Belief and 'The God Delusion'

[Legendary]

LOL, I meant the formula in the sense of "p, equaling the speed of a photon, will be equal to this," GOD saying, "THIS is how it will be." He wouldn't need the formulas, he'd MAKE them.

Fitting the BILLIONS of years? Hmm, I'd have to go with, the six day creation is itself a METAPHOR, and not a precise description of how GOD created the universe.

 

[WildCard]

if you look at the hebrew, the words there for days are literal days, as opposed to other parts of the bible, or the old testimant for that matter using words that ment long periods of time. Plus when he created the sun, moon, etc, I doubt it took a million years for the sun to set and rise again. Billions of years?  I really like that evolutionist try to prove what they can't  when they can't have direct observation of anything in the past. How do they know it's billions of years? They weren't there.


And if you try to use dating, I can point you towards a professor that took a sample from mount saint helens after it errupted and gave it to a lab to be dated, and it was dated in the hundreds of millions, when it had not been older than even a year. Of course, there are other instances where their dating is amazingly wrong.

 

[Legendary]

How we know the universe is 13.7 billion years old: We LOOKED.

Light takes time to travel. Therefore, however far away we can see, is how old the universe is. We can detect light from things 13.7 billion light years away. Ergo, the light took 13.7 billion years to get HERE.

That's how we know.

 

[WildCard]

Once again, if you believe creation, god created the entire universe, And I'm sure light is produced from stars all along the universe, how do you know where the light came from? certainly there is no 13.7 billion year old scientist who watched it. And however far away we can see isn't determined by one specific point if there are different sources of light. You have to assume, just like everyone else, you dont know for sure.

 

[skirtboy]

First off, If you read the book of Genesis, It tells the story of creation TWICE, not once, so the "six day" argument is of less importance than many seem to believe it to be. My interpretation of it is that He set the universe into existance, then, some billions of years later decided to make the Earth itself.

The prime reason that we believe, I think, is that we were built to believe in something. There is not a person on Earth that does not put faith in something, even though they deny it. It could be God, Science, or the "Radiant Future," but it is something, and it is believed as much out of faith as anything else. Personally, I believe that our need to believe is the most convincing proof that there is a God, for there is no eveolutionary advntage to it.

 

[Legendary]

WildCard: By that logic, how can I tell that the light here in the room I'm sitting in is coming from the ceiling fan and the sun, as opposed to my NEIGHBOR'S ceiling light and Alpha Centauri?

 

[WildCard]

I see your point on that. So, you have to ask a few questions. did God already create light in this area? Or, if light always travelled at the same speed, what about exploding stars? Couldn't that send light at a much faster rate? And if you did have billions of years, more than a few explosions would happen I'm sure.

I could also point you to another site that can further explain my point. Again, I may not be able to prove or dissprove everything, but neither can you. You can say I'm bias, but so are you, no one is purely objective, we all have a world view, it depends on the "glasses' you're looking through, or your preconceptions.

 

[skirtboy]

There is nothing in our science to suggest that the speed of light in a vacuum ever changes.

 

[WildCard]

Does the speed of light change when a star explodes? And how many times do you think that could have occured in your billions of years?

 

[Legendary]

The speed of light in a vacuum is a constant, and unchangeable. The speed of light in matter is quite changeable, but much slower. Exploding stars have no effect on this, as the light escaping them at the moment of destruction will outrace the plasma being expelled. However, we don't look at exploding stars. We look at variable stars, whose light emissions change. And, at the far away distances of 13.7 billion light years, we can't see individual stars, we see whole (proto-)galaxies. Galaxies are much more constant.

If you wish to argue that GOD created light so it would look like it had travelled for 13.7 billion years, that is of course, your perogative. However, one feels compelled to ask why GOD would do such a thing, create a universe that is designed to look incredibly old. If you wish to argue that you can't use the evidence, then you must also explain why GOD would invalidate the evidence.

 

[WildCard]

It's not that there is no evidence, or rather, evidence supporting your belief. I wont pretend to know more than I do right here, but once again I can give you a web site that could explain it much better than I, about the light travel problem and more. Whether you take a look is up to you.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... ronomy.asp



Stephen Hawking and George Ellis have written: ‘…we are not able to make cosmological models without some mixture of ideology’. Their work makes use of the Copernican Principle: the universe has no edges and no centre—it looks everywhere broadly the same. This principle, it is important to note, is not a conclusion of science, but an assumption thought to be valid.

 

[nohmaan]

Stephen Hawking and George Ellis have written: ‘…we are not able to make cosmological models without some mixture of ideology’. Their work makes use of the Copernican Principle: the universe has no edges and no centre—it looks everywhere broadly the same. This principle, it is important to note, is not a conclusion of science, but an assumption thought to be valid.

So let me get this straight, you are invalidating all scientist's perspectives of the universe being billions of years old, and THEN you pull out a chopped quote from Stephen Hawking?  Scientists aren't always right, they make theories and they have holes, but thats true for ALL scientists, from the rookie in college to Albert Einstein.  Stop contradicting yourself.

Additionally the basic theory of the Copernican Principle is that the universe IS expanding, meaning there is a probable end to the universe.  The other major point it states is that the Earth is not the center of the universe, and that it has no unique place in the universe.  This theory is in support of the big bang, and the big freeze.  This theory is NOT in support of religious views that God created the Earth specifically.

Intelligent design is a theory that holds so much water because of our natural fear of the unknown.  Christian conservatives refuse the fact that there may be a possibility that there is no God because it was written in a book, transcribed by man, that they will burn in hell otherwise.  It's a book that has not been validated as true or false!  The bible is a theoretical piece of work that implies moral codes and standards rather than really explaining the origin of life.  It was written well before the world had modern science and could not properly explain the cosmos, or even rainbows for that matter.

Modern religion is mostly plagiarized from other religions as well.  Good example: Ever heard of Mithra?  Born December 25th, the light of the world, the son of god?  Krishna? Dionysus? Osiris?  They all predate back to the early egyptian mythologies surrounding sun worship, all born December 25th, with immaculate conception and visited by three kings with gifts who followed the North Star.

Why would all the religions have a common theme like that?  Well, in the southern hemisphere on december 23 the sun reaches it's lowest position in the sky; meaning that there is more darkness, more predators, less crops.  However on December 25th a miracle occurs.  The sun begins to rise again in the southern hemisphere.  The birth of the sun! This day is marked also by the alignment of the Egyptian constellation "The Three Kings" which point directly to the sun in a straight line, which is also in line with the Northern Star.  Does this story sound familiar to you? 

 

[Me(tm)]

The problem is that no-one sofar could give an absolute no or yes to: God does not exist. Some seem to hang on their background and faith, some on scientists...

I don't think that there is a god, or more gods, but if someone could just answer me: "God does exist because: X" where X is an event, and thus X is not: ' I just know ' or ' the bible says so ' or 'scientists are wrong'. No one seems to answered that yet...

There are a few holes in evolution (HIV/AIDS has mutated so much,but has not ever done anything that moves it up the evolutionary tree, is a nice little example, as is the fact that scientists have never been able to create life out of inorganic chemicals), but the fact is, evolution is here to stay.

They have been able to create the basic parts of the simplest organisms out of inorganic materials, and that an sich was very special, as very complex structure where found, where only simple ones where expected. To be more exact: They fond nucleotides: the parts of your DNA.

 

[Astromech]

No one can say there isn't a god either, so we can't rule out the possibility.  :smile:

The fact of the matter is that religion is not, and cannot be, backed by scientific proofs. The reason people say God is real because they "just know" is because religion is backed up by faith and revelation. It's personal, and if you have not experienced a revelation then no one should expect you to suddenly believe in a religion. Many people (and this is referring to no one in specific) go about tying to "turn" people to their religion the wrong way. You cannot prove a religion is true through science, although science can provide you with insights if you look at it the right way.

The science vs. religion debate of modern times is really a shame, considering they are not mutually exclusive in my opinion. Many of the great scientists before Darwin were pious Christians, and I think you can still be.

 

[nohmaan]

You cannot prove a religion is true through science...

I would disagree with this statement, changing it to "We have not proven a religion is true through science".  I also disagree with when someone tries to change your view to match theirs, and there is a fine line between debating and marketing a belief.  But I find it extremely helpful to hear other people's opinions on the matter so that you can examine their situation more clearly and draw your own, new conclusions based off the added evidence. 

That is the importance of being objective to any subject or topic given, so that all sides can be presented and a general consensus can be drawn (unless you are arguing politics at a pub).

Now, for my own personal take on the 'God Delusion', I find that it's more of a comfort to people than a real reason to explain existence.  It's a pillow that was made to soften to weight of our own mortality, but a pillow should never be used as a crutch.  It is EXTREMELY frustrating, to me even, to not be able to identify (even through the most thorough rationalizations) the purpose (if any) of our existence as a whole, let alone my individual goals and purpose in being the person I am.  The underlying comfort in religion is that this deity often has a plan for you, so you don't need to consider your options so in depth.  And also that this deity has a place for you after you die, assuming you agree to live by their terms.  They are almighty, and omniscient (and need your money).

 

[shiroun]

I guess I'll introduce the Dawkins scale here. He suggests that all people probably fall somewhere on this spectrum of belief:

1: Strong Theist: 100% probability of God. Carl Jung's quote: 'I do not believe, I Know'
2: De facto Theist: 70-90% probability of God. 'I can't be certain, but I live in the assumption god is there'
3: Theological Agnostic: 51-69% probability of God. 'I'm very uncertain, but I'm inclined to believe'
4: True Agnostic: 50% probability of God. 'Its 50-50. No really!!'
5: Sceptic Agnostic: 25-49% probability of God. 'I don't know if he exists, but I'm inclined to sceptical'
6: De facto Atheist: 1- 24% probability of God. 'I can't be certain, but I live in the assumption nothing is there'
7: True Atheist: 0% probability of God. 'God cannot exist. It is geniuinely impossible.'

Ok, no offence here, but you really just overjudged us all. I believe in the possibility, but I need proof, I have no percentage though.

How weird

 

[Rayne Aven]

Actually that scale was introduced to the public by Richard Dawkins, not eharper256.

Anyway, as to the original question: Why do people believe? I think Freud answered that well: we have a superego. Religion is what crafts our morals. If we didn't believe there was a superior power, there probably would not be humanity. Also, I think it also exists to help followers in a time of need. When my grandmother died, my grandfather, with tears welling up in his eyes, smiled and said to me: "She's in a better place, but she's still with us, watching over us." I have a hunch that if he did not believe in heaven or an afterlife, he would be much worse than how he is today.

Furthermore, and I think most pertinently, it fills in the blanks. The Bible is simply a book of Judeo-Christian mythology. The only difference between It and, say, Greek mythology, is that today, people still believe it's true (I don't mean to offend anyone of faith, here; I'm simply trying be as objective as possible). Just like the Greek myths, the Bible attempts to explain the creation of the world and why things are the way they are. I'm sure the Bible will be standard reading in Literature classes if a new dominant religion is formed, just as mythology is today.

 

[therockstar2005]

People believe for the same reason that the scientists conducts experiments for the same reason the writer writes, the musician plays, the artist paints, the stargazer stares into the night's sky, and so on and so forth.  They want the truth.

We look around and try to make sense of our world, explain why things happen the way they do.  For the ancient Hebrews, they really didn't have the time or desire to worry about how things came into being; hence why they said "Well, God did it in seven days.  It just makes sense."  It wasn't the entire fact by fact truth, but it was a good answer (for the time).  Its the same thing today when people say "Well, the universe started with the Big Bang.  It just makes sense."  It might not be the entire fact by fact truth, but it's a good answer for our time.  Maybe in the future there will be better answers, theories, ideas.  In reality, science and religion aren't as different as people make them out to be.  They both, at their very core, long to understand our world. 

The problem really comes when people distort that, on both sides (such as 'God needing your money' that someone referenced a couple posts ago).  Trying to use science to prove or disprove religious belief is like trying to use religion to prove or disprove scientific thought, both of which have ironically been done throughout the ages.  Honestly, it's downright silly.  It seems as though the bigger question here is whether or not God actually exists.  This, ironically as well, is not tied to anyone's belief one way or another (unless you have this wierd notion of God where our belief gives him strength or something...but that's a whole 'nother bag of grief)

I really think these science vs. religion debates are pointless, and not because they're opposites, but because their end goals really are (ideally) the same.  They just examine it through a different human faculty: science primarily through the mind, and religion primarily through the spirit, the anima, the soul, the something that makes us different from everything else out there.  Don't fault the fact that humans are incredibly flawed and screwed both up to discount their merits.

And by the way, Darwin's writings and experiments actually reinforced his belief in God.  He was in absolute awe at the complexity of life and how it all managed to work out (specifically the human eye).  Whether that is true or not, still, I don't think we can prove, but can everyone please stop making it out like Darwin is the athiestic messiah or something, it's not true.  Athiesm was around long before Darwin, and it had plenty of arguments before him as well.

Also, another interesting question, because it seems to come up here in terms of belief: What is proof?  Is it objective or subjective?  Do you need proof to believe something, and if you don't, is it then ok to have that belief?

 

[mega_man_aXe]

    I absolute, 100% positively do not believe in god or any other religion for that matter.  My mind simply won't allow me to believe such a ludicrous fairy tale.  Why would I be chastised for believing in Boogerman God?  The same concept is there...it is a belief...but people would find that absolutely ridiculous just as I find religion ridiculous!  To think that I would be burned in hell for eternity simply for not "having faith," no matter how moral or kind and loving a person I was is POPPYCOCK! 
    In my opinion...people believe in religion because of a few reasons: social life, a crutch to get through hard times, fear of death, and an answer to the unknown.
    Social Life:  This is a big factor because, well, who wants to be the one in a family who doesn't believe what everyone else does?  Religion brings people together with a common belief and that feels good!  To be around other people who share your belief and join in on merry times.  This of course can be achieved without religion.
    A Crutch:  Perhaps its financial trouble, or a death in the family, or being paralyzed for the rest of your life.  Who knows, but with religion and the belief of a higher, loving, omnipotent power, I'm sure those folks use that as there stress-reliever and a means to get through troubling times.  This also can be achieved without religion.
    Fear of Death:  This is a big one...who wants to die and that be the end-all?  With promises of an afterlife of a grandeur proportion, 'believing' seems really enticing doesn't it?  And if you don't 'believe' you'll still live forever, you'll just be feeling pain and dying again and again in the abysmal pits of hell.
    An Answer to the Unknown:  We are humans and we are very curious people.  From little children trying to understand why their parents would get nakey and wrestle to what is beyond the cosmos, we are always seeking answers to our plethora of questions.  With religion saying: "Hey, look at me, I may not really describe what the hell is going on, I'm gonna offer you a solution to your troubles: and his name is GOD...or ALLAH...or WHOEVER, and all the answers to your questions lie within them...because they are the creators!

I don't believe in any religion and doubt I ever will......

 

[Bankbezel757]

The original poster said something along the lines of "Evolution is the only way". I nearly threw up in my mouth for a second. The well established theory of evolution is not a religous OR moral code. It has nothing to do with morality, gods or prayer. It is simply a mechanism in which species evolve over time. Thats it...I am an atheist. I lack a belief in any deity. I find religion immature and irrational..And guess what...My beliefs have nothing to do with evolution...Nothing...Its about the lack of evidence..