Why Is Anybody Convinced There Is A God?

Aug 17, 2017 23:09:53 GMT gadreel said:

Aug 17, 2017 22:42:56 GMT ArArArchStanton said:

Sorry, yeah fair call, I kind of think of the big bang as the beginning of the important part of our universe, but yes I am aware that it was the expansion of already existing energy.

Yes there are other options, and to be clear I do not think it is most likely, it is the explanation that I am most comfortable with, it makes sense to me.  I feel like I don't need to explain where such intelligence came from, for the purposes of what affects me it makes no difference.

Ok, this is a good convo, and I just want to follow up with the thought that an intelligence prior to the big bang would be a much more complicated thing to exist as opposed to something like quantum fluctuation generating energy which mathematically speaking can happen. So that being the case, I'm not sure how or why an intelligence existing makes more sense or is a more comfortable explanation.

I guess the way I would say it is, you aren't more comfortable thinking a cloud needs an intelligent mind behind it to form. I don't understand the need to think the universe does. It seems to be completely natural, although admittedly we don't know as much about it as clouds. I just don't see what help it is in trying to understand it to think it needs intelligence.

Aug 18, 2017 11:08:14 GMT Arlon10 said:

Aug 17, 2017 21:22:33 GMT ArArArchStanton said:

I think a surprising number of people who claim to believe don't actually believe it. As evidence I'll reference my grandfather who went to church his entire life, didn't promote it much, but then at the end of his life admitted he never believed it. I know 1 person doesn't equal that it's the same with most but I would wager there are plenty just like him.

   A disturbingly large number of people who "believe" there is a god have never given the matter much thought, certainly not much thought of their own.  Your "grandfather" is just one of many indeed.

   Of course most people who believe there is no god have also really never given the matter much thought of their own.

   Most people on both those sides simply copy what other people they consider members of their various groups say.  The people they copy from also copied from others before them, and so on for many generations now.

   They are actually the same type of people.  It isn't that they believe in god or that they believe in government, or believe in or practice science, it is that they believe in what they are told by authority, or what they consider authority.  Most if not all the atheists here are more or less that way.  Many believe there is "no evidence" of any god because they were told that by what they consider authority.  See "Childhood Indoctrination" in this thread.  No actual authority said that.  No actual authority said evolution explains the origin of life.  Some government interests have been especially antithetical to religion and those are the "authorities" the atheists prefer.  They have stopped listening to the actual scientists.  Too many Republicans are that sort.  They do not believe in any god at all, they believe in doing what they are told by authority.  That explains why they have done nothing about the obvious science of intelligent design.  It isn't even on their agenda.  They are too ignorant of the actual science of biology today.

   The currently most popular (and outspoken) opinion is copied from the primitive science of American Civil War times.  Many people who believed in a god in those times accepted evolution and reconciled their religion to include it.  It is an especially easy thing to do considering the story of Jacob tending Laban's flocks.  As time went on more and more people who believe in a god did the same.

   Not everyone copies.  A few people at least actually read science articles critically, not just their religion critically.  With the news in biology it became increasingly difficult to accept any "spontaneous" origin of life on a previously molten planet.  In the last decade the number of people who understand that an intelligent designer is absolutely necessary has grown.  They have not spoken out much.  Perhaps some of them thought they wouldn't have to speak out when the Republicans won.  Now we're waiting to see who will speak out first, Republicans?  Democrats?  Muslims?  Western theologians?  Scientists?  Butchers?  Bakers?  Candlestick makers?

   I suspect that for some time to come yet Republicans will avoid discussing an intelligent designer because far too many of them still compare "religion" to "drug abuse."  It's an attitude that makes sense them in their abject ignorance of both science and religion.

I'm concerned with this comparison you made between atheists and theists as though they suffer the same level of lack of thought, and that just isn't the case.

Just to be clear atheism doesn't mean you think there is no god, but simply that you don't accept it to be true necessarily that there is one.  Now if you are talking about somebody who says 100% with no doubt there is no god, I might agree with you, but not believing in a god is the most rational position to take.

Further, there is no demonstrable evidence for a god (I'll stop short of saying absolutely no evidence of any kind, but no demonstrable evidence for sure), and as such saying that practically speaking, there is no god, is not a position that is derived from authority.

People believe in science, not because of authority, but because it works.  Your TV works, planes fly, medical procedures are possible.  Science works.

Also evolution doesn't even deal with the origin of life, so of course it doesn't explain the origin.  That would be abiogenesis and we've already demonstrated that is possible.  We've even built RNA molecules from non life.  Now RNA by itself is not living, but we know that it's possible for the building blocks of life to form naturally.  So anybody who says that it's simply impossible for life to arise naturally in the early conditions of the Earth is simply wrong.

Aug 18, 2017 11:58:59 GMT Arlon10 said:

Aug 18, 2017 11:25:32 GMT ArArArchStanton said:

<1,2,3,4,5,6,7>

1) I'm concerned with this comparison you made between atheists and theists as though they suffer the same level of lack of thought, and that just isn't the case.

   You need to get out more. You need to take a better look around. You are not among the scientists. You just believe you are. It is rather as I described, you follow some pack.

2) Just to be clear atheism doesn't mean you think there is no god, but simply that you don't accept it to be true necessarily that there is one.

   To be even more clear, that's agnosticism, which indeed does make more sense than atheism. As people actually advance in their education the understanding of, and evidence for, a god becomes more clear.

3) Further, there is no demonstrable evidence for a god (I'll stop short of saying absolutely no evidence of any kind, but no demonstrable evidence for sure)

   Most things in science are not demonstrable in your living room.

4) as such saying that practically speaking, there is no god, is not a position that is derived from authority.

   See above and guess again.

5) Your TV works, planes fly, ...

   And life does not arise spontaneously.

6) Also evolution doesn't even deal with the origin of life, ...

   As I said.

7) we know that it's possible for the building blocks of life to form naturally.

   Many sorts of things form naturally and they look like they did and none of them are alive.

No that's atheism.  Atheism is a lack of belief in a god, just as I said.  You have the problem a lot of people have where you think agnosticism is in the middle of the two.  No it isn't.  It's a completely different question about knowledge, not belief.  Atheism is simply not accepting it as true that a god exists.

Life can arise naturally as we've already shown.  Whether it did or not, we can't be completely certain, but as everything around us occurs naturally, and there is a natural process for life to form, concluding that it's possible or even probably that it did, is perfectly reasonable.

And you're still left with giving any credibility to the idea that there is a god.  That idea has virtually no credibility.  Whereas abiogenesis does.  Evolution does.  etc.

Aug 18, 2017 12:16:46 GMT Arlon10 said:

Aug 18, 2017 12:04:14 GMT ArArArchStanton said:

    There are people who believe there is no god and people who lack belief.  Call them what you like, no one can believe there is no god and lack belief regarding god at the same time.  That makes no sense.

   Knowledge and belief are not essentially different.  There are varying degrees of certainty with the highest often called "knowledge."  The term "gnostic" has no use in the modern world as there is no widely accepted definition or standard.  "Agnostic" only serves because a claim not to know something need not be challenged.

If you believe there is no god, you also have lack a belief in one. But you can also lack a belief in a god without believing there isn't one. In both cases you are an atheist.

Knowledge is a subset of belief so you are correct that they are not entirely different, however, atheism refers specifically to belief, and agnosticism specifically refers to knowledge.

Agnoticism is not the middle point between atheism and theism.

You either believe something is true or you don't, there is no middle ground there. Saying "I don't know" still means that you don't accept it as true, which means you are still an atheist, and that's why you can be an atheist and an agnostic at the same time. In fact almost every atheist is agnostic.