Automotive Deals Best Books of the Month Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it Songs of Summer Fire TV Stick Handmade school supplies Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer harmonquest_s1 harmonquest_s1 harmonquest_s1  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors All-New Kindle Oasis Enter for the chance to win front row seats to Barbra Streisand Segway miniPro
Customer Discussions > Religion forum

Given the almost certainty of God's existence, why does anyone not want to believe?

This discussion has reached the maximum length permitted, and cannot accept new replies. Start a new discussion


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 1000 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jan 26, 2008 6:33:50 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 12, 2008 1:57:24 PM PST
Homunculus says:
Science has demonstrated over the last century the cosmological and philosophical necessity of a "Creator"/ God. Antony Flew, the world's most influential atheist for over 50 years, acknowledged this fact in late 2004. So did earlier investigators like Einstein, Hubble, Jastrow, etc.

Agnostic Stephen Hawking said "it would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us". Hawking has spent his life trying to disprove the necessity for a Creator God. His contemporaries all agree he will certainly fail.

"Big Bang" cosmology has demonstrated the creation date of the universe at about 13.8 billion years ago. Immediately prior to the Big Bang, all the laws of physics vanished. What preceded that, according to the experts, was absolute nothingness: no space, no matter, no energy, no light, no time, no nothing. That includes no place for non-starter ideas such as multiple universes or vacuum fluctuations. Absolute nothing means no space, an idea that is beyond comprehension.

On the positive side, the universe seems perfectly tuned for life to exist just on this one planet, earth. With just small differences in the realities of the laws of physics, or minuscule physical changes in things like the size of the moon, its distance and orbit around the earth, the distance of the earth from the sun, the sun's relative age, the exact diameter of the earth, or the gravitational influences and orbits of the other planets in the solar system; any change in one of these or countless other variables, and there would be no life as we know it on earth. The universe thereby appears to be "finely tuned" to allow for life on this planet.

The odds of DNA self-starting since the Big Bang, or the odds of all the "cosmological necessities" all coming together to create the universe and the earth we know supports intelligent life, are beyond impossible. Nobel laureate Francis Crick, who described the structure of DNA, estimated the odds of DNA self-starting as 1x10x2billion. The odds of anything happening since the Big Bang are 1x10x153.

So the question is, with all this overpowering evidence in favor of God's existence, how can all the science minded writers on this site possibly not believe in a Creator/God?

The second question is founded on some of Antony Flew's long-held beliefs. Even during his decades as the worlds leading atheist, Flew acknowledged that the only possible revealed God (if there were such a God) would be the God of Christianity. Flew said, even after his discovery of God's necessity, that his fondest dream is that there is no afterlife. Flew, in the face of ad hominem attacks by his former supporters, continues to reject Christianity but is unwavering in his acknowlegment for a First Cause Deity/God.

The second question to readers is: do unbelievers desire to say there is no God because they do not want to face the heaven / hell realities that are foundational to the Christian God? In other words, is living a life of "doing whatever I want, even if it hurts others or is "sinful"", more important than living a life of sacrificial and self-denying love for our fellow man, along with a life of holiness and purity?

Inquiring minds are interested in your open and honest thoughts and opinions.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 26, 2008 6:55:33 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 26, 2008 6:57:21 AM PST
Olbastid says:
"So the question is, with all this overpowering evidence in favor of God, how can all the science minded writers on this site possibly not believe in a Creator/God?"

If matter actually doesn't really exist at the sub-atomic level, then even the concept of existence vs. non-existence of a God would have to be revisited, since existence and non-existence might actually end up being the same thing, don't you think? And if a God made of nothing exists and creates an universe of nothing out of nothing, belief or no belief by us - who actually don't really exist, mind you - may end up being the exact same thing. I would go on but I'm getting dizzy with this.

"do unbelievers desire to say there is no God because they do not want to face the heaven / hell realities that are foundational to the Christian God? In other words, is living a life of 'doing whatever I want, even if it hurts others or his 'sinful'', more important than living a life of sacrificial and self-denying love for our fellow man, along with a life of holiness and purity?"

Not at all. i think you're mixing things up a bit here. Not believing whatever the "Christian God" is (are you talking about the Judeo-Christian god commonly known as God, Lord, Father, Jehovah, Allah, etc here?) does not equate with Hedonism. There are plenty of people who don't follow the Christian religions (or who do in a manner that would be deemed heretical by most so-called "Christians") who are caring, compassionate human beings who do make sacrifices for the betterment of the species.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 26, 2008 7:04:20 AM PST
zoltán says:
"The second question to readers is: do unbelievers desire to say there is no God because they do not want to face the heaven / hell realities that are foundational to the Christian God?"

zoltan says: What unbelievers do you know that "desire to say there is no God"? I certainly am not familiar with any such creatures. Can you provide examples?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 26, 2008 7:28:31 AM PST
Homunculus,

<<Science has demonstrated over the last century the cosmological and philosophical necessity of a "Creator"/ God.>>

Not really. Science has shown us a universe of inexorable material functionality on one level, and of bleak uncertainty on another. If you choose to inject a Big Magic Guy into the works, you do so out of personal prejudice, not philosophical necessity.

It's very telling that you have to go back literally billions of years, to extremely unlikely and unrepeatable events, in order to find justification for your Creator God. Is it because the evident randomness and indifference of everyday reality doesn't point so emphatically toward a guiding intelligence? Is it because the fact that life on Earth is characterized by suffering and predation as much by pleasure and beauty doesn't indicate the existence of a God who unconditionally loves His creations?

<<The second question to readers is: do unbelievers desire to say there is no God because they do not want to face the heaven / hell realities that are foundational to the Christian God?>>

Got that backward, don't you?

Isn't it more likely that you feel that living a virtuous life shouldn't be its own reward? That faith in God isn't worthwhile unless you're going to enjoy a payoff that the rest of us won't?

It seems the cold, rational, logical basis you claim to have for God's existence isn't as persuasive to you as the reward you expect to get for believing. And you call us materialistic?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 26, 2008 7:39:01 AM PST
Peter says:
I do not like you fundies to lie about Einstein. Einstein had nothing but contempt for your kind.

There is no such thing as a "leading atheist." It's the same as being the world's leading non-Buddhist, non-football player, non-blacksmith, non-parent, non-female.

Homunculus says: "Inquiring minds are interested in your open and honest thoughts and opinions."

Then you end with the biggest lie of all. You have already stated that you have made up your mind. You bring up Christianity when it is already established that Jesus never existed.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 26, 2008 7:43:57 AM PST
Homunculus says:
Sinna,

The concept of God (as He is described in the Old and New Testaments of the Holy Bible) is that He is:

invisible, Spiritual, non-material, all powerful, eternal, loving, holy, righteous, and the list goes on. The invisible, spiritual and non-material aspects are of interest here. Conceptually, if there is such a thing as a "spirit", which is by definition non-material, then it's reality and existence is not so hard to imagine, given that all aspects of this debate go far beyond (dizzying, as you said) man's ability to understand.

For example, try to imagine a "universe" such as ours being "infinite". In other words, imagine that the earth (or some other form of matter, stars, galaxies, black holes, etc.) always existed. Does that make sense to you? What happened the day before the day you can imagine? Reality is on whatever day you imagine is the last one, there are still an infinite number of previous days.

In formal logic, it is impossible to state that there is an infinite number of "things". That includes space, time, energy, light, matter, atoms, vacuum etc. Only intangibles, concepts we cannot measure, are infinite. Numbers is the easy example.

With the age of the universe at 13.8 billion years, we see a number that is clearly not impossible to understand. The US national budget is in "trillions" of dollars. So a number like 13.8 billion is relatively small in the shadow of an infinite number of numbers. In fact, if you convert the universe age to days, it's a number in the 5 trillions, still an understandable number.

So an infinite, spiritual God is something that is at least conceptually possible and is validated by the Bible. Meanwhile, to imagine "no God" (like John Lennon sang about) is not "easy if you try". The only option "no God" leaves for the Big Bang is magic without a magician, don't you think?

So, if there are unbelievers who do "good" things, WHY do they not believe in God in the face of all the evidence for God?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 26, 2008 7:56:07 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 26, 2008 7:57:05 AM PST
Homunculus

You have to stop this incessant intermixing of science and religion. On the one hand, you drag in the Big Bang and DNA, then on the other you throw in an infinite "god."

You can't have it both ways! Either you believe in the natural explanation of things (including the Big Bang, etc, etc, etc,) on which science is based, or the Creation Story of the Bible on which several religions are based. You can't have your cake and eat it, too!

What you're doing is assuming the Universe is a big grab bag of facts and ideas. You believe you can just reach in and pick out the ones that fit your fancy and discard the rest (to be devoured by all the heathens, I suspect).

Clean up your act! Either be a good religious zealot or a sincere naturalist. But this cross-dressing stuff doesn't cut the mustard in this Universe!

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 26, 2008 7:57:07 AM PST
Homunculus says:
Zolt: I was conversing with a man named Robert on another thread who said he sincerely hopes there is no God in the Bible described since. In fact, I think he may have used the word "hate" in regard to him. I suspect Robert got his ideas from the likes of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, who both make those kinds of comments.

It seems highly doubtful that a "God" would create this gigantic universe where modern science has shown it highly unlikely for other intelligent life as we know it to exist, only to fade to the background and not reveal himself to his created beings. Meanwhile, the Bible reveals a God in such elegance and complexity that critics have said things like "it would take one greater than Christ to formulate the concept of the Christian deity". And yet behind the elegance and complexity of the Christian paradigm is the simplicity that can be understood by small children. Just like you would expect an all-powerful, loving God to reveal Himself.

There are plenty of people who don't want the Christian God to exist. Those opposed to a conceptual, unrevealed God must put definition to "it/him/her" before being able to react in one way or the other. Flew says the Christian God is the only one that is "logically and rationally conceivable". Yet he continues to reject Christianity, even in his deism. He blames it on his problem with evil. But that problem is easily understood, even if you do not like the correct answer.

My 2nd question goes to Dr. Flew as well as the readers of this post: Why do you not want to believe in God when evidence is so clear?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 26, 2008 7:57:49 AM PST
<<The only option "no God" leaves for the Big Bang is magic without a magician, don't you think?>>

That's what reality shows us every day. If that's not acceptable to you, it's not reality's problem.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 26, 2008 8:11:54 AM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Aug 1, 2008 3:39:19 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 26, 2008 8:18:34 AM PST
Lufer says:
"Science has demonstrated over the last century the cosmological and philosophical necessity of a 'Creator'/ God."

If this is true, then why is it that scientists are so frequently atheists? Why is it that the more education a person amasses is the less likely she/he will embrace "faith." The simple answer is you are wrong. You are, however, too ensconced within our world view to see that.

"Agnostic Stephen Hawking said 'it would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us.'"

First of all, where did Hawking say he as agnostic? Secondly, even Hawking, as brilliant as he is, is limited in knowledge. Further still, difficult to explain does not equate to unexplainable. I know that assumption suits your argument and your mindset, but it is still, nonetheless, invalid.

Homu: "'Big Bang' cosmology has demonstrated the creation date of the universe at about 13.8 billion years ago. Immediately prior to the Big Bang, all the laws of physics vanished. What preceded that, according to the experts, was absolute nothingness: no space, no matter, no energy, no light, no time, no nothing."

Where is this information coming from? There was nothing before the big bang? Really! Who said this? Inquiring minds would like to know.

"On the positive side, the universe seems perfectly tuned for life to exist just on this one planet, earth."

Ambrose Bierce defined ocean as a body of water occupying about two thirds of a world made for man--who has no gills. Our universe is incomprehensibly larger than our oceans. How suitable is life as we know it for the known universe? Another thing to consider also is that life has not always been possible in the universe let alone earth. Everything is part of a continuum that involves constant change. Conditions as they are on earth and in the universe now has not always been and will not always be. Our sun is aging and the moon is slowly drifting away.

"The odds of DNA self-starting since the Big Bang, or the odds of all the "cosmological necessities" all coming together to create the universe and the earth we know supports intelligent life, are beyond impossible. Nobel laureate Francis Crick, who described the structure of DNA, estimated the odds of DNA self-starting as 1x10x2billion. The odds of anything happening since the Big Bang are 1x10x153."

Another teleological argument for the existence of god that has been addressed so many times before. Without knowing you, I would be willing to bet you have never won the lottery, but guess what, others have. Don't believe me? Ask around. I Have to go. I'll add to this later.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 26, 2008 8:22:39 AM PST
Homunculus says:
Clearly Dr. Flew and I, along with Einstein, Hawking and others, disagree with your premise. Science is an extremely reliable and replicable endeavor when empiricism is the bedrock. That is why God haters like Hawking have spent their lives trying to eliminate the science that "proves" Him.

Only when pseudo-scientists (recently famous like Richard Dawkins) start stirring their metaphysical cauldron of methodological materialism can such a no-god "proof" be hypothesized. But working from a stacked deck and loaded dice doesn't persuade real scientists and thinkers like Hawking and Flew.

Regarding Christian believers like myself, none of this stuff matters at all. The Christian experience requires the believer to be "indwelled" by this "eternal, immaterial, all-loving" Spirit of God, Who gives the believer "eternal life" and also the powerful "faith" that assures the believer of God's reality and work in his life.

So for the believer, these scientific inquiries may or may not be interesting, and all believers know they are not necessary for saving faith. My lovely wife is such an example. She finds these discussions remarkable only in the fact that people could be so blind as to not believe in the obvious existence for God. Her premise is why I ask the question.

It is the unbelievers who may need this under-reported information (regarding scientific acknowledgment of God's necessity) to allow them to open themselves to the possibility of the reality of God. The approach of not thinking to the bottom of the question, espoused mostly by hardline Darwinists, is where many unbelievers reside and hang their hat. You even dismiss the concept of complete thinking, it appears.

I'm just interested in finding out why, in the light of all the incontrovertible evidence, do so many seethe at the concept of God's reality and involvement in the affairs of mankind. I'm still seeking a candid and open answer, not rhetorical dodges.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 26, 2008 8:31:02 AM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Aug 1, 2008 3:39:18 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 26, 2008 8:34:54 AM PST
Olbastid says:
I can't answer for other people, Homunculus. But I think there's plenty on this thread already that addresses your question. The only thing I can say is that I believe in God exactly BECAUSE He doesn't exist. And I don't think the Bible, as it's survived centuries of mis-translation and questionable editing, is really a reliable source for any serious debate.

As far as Lennon goes, I think you're taking his quote from Imagine out of context. And anyway, in my opinion, imagining a world without God is easy, but only if you DON'T try.

Am I making sense? Probably not. It's hard to explain even if I tried.

Your concept that "magic" needs a "magician" is totally anthropocentric, and - based on our knowledge of both man and the universe - why would a supreme pure consciousness "entity" necessarily have a personality? What about God being the sum of everything - nothing! - in the Universe? A Supreme, non-existing Consciousness filled with infinite possibilities? And please, refrain from quoting the Bible if you can.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 26, 2008 8:38:28 AM PST
Homunculus says:
Peter, I happen to be looking at my copy of "Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist", copyright 1949, 780 pages, his AUTHORIZED BIOGRAPHY; he was alive and well when it was written and he approved the manuscript, gave interviews for it's publication, etc. He states in chagrined great detail the necessity of God; he also discusses his dismay when he realized the ramifications of general relativity, especially regarding the work of Hubble and his "red-shift" observations, which demonstrated what Einstein had postulated based on GR.

Regarding Dr. Flew. His book "God and Philosophy" has been the "atheist Bible" for decades. He has been awarded great acclaim and accolades for his leadership in atheist thinking. You're on pretty thin ice, Pete.

Regarding the existence of Jesus, you are obviously drinking the atheist blog Kool-Aid. There is more secular historical evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ than for Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great. No one but far out nutcases dismiss the existence of Christ as a historical figure; hard line revisionists and those who are strongly "anti-Christian" don't deny His reality.

I'm not lying. Furthermore, you did not answer any of my questions. Want to try again?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 26, 2008 8:41:30 AM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on May 4, 2009 4:12:08 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 26, 2008 8:44:50 AM PST
S. R. Ballew says:
I believe God is "bigger" than science, the material or spiritual world, and that no human being has enough intelligence or understanding to grasp who God is. And the bickering between "intelligent atheist scientists" and "faithful followers" is never going to prove everything there is to KNOW about God. It is fruitless bickering to me.

What is important to know is that God in essence created the dynamics of science, and we only know a fraction of what there is to know. We learn new things every day.

What is also important to know is that although many followers and believers of God cannot adequately prove to "intelligent atheist scientists" that God emperically is real and exists, does not mean He does not exist. It is possible that a supreme being, God as I call Him, can exist in ways we do not know fully yet, and scientists that try, as they might, to disprove He exists, will forever be stuck in their limited knowledge because of the ironic situation that God is bigger than all that science we know of can tell them.

Do scientists of empirical data believe in ghosts and supernatural beings, such as angels? I would like to hear what a scientist who does not belive God exists would say is proof or disproof of ghosts and angels.

I find this whole topic interesting, but as with politics, people that believe in one world view or the other, usually only find "proof" to back up their own view and do not try to think things of all possibilities outside their own boxes.

I believe their is a God based on faith and reason. Science I believe cannot prove anything based on faith. So that will be the stumbling block for another 10,000 years of human exitence.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 26, 2008 8:45:39 AM PST
Shemhazai says:
Before we go anywhere else with this conversation, I want to know which god we're all talking about. Sure, all the numbers could imply that we were created, but I don't see how that translates into "Christianity is 100% true and you're a sucker, sinner and idiot for not believing in it."

Anyone care to elaborate?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 26, 2008 8:45:57 AM PST
Homunculus says:
I'm glad you agree, Steve. Because formal logic has dictates that must be observed, unless you don't believe in the orderliness of science.

Whatever begins to exist must have a cause. Clearly the universe began to exist 13.8 billion years ago. Ergo, it had to have a cause. To say "no cause" to something that clearly began to exist" is nonsense. To say magic occurred without a magician is nonsense. Magic "begins to exist". So it must "have a cause". It needs an uncaused agent. That agent is no magician; we call Him God Almighty.

God is uncaused. He is not material but spiritual. He has no beginning or ending. All of that is not what I say, but in the Bible. And it is scientific and logical reality.

IF that's not acceptable to you, it's not reality's problem. :-)

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 26, 2008 8:49:43 AM PST
Joe W says:
Hom: So the question is, with all this overpowering evidence in favor of God's existence, how can all the science minded writers on this site possibly not believe in a Creator/God?

Joe: Nothing that you have said meets the definition of "overpowering" or "evidence." The few facts presented are loosely strung together with unsupported assumption. If you actually want to question the "science minded writers", then try more logic and less political rhetoric.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 26, 2008 8:50:41 AM PST
Olbastid says:
Homunculus, again: your sense of nonsense is not only totally anthropocentric but you base your thinking on a Book containing a an explanation of the origins of the Universe for uneducated people from the Bronze Age, which has been so heavily edited and mis-translated as to render it basically useless to us at this point.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 26, 2008 8:53:00 AM PST
Homunculus says:
Steven, you can dismiss what I say all you want, but you're flying in the face of reality. Have you read Hawking? He's easy to find at the bookstore, library or here on Amazon.

I have Einstein's book in my hand (before I started typing this). It says what it says; I've quoted it accurately. He says the same thing in many other sources.

You are demonstrating the misinformation atheists have to use (dismissing the facts or reality) in order for atheism to have any kind of footing other than wishful thinking.

Want to try again, without name calling and dismissing documented facts? Call your great thinkers over at the atheist blog. Find Dawkins and Hitchens to come running to your emotional rescue. Bring 'em on. Let's rumble!!! :-)

But then again, maybe it's safer if everyone would just ignore this thread, since it demonstrates the atheist emperor is buck naked and a eunuch.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 26, 2008 8:53:29 AM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Aug 1, 2008 3:39:18 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 26, 2008 8:57:38 AM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Aug 1, 2008 3:39:20 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 26, 2008 8:59:19 AM PST
S. R. Ballew says:
To Seven Lights : My assertion is that GOD can be proven, but I base that on faith and reason, not necessarily empirical data. It is not a guess. I can know something and not be able to prove it empirically. I have dreams often when I sleep, but I couldn't prove it to anyone. Nor could you prove I don't have dreams.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 400 Next ›
Discussion locked

Recent discussions in the Religion forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Announcement
Amazon Discussions Feedback Forum
1650 5 days ago
Why are atheists without theism, which is to say why are atheists, atheists? 1 9 seconds ago
Even if There Were a 'God,' No Human Could Know It 2647 5 minutes ago
Creationism is Sad 547 7 minutes ago
Noah's Ark - the "WTH?"Thread 196 40 minutes ago
nondualism 358 57 minutes ago
Art & Spirituality 559 59 minutes ago
Life 873 1 hour ago
How can atheism be true or false? 687 2 hours ago
William Blake 1584 2 hours ago
I cannot get goblueresurrection to address my evidence that atheism is true 738 2 hours ago
All Religion 6 2 hours ago
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Religion forum
Participants:  576
Total posts:  10000
Initial post:  Jan 26, 2008
Latest post:  Jan 18, 2009

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 35 customers

Search Customer Discussions