My world is tearing apart

[Aoi Magi]

Hi C&S, I understand your confusion because though from an atheist perspective the answer to your question is obvious, from a believer's standpoint it's not so easy to just accept that answer. Also there are other religions out there who can theoretically give you an explanation because they don't believe in an omniscient, omnipotent god like the abrahamic god. But at the end of it all, no matter which religion you look at, you'll see it is humans who are defending their respective gods instead of it being the other way around, it is man who is coming up with all the explanations be it right or wrong. In most of the world man has made laws such that questioning the religion is to be considered a crime, why would any being more powerful than man, let alone an omniscient omnipotent being, require man's protection?

[Brian37]

Hi C&S, I understand your confusion because though from an atheist perspective the answer to your question is obvious, from a believer's standpoint it's not so easy to just accept that answer. Also there are other religions out there who can theoretically give you an explanation because they don't believe in an omniscient, omnipotent god like the abrahamic god. But at the end of it all, no matter which religion you look at, you'll see it is humans who are defending their respective gods instead of it being the other way around, it is man who is coming up with all the explanations be it right or wrong. In most of the world man has made laws such that questioning the religion is to be considered a crime, why would any being more powerful than man, let alone an omniscient omnipotent being, require man's protection?

When someone tries to protect a god, I don't see a real god, I see humans protecting their own egos because of fear of being wrong. When someone says "Don't pick on my God" I get the image of a midget standing in front of The Terminator shouting "DON'T HIT MY GOD YOU MIGHT HURT HIM". 

Why would something allegedly all powerful need help? Is the believer of any god saying this god is too weak to fight his own battles? Or is it maybe humans simply are defending what they want to be true because the thought of being unimportant to the universe is too frightening to them?

[Angrboda]

Certainty is illusive. If you look for it, you may not find it. Just as atheists have their arguments about what must be and why, so do theists. It all tends to look similar from the inside. Ultimately it's a question of trust. Which set of answers do you trust more? Go with your feelings and I'm sure you'll be alright.

[JuliaL]

Little quick introduction:
-A devout muslim since 14 years old
-Always believed in a higher power and if you are good and graceful you will get rewarded either heaven or hell


Lately I been losing my faith and one of the biggest triggers is a question nobody seems to have a answer I am satisfied with.
I just need this last push and I feel like I will abandon my religion because I can not find a answer for this.
If god is all knowing and he created us, That means that before he created us he already knew what we were gonna do.
That also means that if god is all knowing and he created us that some of us that will go to hell or heaven was already created for it before hand.

But they tell me that we have free will but somehow it doesn't make sense. If we had thousands, Millions or even billions of option or destinies for each step we do and choose.
Wouldn't god know which one we would ultimately chose. please someone explain this to me I am getting more and more confused

It turns out that a protestant Christian, John Calvin, thought your thoughts and came up with his own sect...Calvinism
In that model, free will isn't really free.  We're condemned by a sinful nature to only doing those things God knows we'll do.
Of course, it would be God who set up the system in which Adam sinned and shafted the rest of us, but let's not quibble.

I find a better model to be:
The concept of God has evolved as a means of social control in the hands of clerics who use it to convince (indoctrinate) many of the rest of us to support them without their having to do any real useful work.  It's a sweet gig and they're willing to see any amount of unnecessary suffering in order to keep it up.
In this model, there doesn't have to be anything that actually exists to back up the concept of God, just clerics who benefit from the concept.

[Brian37]

Certainty is illusive.  If you look for it, you may not find it.  Just as atheists have their arguments about what must be and why, so do theists.  It all tends to look similar from the inside.  Ultimately it's a question of trust.  Which set of answers do you trust more?  Go with your feelings and I'm sure you'll be alright.

No, in science the good thing is you don't have to trust, that is what testing and falsifying, control groups and independent peer review is for. Even scientists have had competing theories, which some pan out and others dont, no trust needed. That is what independent peer review does, acts as a filter to insure your own personal bias isn't skewing the data.

"Go with your feelings", no no no no. That is what screws up human logic. It is ok to have feelings and emotions yes, nobody should claim we should not, and this also not about legal rights either. Pragmatism and critical thinking and reason don't prevent one from having feelings, but they do act as a great filter to insure what your perception of reality isn't flawed and that leads you to, not perfect answers, but more accurate answers.

[Angrboda]

Certainty is illusive.  If you look for it, you may not find it.  Just as atheists have their arguments about what must be and why, so do theists.  It all tends to look similar from the inside.  Ultimately it's a question of trust.  Which set of answers do you trust more?  Go with your feelings and I'm sure you'll be alright.

No, in science the good thing is you don't have to trust, that is what testing and falsifying, control groups and independent peer review is for. Even scientists have had competing theories, which some pan out and others dont, no trust needed. That is what independent peer review does, acts as a filter to insure your own personal bias isn't skewing the data.

"Go with your feelings", no no no no. That is what screws up human logic. It is ok to have feelings and emotions yes, nobody should claim we should not, and this also not about legal rights either. Pragmatism and critical thinking and reason don't prevent one from having feelings, but they do act as a great filter to insure what your perception of reality isn't flawed and that leads you to, not perfect answers, but more accurate answers.

Bollocks. Science can't dictate how you answer the god question. Like it or not, we're all at the whims of our biases. They are what makes us who we are. You can no more choose to believe a position that you don't have a good feeling about than you can fly. Like it or not, our emotions lead us by the nose. Take into account what science and reason say, sure, but ultimately it will come down to which position you trust more. All the science in the world is not enough to nullify our prejudices in the matter. Telling someone to just trust science and logic is nonsensical advice. He can only do what's human. If he trusts science and logic, then he does trust them. Telling him what he should trust is inane advice.

[Brian37]

No, in science the good thing is you don't have to trust, that is what testing and falsifying, control groups and independent peer review is for. Even scientists have had competing theories, which some pan out and others dont, no trust needed. That is what independent peer review does, acts as a filter to insure your own personal bias isn't skewing the data.

"Go with your feelings", no no no no. That is what screws up human logic. It is ok to have feelings and emotions yes, nobody should claim we should not, and this also not about legal rights either. Pragmatism and critical thinking and reason don't prevent one from having feelings, but they do act as a great filter to insure what your perception of reality isn't flawed and that leads you to, not perfect answers, but more accurate answers.

Bollocks.  Science can't dictate how you answer the god question.  Like it or not, we're all at the whims of our biases.  They are what makes us who we are.  You can no more choose to believe a position that you don't have a good feeling about than you can fly.  Like it or not, our emotions lead us by the nose.  Take into account what science and reason say, sure, but ultimately it will come down to which position you trust more.  All the science in the world is not enough to nullify our prejudices in the matter.  Telling someone to just trust science and logic is nonsensical advice.  He can only do what's human.  If he trusts science and logic, then he does trust them.  Telling him what he should trust is inane advice.

Where did I say it dictates how you answer, it is a tool, not a human. Humans when using that tool DO have to be willing to go where the evidence leads, it is still the only accurate universal tool humans have, anything outside a lab is your own like and opinion. If you want that "opinion" to be more than that and to be universal, the only tool we have is scientific method.

Don't confuse human rights with the process of scientific method. We are certainly entitled to our own beliefs and opinions, but we are not entitled to our own set of facts.