Religious Question

[Plognark]

I'll just add another "Don't believe" and "Lack of evidence" to the heap.

I also find many specifically defined deities to be inconsistent and often just completely absurd.

(3) If there is no litmus test to prove our points of view on this subject, why does one side (either the religious or the scientist) argue so adimately on their position?

From what I can tell, mostly for emotional reasons.

 

[CBL4]

Unfortunately, nobody has proven the initial question. And, just because you do not agree with my hypothesis, does not make me ignorant. It does not make you ignorant. It makes us curious. Don't you think there have been scientists being laughed at by others, only to have their theories later to be found correct? You never assume anything. And, until I am proven wrong, my hypothesis is as good as yours.

As CaveDave said, not all hypothesis are equally good.

Your hypothesis is that 14 billion years ago God created the universe. The naturalistic hypothesis is that 14 billion years ago the universe came into being by some currently not understood natural method.

If your hypothesis is true, we would expect to see some evidence of god. If the naturalistic hypothesis is true, then we would not expect to see evidence of god. In the real world, the evidence for god (or other supernatural forces) is quite weak and not repeatable. This supports the naturalistic hypothesis. Clearly, it does not disprove your hypothesis but the evidence for yours is clearly very limited.

It seems to me that your belief is based on the fact that you cannot imagine the universe appearing from nothing. But the theistic alternatives seem bizarre:
1) God existed for eternity but did not create the universe until 14 billion years ago.
2) God pop out of nothing 14 billion years ago.
3) Time started 14 billions ago.

Also for an earth-centric religion such as Christianity to be accurate, god wasted 9 billion years before creating the earth and an additional 5 billion years before creating man. This seems strange.

CBL

 

[jambo372]

I do believe in a God.

The reason for this is probably that I think it's very unlikely creation just started itself.
I also believe we survive death because of this wonderful being.

I think but I'm not certain that we may be re-incarnated at the will of God.

I actually suspect I was once a rhinoceros and that poachers killed me and stole my horn.

I also find it strange that people have saw beings from the otherside.

I think whether you believe or not comes down to personal experience.

 

[CaveDave]

Jambo, will you answer these, please?

I do believe in a God.

You say "a god", meaning one?
Why not eleven?
Or forty-two?
Or an uncountable number?
What convinces you that one-and-only-one diety must exist?

The reason for this is probably that I think it's very unlikely creation just started itself.

Well, if creation could not start itself, how did this singular diety manage the trick?
If the Universe REQUIRES something greater to create it, what then is required to bring the creator into existence?

I also believe we survive death because of this wonderful being.

I guess some would take comfort in that belief.

I think but I'm not certain that we may be re-incarnated at the will of God.

We can save this for later; please answer the more basic questions first.

I actually suspect I was once a rhinoceros and that poachers killed me and stole my horn.

Truely? (No need to answer this, that's just such a startling statement.)

I also find it strange that people have saw beings from the otherside.

Have saw. Do you mean have seen?
Why, if you believe in reincarnation, would you find that strange?
What kinds of beings?
Other side of what?

I think whether you believe or not comes down to personal experience.

That well may be, but do you mean that reality is flexible?

Thanks in advance.

Dave

 

[pmurray]

I don't think there is a god, because the no-god worldview seems to correspond better with life as I find it than the theistic worldview.

 

[GrnMtSkeptic]

(1) Do you believe in a deity? No.

(2) If so, why? If not, why? I see no evidence for one, no need for one, and have never heard a definition of one that ever made any sense to me.

(3) If there is no litmus test to prove our points of view on this subject, why does one side (either the religious or the scientist) argue so adimately on their position? I think to an extent there is. If someone believes in a god who is not part of the natural yet interferes with the natural world, there there would be evidence of that interference, no matter how subtle. (Aside from the fact that I find the concept of a god who is not part of the natural yet interferes with the natural world a contradiction.) As someone else said, a god who was not part of the natural world who did not interfere with the natural world would be indistinguishable from a nonexistent god.