Zone1 Why is it so tough to believe in God?

[Hafar1014]

Yes,but you and I have that same wiring.

The brain is hard wired for spiritual thinking and to ponder ideas that cant be proven. That doesnt mean we cant make choice. We make choices to fill an emotional need.

 

[Hafar1014]

Hearsay is not acceptable evidence to me. Faith is certainly not evidence.

Evidence isnt required as there is no evidence to support the non existence either. Beliefs dont require evidence

 

[hadit]

No it most certainly is not. It is testimony.

And we.only rely on testimony in a courtroom because we don't always have objective evidence available, and a decision must be made anyway


I don't have to make a decision on whether or not gods exist, and I certainly would never do so based on the most unreliable method known to mankind: eyewitness testimony.

We execute people on the firsthand testimony of one or two individuals. It's rather specious to, on the one hand, say that is justified while simultaneously claiming it's so unreliable you can't trust it at all, even though untold millions (not just one or two) throughout history have testified to the same thing. IOW, if testimony is that unreliable, no one should be sent to prison from one person saying they saw him kill the rival gang member, but there's no camera recording, no fingerprints or DNA left behind, and no murder weapon to be found.

 

[Hafar1014]

Because faith is not necessary if there is evidence.

If your world can only be defined by evidence then its very small and limited world. Hope faith and belief play major roles in human thought.

 

[Hafar1014]

the corruption of all three desert religions - for 1: false commandments in particular used to persecute and victimize the innocent found in all three desert bibles.

the true events of the 1st century are meant as the new beginning, liberation theology, self determination those organized religions do all they can to prevent for the fruition of hope and freedom that time represented.

How well did the atheist nations USSR Red China and Cambodia make out. They slaughtered over 100 million people

 

[hadit]

If your world can only be defined by evidence then its very small and limited world. Hope faith and belief play major roles in human thought.

And it is non-credible to insist that a much higher being that can exist in as many dimensions as it wishes has to be replicated in a lab in order to exist.

I can see the ants now, toiling away in their lab trying to prove the existence of humans but being frustrated because no matter what they do, they can't predict when the next shoe is going to hit the hill. One faction of ants claims that humans obviously are just gigantic flat things that randomly drop out of the sky, while another claims they don't exist at all, since their hill has never been flattened, and seeing is believing. Yet another faction claims that they have ascended above the flat thing and found amazing vistas as they are carried along in the sky at great speeds, but no one believes them because they are obviously crackpots.

 

[forkup]

Evidence isnt required as there is no evidence to support the non existence either. Beliefs dont require evidence

Beliefs can exist without evidence, sure, but once a belief makes a claim about reality, evidence becomes necessary. Religions don’t just say “believe”; they make specific claims about how the world was created, how life began, what events happened in history. Those claims can be tested against objective evidence, and when they fail, that’s evidence against that particular god or doctrine.

Take the Catholic God as an example. He’s one of thousands of gods humans have believed in. The chance that this one is true is at best 1 in however many religions you want to name, and even less when you factor in denominations that contradict each other. That’s not proof of non-existence, but it’s strong evidence that the god you probably mean is wrong.

Creation stories are another case. Many religions claim the earth is a few thousand years old, or that humans were created fully formed. Science shows otherwise, geology, genetics, and evolution all contradict those claims. The usual response is special pleading or rationalization, but that doesn’t erase the evidence.

So no, beliefs don’t require evidence to exist. But if you want them to be true, evidence is exactly what’s required. And when tested, most religious claims fail.

 

[DukeU]

 

[Hafar1014]

Beliefs can exist without evidence, sure, but once a belief makes a claim about reality, evidence becomes necessary. Religions don’t just say “believe”; they make specific claims about how the world was created, how life began, what events happened in history. Those claims can be tested against objective evidence, and when they fail, that’s evidence against that particular god or doctrine.

Take the Catholic God as an example. He’s one of thousands of gods humans have believed in. The chance that this one is true is at best 1 in however many religions you want to name, and even less when you factor in denominations that contradict each other. That’s not proof of non-existence, but it’s strong evidence that the god you probably mean is wrong.

Creation stories are another case. Many religions claim the earth is a few thousand years old, or that humans were created fully formed. Science shows otherwise, geology, genetics, and evolution all contradict those claims. The usual response is special pleading or rationalization, but that doesn’t erase the evidence.

So no, beliefs don’t require evidence to exist. But if you want them to be true, evidence is exactly what’s required. And when tested, most religious claims fail.

Those are still beliefs. Speaking of evidence prove there is no God with evidence.

Genesis is an allegory quite advanced considering when it was written. It describes evolution, man's inherent need for meaning, free will must exist with morals.
Go ahead prove there is no God

 

[JanetTheGreat]

I just said it started with Adam and Eve's sin.

Yes, they were the first humans on Earth.

Explain genetic diversity. If all of Earth's 9 billion or so people come from two people, why are there multiple races? That to me, is the most nonsensical of the creationist Argument.

 

[forkup]

And it is non-credible to insist that a much higher being that can exist in as many dimensions as it wishes has to be replicated in a lab in order to exist.

I can see the ants now, toiling away in their lab trying to prove the existence of humans but being frustrated because no matter what they do, they can't predict when the next shoe is going to hit the hill. One faction of ants claims that humans obviously are just gigantic flat things that randomly drop out of the sky, while another claims they don't exist at all, since their hill has never been flattened, and seeing is believing. Yet another faction claims that they have ascended above the flat thing and found amazing vistas as they are carried along in the sky at great speeds, but no one believes them because they are obviously crackpots.

I don't require a lab to establish that exoplanets exist. What I can do is watch the sky. See the lights diminish of stars as those planets pass along, measure the wobble of stars as the planets exert their gravity on it and lately detect a few directly. In short, these claims can be tested against reality.

A god cannot. And you can try to explain why YOU THINK this is the case by attributing a whole lot of attributes to god that are just as unproven as the god itself. It comes down to you claiming a unicorn exist and that we can't see it because it's invisible. Something you would not accept if I would claim it to you.

According to dogma God is almighty and all-knowing and has taken a special interest in humanity. Yet he doesn't deem it necessary to show himself to humanity in a way that's clear to all. Instead, he revealed himself to your particular religion in a way that's somehow undeniably true, yet completely unknowable. And that's the same claim billions of other people make about their God, but those people are clearly mistaken.

 

[Hafar1014]

Evolution is a theory, and in science, that’s actually stronger than a “fact.” A fact just describes what we see. A theory explains why we see it, and makes predictions that can be tested against new evidence. That’s why theories are the highest form of scientific knowledge: they unify facts into a framework that keeps proving itself over and over.

As for your point about faith: you’re right that I don’t accept things on faith alone. But neither do you, at least not consistently. You don’t believe in unicorns, the Easter Bunny, or the tooth fairy, even though plenty of people (especially children) have believed in them. You’ve carved out a special exception for your particular religion, while rejecting thousands of other religions past and present that also claim faith as their only method of knowing.

The scientific method is different. It’s a process designed to figure out what’s likely true by testing explanations against reality. It has a track record of producing reliable results, medicine, technology, physics, biology, things that work regardless of belief. Faith, by contrast, doesn’t have that kind of predictive power. That doesn’t mean faith is automatically wrong, but it does mean it’s far less reliable (if reliable at all) as a way of knowing.

So, when you say I’m rejecting your religion by applying the scientific method, what you’re really saying is that I’m refusing to accept an inferior method of knowing as equal to one that consistently works. And yes, I apply that same standard to your religion as I do to every other claim. That’s not bias, that’s consistency.

Evolution is a fact and its described in Genesis as two different Adams one primitive and the other developed with free will and morals.

40% of all science is invalid.
The statement that "40% of all science is invalid" reflects a legitimate concern within the scientific community regarding the reproducibility of research findings, particularly in fields like medicine and psychology, but it is an oversimplification. The actual percentage of irreproducible or questionable findings varies widely by field and is difficult to quantify precisely.
Estimates of non-reproducible research range from less than half to over 70% in some specific areas. A highly cited 2005 paper by John Ioannidis argued that "most published research findings are false," a conclusion that has framed much of the discussion around the "replication crisis".

Key Factors Contributing to Irreproducibility
The issues stem from a combination of systemic, statistical, and practical factors, rather than a single, universal invalidity rate:

• Statistical Issues: Many studies use small sample sizes or inadequate statistical power, which increases the likelihood of a finding being a false positive. Practices like "p-hacking" (manipulating data to achieve statistical significance) and selective reporting of positive results also skew the published record.
• • Methodological Challenges: The complexity of experiments, especially in biology and medicine, means subtle differences in reagents, protocols, or lab conditions can lead to different outcomes. Inadequate descriptions of methods in publications exacerbate this issue.
  • Publication Bias: There is a strong incentive to publish novel, "sexy" or positive results in high-impact journals, while negative results (which are often just as valid and informative) are less likely to be published.

 

[Hafar1014]

Explain genetic diversity. If all of Earth's 9 billion or so people come from two people, why are there multiple races? That to me, is the most nonsensical of the creationist Argument.

Genesis is an allegory there were no Adam and Eve. They are metaphors.

 

[hobelim]

Which you will ignore or say are lies. You're looking for science to prove God's existence, and it cannot. God is a sovereign being, not an ATM, who does not have to obey anything man sets up for Him to do.

Yet the promise is clear. Blessed are the pure of mind for they shall see God.

So tell me, when in your entire life have you heard a single peep from your virgin diddling mangod? Any dreams, visions, prophecies that can be verified? Any revelations or mysteries solved that would suggest he exists?

Take your time....

 

[DukeU]

Explain genetic diversity. If all of Earth's 9 billion or so people come from two people, why are there multiple races? That to me, is the most nonsensical of the creationist Argument.

Could it be that God created the first man on Earth with multiple gene types inside of him?!?

 

[Hafar1014]

I don't require a lab to establish that exoplanets exist. What I can do is watch the sky. See the lights diminish of stars as those planets pass along, measure the wobble of stars as the planets exert their gravity on it and lately detect a few directly. In short, these claims can be tested against reality.

A god cannot. And you can try to explain why YOU THINK this is the case by attributing a whole lot of attributes to god that are just as unproven as the god itself. It comes down to you claiming a unicorn exist and that we can't see it because it's invisible. Something you would not accept if I would claim it to you.

According to dogma God is almighty and all-knowing and has taken a special interest in humanity. Yet he doesn't deem it necessary to show himself to humanity in a way that's clear to all. Instead, he revealed himself to your particular religion in a way that's somehow undeniably true, yet completely unknowable. And that's the same claim billions of other people make about their God, but those people are clearly mistaken.

Any belief thats honest and fills an emotional need is a valid belief. Its not right or wrong to believe in a concept of god or not to.

 

[JanetTheGreat]

Could it be that God created the first man on Earth with multiple gene types inside of him?!?

A literal interpretation of the Bible doesn't match up with the empirical evidence of what has been observed through modern technology. One can still believe in God, and believe in the Scientific method.

 

[DukeU]

Explain genetic diversity. If all of Earth's 9 billion or so people come from two people, why are there multiple races? That to me, is the most nonsensical of the creationist Argument.

Nonsensical?

You believe we evolved from rocks, water, etc, over millions of years.

How nonsensical is that?

 

[JanetTheGreat]

Nonsensical?

You believe we evolved from rocks, water, etc, over millions of years.

How nonsensical is that?

Bold of you to assume that.

I am inclined to believe that evolution itself is intelligent design from the creator. I don't believe in a Universe devoid of a higher power.

 

[DukeU]

Bold of you to assume that.

I am inclined to believe that evolution itself is intelligent design from the creator. I don't believe in a Universe devoid of a higher power.

Like I said.