, and leprechauns, and pixies, and jackalopes, they are confined by those laws, God isn't. So, when i say i dont believe in them, it's because they fall under the universal laws of existence, God does not.

Yet according to you, without "true refutation" (whatever the fuck that might be) of the existence of something, the belief in the existence of that something is valid. The fact that there's no reason to believe in unicorns, and leprechauns, and pixies, and jackalopes is no reason, according to you, for you to not believe in them, while no "true refutation" (whatever the fuck that might be), IS REASON to believe in them.

So, if there's no "true refutation" (whatever the fuck that might be) of the existence of God, and that's the REASON you belive in God, why do you not believe in unicorns, and leprechauns, and pixies, and jackalopes when no "true refutation" (whatever the fuck that might be) of the existence of unicorns, and leprechauns, and pixies, and jackalopes has been presented?

Read above. You are applying the wrong laws to the wrong being. I find that existence is attributable to God, insofar as he has not been refuted by scientific findings, that is not to say that parts of the Bible have, but God Himself has not been. And where are you pulling this "true refutation", i said that the possibility of His existence has not been refuted at all, because even if science can prove the Big Bang (which, believe it or no, is a theory i adhere to), it cannot so far prove that absolutely nothing created something. It can prove that something can be created from nothing with energy, but not without that energy.

True; for the exact same reason unicorns, and leprechauns, and pixies, and jackalopes do not fall under human laws.

No, God doesn't fall under the Universal Laws because He is outside this universe, whilst unicorns, and leprechauns, and pixies, and jackalopes do.

 

[XVZ]

No, you're right, but you still have applied the laws within this universe to a being that is not confined by them. The unicorns, and leprechauns, and pixies, and jackalopes, they are confined by those laws, God isn't. So, when i say i dont believe in them, it's because they fall under the universal laws of existence, God does not.

I am reminded of the spiel Dan Dennett gave in his talk Can we know our own minds?

I'm writing a book on magic," I explain, and I'm asked, "Real magic?" By real magic people mean miracles, thaumaturgical acts and supernatural powers. "No," I answer: "Conjuring tricks, not real magic."

Real magic, in other words, refers to the magic that is not real, while the magic that is real, that can actually be done, is not real magic.​

The unicorns, leprechauns, pixies, and jackalopes are things that could actually really exist. Heck a super-genius (crazy) scientist one day may genetically engineer such creatures. But, GOD.. that could not possibly be created and is completely an invention in the human mind. But never the less, you consider that to be real

 

[Kazikli Bey]

I am reminded of the spiel Dan Dennett gave in his talk Can we know our own minds?

I'm writing a book on magic," I explain, and I'm asked, "Real magic?" By real magic people mean miracles, thaumaturgical acts and supernatural powers. "No," I answer: "Conjuring tricks, not real magic."

Real magic, in other words, refers to the magic that is not real, while the magic that is real, that can actually be done, is not real magic.​

The unicorns, leprechauns, pixies, and jackalopes are things that could actually really exist. Heck a super-genius (crazy) scientist one day may genetically engineer such creatures. But, GOD.. that could not possibly be created and is completely an invention in the human mind. But never the less, you consider that to be real

Well, until the basis for my belief in God is refuted, why should i not b

 

[Kazikli Bey]

I am reminded of the spiel Dan Dennett gave in his talk Can we know our own minds?

I'm writing a book on magic," I explain, and I'm asked, "Real magic?" By real magic people mean miracles, thaumaturgical acts and supernatural powers. "No," I answer: "Conjuring tricks, not real magic."

Real magic, in other words, refers to the magic that is not real, while the magic that is real, that can actually be done, is not real magic.​

The unicorns, leprechauns, pixies, and jackalopes are things that could actually really exist. Heck a super-genius (crazy) scientist one day may genetically engineer such creatures. But, GOD.. that could not possibly be created and is completely an invention in the human mind. But never the less, you consider that to be real

Well, until the basis for my belief in God is refuted, why should i not believe?

Though, tell me something, would you believe a theist if he told you that God existed?

 

[XVZ]

Well, until the basis for my belief in God is refuted, why should i not believe?

Though, tell me something, would you believe a theist if he told you that God existed?

I have a hard time believing a well trained scientist when he prattles on about some theory until I see significant evidence in support for myself of said claims and you want me to believe some psychobabble from a theist?

Our difference is a fundamental one. You seem to want evidence to not believe something, whereas I require logic and reasoning and want evidence to believe.

You are in fact normal in your desire to believe without any justification for doing so. Humans are naturally irrational. Just understand that in this instance, being normal is a bad thing!

 

[Kazikli Bey]

I have a hard time believing a well trained scientist when he prattles on about some theory until I see significant evidence in support for myself of said claims and you want me to believe some psychobabble from a theist?

Actually, i wasn't going that way, i was simply going to ask, if you're not going to believe a theist when he says there is a God, why do i have to believe an atheist when he says there isn't?

Our difference is a fundamental one. You seem to want evidence to not believe something, whereas I require logic and reasoning and want evidence to believe.

Not necessarily, i hold my beliefs because of faith in the teachings of Christ (which, yes i will concede, faith can be irrational) but i hold onto God because for me, at this point in time, God is a much more acceptable answer to everything then any of the theories science has put out.

You are in fact normal in your desire to believe without any justification for doing so. Humans are naturally irrational. Just understand that in this instance, being normal is a bad thing!

As i've said, i believe that God chose to be unthinkable to prove that all people are morons, or at least, to unmask cosmic moronism (of course, there is more to it then that). And it's a funny thing a moron, he/ she can even win a Nobel Prize.

 

[LOki]

No, you're right, but you still have applied the laws within this universe to a being that is not confined by them. The unicorns, and leprechauns, and pixies, and jackalopes, they are confined by those laws, God isn't. So, when i say i dont believe in them, it's because they fall under the universal laws of existence, God does not.

The unicorns, and leprechauns, and pixies, and jackalopes, are not confined by laws of existence--any magical property can, and is, applied to these beings in accordance with the beliefs (beliefs entirely independent of evedience or valid logic) of the person believing in them. The one very good reason that unicorns, and leprechauns, and pixies, and jackalopes, . . . and God . . . , could not be confined by any laws of existence, is that they share one common quality:

They do not exist; otherwise the laws of existence would apply to them.

Read above. You are applying the wrong laws to the wrong being. I find that existence is attributable to God, insofar as he has not been refuted by scientific findings, that is not to say that parts of the Bible have, but God Himself has not been.

Unicorns, and leprechauns, and pixies, and jackalopes, have not been subject to "true refutation" (whatever the fuck that might be), therefore by YOUR OWN criteria, belief in their existence is valid, despite there being no reason to believe in their existence.

And where are you pulling this "true refutation" , i said that the possibility of His existence has not been refuted at all, because even if science can prove the Big Bang (which, believe it or no, is a theory i adhere to), it cannot so far prove that absolutely nothing created something. It can prove that something can be created from nothing with energy, but not without that energy.

Does this ring a bell for you?

I believe in God because i have not seen any true refutation of His existence, nor have i seen how something could be created from an absolute nothing.

By the way; you never replied to the question; if you cannot see how something could be created from an absolute nothing, then why do you insist that God was?

If you are just going to insist that God wasn't created, upon what criteria does that assertion rest, that the assertion that the universe was not created cannot rest upon?

No, God doesn't fall under the Universal Laws because He is outside this universe, . . .

Just like everything else that doesn't exist in this universe.

. . . whilst unicorns, and leprechauns, and pixies, and jackalopes do.

If unicorns, and leprechauns, and pixies, and jackalopes fall under the Universal Laws (whatever the fuck that is) then you should be able to bring evidence of them, just like you could with everything else that exists in this universe--do so.

 

[Kazikli Bey]

Does this ring a bell for you? By the way; you never replied to the question; if you cannot see how something could be created from an absolute nothing, then why do you insist that God was?

Anything in science is reproducible. Science has yet to show or come up with a theory that can show how something can be created from absolutely nothing.

If you are just going to insist that God wasn't created, upon what criteria does that assertion rest, that the assertion that the universe was not created cannot rest upon?

I'm not a theologian, but if there is a God, He would explain His own existence.

If unicorns, and leprechauns, and pixies, and jackalopes fall under the Universal Laws (whatever the fuck that is) then you should be able to bring evidence of them, just like you could with everything else that exists in this universe--do so.

But they do not exist and that can be asserted through whatever Universally applicable laws we have.

 

[LOki]

Actually, i wasn't going that way, i was simply going to ask, if you're not going to believe a theist when he says there is a God, why do i have to believe an atheist when he says there isn't?

Because the theist has no evidence to support his assertion, and the athiest does.

Not necessarily, i hold my beliefs because of faith in the teachings of Christ (which, yes i will concede, faith can be irrational). . .

Faith is UNAMBIGUOUSLY irrational. Faith is neccessarily a denial of reason, a denial of evidence, a denial of reality.

. . . but i hold onto God because for me, at this point in time, God is a much more acceptable answer to everything then any of the theories science has put out.

Really? Your wishful thinking, your whimsical hopes for the existence of magical powers--your superstitions--are more acceptable answers to you questions than those answers supported by evidence and valid logic?

BRAVO!

As i've said, i believe that God chose to be unthinkable to prove that all people are morons, or at least, to unmask cosmic moronism (of course, there is more to it then that). And it's a funny thing a moron, he/ she can even win a Nobel Prize.

Well, for the faithful, whatever they belive is true, is what is true; independent of evidence and/or valid logic--independent of reality.

Listen Kazliki, you can believe anything you like, but in the real reality, where real things really exist, your belief in somethings does not make that something real.

"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
Friedrich Nietzsche.​

 

[LOki]

Anything in science is reproducible. Science has yet to show or come up with a theory that can show how something can be created from absolutely nothing.

You still haven't answered the question: If you cannot see how something could be created from an absolute nothing, then why do you insist that God was?

I'm not a theologian, but if there is a God, He would explain His own existence.

You're no logician either--question begging.

But they do not exist and that can be asserted through whatever Universally applicable laws we have.

How do you assert that they do not exist, when their existence has not been "truely refuted" (whatever the fuck that might be)?

If they don't exist, how do "Universally applicable laws" (whatever the fuck that is) apply to them at all?

If "Universally applicable laws" cannot apply to things that don't exist, then why is it that when "Universal laws" cannot be applied to God, that just for God it means He does exist?

If "Universal laws" (whatever the fuck that is) do apply to things that don't exist, AND they apply to things that do exist, then why don't they also apply to God?

 

[KittenKoder]

Loki, the primary reason that following or believing in something that has not yet been proven to exist is still valid is that scientists do as well, just in different terms. The air analogy is overdone so I won't use that one, but black holes are a great example so I shall use that. Before we could even see the 'void' in space that we call a black hole we knew they existed, we just had no understanding of them and they were based on myth not fact (myth created by sci-fi authors but widely accepted as 'highly possible' by science). When we were able to start 'seeing' them then we had accepted their existance as fact, though there was still the one problem with them, they could not exist within the laws of science we had know. So with further study and test they finally figured out how they exist (it is within the laws of science) but now we don't know how they are created.

It is possible something intelligent created our world, maybe our galaxy, perhaps even the entire universe. This is not beyond science but only beyond our understanding of science. Through the definition of what a god is, if any intelligent hand played in the creation of our world it would be a god. The debate isn't the possibility of a god existing but if a god does actually exist.

The word supernatural does not mean impossible, it means beyond natural. Scientists are skeptics, but they are skeptics of ALL things, not just religious belief they also doubt their own theories. It's the only way to find truth, ask the question because without the question there is nothing to seek. As long as you are willing to ask the question and are prepared for the answer then you are being logical, the only ones that are wrong are the people not willing to ask the question and especially those not willing to hear the answer if it goes against their predefined belief. Science itself cannot grow without asking the impossible.

An example of what I am talking about, if you take a computer to the Dark Ages they will not ask you how, nor will they care about why, but will instead kill you for having magic (definition used is science that is not yet understood). The truly enlightened mind will put their beliefs aside and ask you about it, ask how you did it, and then learn from those answers altering their belief of what magic is and what science is to match this new information.

 

[LOki]

Loki, the primary reason that following or believing in something that has not yet been proven to exist is still valid is that scientists do as well, just in different terms. The air analogy is overdone so I won't use that one, but black holes are a great example so I shall use that. Before we could even see the 'void' in space that we call a black hole we knew they existed, we just had no understanding of them and they were based on myth not fact (myth created by sci-fi authors but widely accepted as 'highly possible' by science). When we were able to start 'seeing' them then we had accepted their existance as fact, though there was still the one problem with them, they could not exist within the laws of science we had know. So with further study and test they finally figured out how they exist (it is within the laws of science) but now we don't know how they are created.

Well, I'm glad you didn't get into the "air analogy" if you were going to go about it as wrongly as you went wrong with this "black-hole analogy."

Christ.

It is possible something intelligent created our world, maybe our galaxy, perhaps even the entire universe.

I've said nothing to contradict this. NOTHING.

This is not beyond science but only beyond our understanding of science. Through the definition of what a god is, if any intelligent hand played in the creation of our world it would be a god. The debate isn't the possibility of a god existing but if a god does actually exist.

Right. One side brings evidence to the arguent, and the other side brings superstition.

I'm saying the side with the evidence has the valid argument. What do you say?

The word supernatural does not mean impossible, it means beyond natural.

In a way, it does; if sometihng "supernatural" exists, then is it not, by definintion, "natural"?

Scientists are skeptics, but they are skeptics of ALL things, not just religious belief they also doubt their own theories. It's the only way to find truth, ask the question because without the question there is nothing to seek.

The superstitious are unconcerned with questions, because they already "know" the answers.

As long as you are willing to ask the question and are prepared for the answer then you are being logical, the only ones that are wrong are the people not willing to ask the question and especially those not willing to hear the answer if it goes against their predefined belief. Science itself cannot grow without asking the impossible.

Knowledge of the real world cannot grow if you deny that the real world is real.

An example of what I am talking about, if you take a computer to the Dark Ages they will not ask you how, nor will they care about why, but will instead kill you for having magic (definition used is science that is not yet understood).

These very real murderers will consider their very real actions, morally justified by the superstitous foundations of their morality--superstitous because their morality is entirely defined by the unvalidated value set of a being whose existence is unvalidated by reality.

The truly enlightened mind will put their beliefs aside and ask you about it, ask how you did it, and then learn from those answers altering their belief of what magic is and what science is to match this new information.

The truly enlightened mind is aware that their beliefs are real, even when what they believe in is not real; they are also aware that the actions they take, based upon their beliefs, are real even when what they believe in is not; they are also aware that the consequences of their real actions, based upon their real beliefs, are real even when what they believe in is not. The one belief that the truly enlightend mind does not set aside is the belief that reality is real, and independent of their wishful thinking; that reality is prime over their perceptions of it.

So you see KittenKoder, if you're suggesting that I'm saying God doesn't exist because there's no evidence of His existence, then you're just barking up the wrong fucking tree.

I'm saying there's no reason to believe in the existence of God because there's no evidence of his existence--if you believe in God (or any other superstition), you are not doing so by virtue of any reason validated by evidence or valid logic.

 

[KittenKoder]

The problem with your argument (aside from taking up such an offensive manner) is that most of science is based on things which we have never had evidence of. This could be why scientific advancements have slowed to almost a halt recently, because one side doesn't want to advance science and the scientific supporters have just decided to prove anything new one way or the other is not worth it because 'there is no evidence.' Most of our medical science was based on things which the only evidence they had was dead bodies. Our computer tech was all pipe dreams with no place to even start except gears and levers. Chemistry is dependent on exploring things without evidence because we can't see most of it. Dismissing something just because there is no evidence is not the scientific method. True scientists do not dismiss anything until there is fact that denies it's existence, not the other way around for a reason.