My House Did not have a Builder (or did it?)

[Angrboda]

There is a strong correlation between fundamentalist belief in a literal reading of the bible and disbelief in evolution. Disbelief in evolution doesn't come about by chance or by examination of the evidence. It is motivated by the fact that a literal reading of the bible has to deny science. It is de facto proof that belief in the bible is anti-science. Belief makes you stupid.

[SaStrike]

Atlas, here's your problem.  If you push on it, the final answer will be "I don't know!"  And you will then happily proclaim, "Aha!  You don't know, therefore God!"

This is an epic logic fail.  The fact is that the origins of the Universe are unknown, and currently unknowable.  But making shit up isn't an improvement over just not knowing.

It's not epic fail at all. Matter in fact, the truth is one, and the opinions are so many.
I believe in an opinion of the many; because to me, personally, it was the most logical. I even believe in it utterly, and subject everything in my life to it.

Now to why I think it's logical: the singularity discussed in the big bang theory, is an object containing space+time+all material in the universe. It blew up to make up the universe as we know it today. I just assume that behind that explosion, there was "something", because singularities don't blow up by their own, we don't even know if there were more singularities with infinite densities, I mean we don't even know what infinity+infinity would yield !

So, which book told us this from ancient times, in a very basic yet understandable matter?
The scenario that the Quran foretold, for example, is the same, if you simplify the language; let me prove to you. Ask yourself these questions, and you'll know why I choose what I choose:

"Did we ever hear about something "outside the limits of time=eternal" before?"

Sura 112, The Quran:
( 1 )   Say, "He is Allah, [who is] One,
( 2 )   Allah, the Eternal Refuge.
( 3 )   He neither begets nor is born,
( 4 )   Nor is there to Him any equivalent.

"Did we ever hear about a universe, being "repeated", just like the alternate theories, dictate"?

Sura 407, The Quran:
( 27 )   And it is He who begins creation; then He repeats it, and that is [even] easier for Him. To Him belongs the highest attribute in the heavens and earth. And He is the Exalted in Might, the Wise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularity

Alternatives to the singularity

Various new models of what preceded and caused the Big Bang have been proposed as a result of the problems created by quantum mechanics. One model, using loop quantum gravity, aims to explain the beginnings of the Universe through a series of Big Bounces, in which quantum fluctuations cause the Universe to expand. This formulation also predicts a cyclic model of universes, with a new universe being created after an old one is destroyed, each with different physical constants.[3] Another formulation, based on M-theory and observations of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), states that the Universe is but one of many in a multiverse, and has budded off from another universe as a result of quantum fluctuations, as opposed to our Universe being all that exists.[5]

"Who told us that the universe would be destroyed; and a new one will begin"?

Sura 29, The Quran:
( 19 )   Have they not considered how Allah begins creation and then repeats it? Indeed that, for Allah, is easy.
( 20 )   Say, [O Muhammad], "Travel through the land and observe how He began creation. Then Allah will produce the final creation. Indeed Allah, over all things, is competent."

So if I want to represent my belief to you in modern words I would say:
"I believe there was a big bang, produced by a singularity. Soon, after who knows how much, the universe will end, and I believe all the material in it, will form into a new singularity of infinite density and the process will repeat. Billion billion billion of years; though".

That's why I believe in God. He caused the big bang. He arranged the matter, space and time to produce the universe as we know it, and that is how "fate" is created.

I just read the Quran.. somebody discussed those advanced scientific topics since ancient times.

firstly, the "singularity" part that in your opinion caused the big bang, is just you trying to bend things to suit the quran text you quoted. but seems to me you misunderstood. the reason it says "he who is one" is because at the time the multi god religions were the in-thing so he (creator of islam, a man, men write books, creators of universe would do better in my opinion) wanted to emphasize that it is one god that should be worhipped, not the many gods being worshipped and that they were wrong. it does not mention a singularity causing the big bang. just looks to me as f he is trying to get people to say stuff. or, trying to make it seem as if an angel is telling him to say something.

secondly, the part about creating and destroying the universe. this is just you doing gymnastics again. humans and animals and life on earth is what is being mentioned. not the universe lol. the whole "begins creation then repeats it" means life on earth. which was obvious at the time. things being born. then in addition, it doesnt say anything about destroying? you unintentionally added things to the quran. since you read scientific theories, you were so focused on trying to fit it to the quran that you committed the mistake you despise: when people add their own things to quran. the universe creation and destruction was NOT mentioned. the part you quoted was about human creation. since destruction was NOT mentioned (and we know for a fact that in islam humans only get created and not destroyed, they are eternal) my translation is more probable than yours.

so no atlas, there is no scientific knowledge "way ahead of its time" no matter how much gymnastics will be done, there's always a more reasonable explanation as to why he wrote what he wrote. but not your fault, it's a very vague text, take that in with the willingness of people to find a link with science and religion, is an easy mistake to make.

[bennyboy]

---

Atlas, here's your problem.  If you push on it, the final answer will be "I don't know!"  And you will then happily proclaim, "Aha!  You don't know, therefore God!"

This is an epic logic fail.  The fact is that the origins of the Universe are unknown, and currently unknowable.  But making shit up isn't an improvement over just not knowing.

It's not epic fail at all. Matter in fact, the truth is one, and the opinions are so many.
I believe in an opinion of the many; because to me, personally, it was the most logical. I even believe in it utterly, and subject everything in my life to it.

Now to why I think it's logical: the singularity discussed in the big bang theory, is an object containing space+time+all material in the universe. It blew up to make up the universe as we know it today. I just assume that behind that explosion, there was "something", because singularities don't blow up by their own, we don't even know if there were more singularities with infinite densities, I mean we don't even know what infinity+infinity would yield !

So, which book told us this from ancient times, in a very basic yet understandable matter?
The scenario that the Quran foretold, for example, is the same, if you simplify the language; let me prove to you. Ask yourself these questions, and you'll know why I choose what I choose:

"Did we ever hear about something "outside the limits of time=eternal" before?"

Sura 112, The Quran:
( 1 )   Say, "He is Allah, [who is] One,
( 2 )   Allah, the Eternal Refuge.
( 3 )   He neither begets nor is born,
( 4 )   Nor is there to Him any equivalent.

"Did we ever hear about a universe, being "repeated", just like the alternate theories, dictate"?

Sura 407, The Quran:
( 27 )   And it is He who begins creation; then He repeats it, and that is [even] easier for Him. To Him belongs the highest attribute in the heavens and earth. And He is the Exalted in Might, the Wise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularity

Alternatives to the singularity

Various new models of what preceded and caused the Big Bang have been proposed as a result of the problems created by quantum mechanics. One model, using loop quantum gravity, aims to explain the beginnings of the Universe through a series of Big Bounces, in which quantum fluctuations cause the Universe to expand. This formulation also predicts a cyclic model of universes, with a new universe being created after an old one is destroyed, each with different physical constants.[3] Another formulation, based on M-theory and observations of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), states that the Universe is but one of many in a multiverse, and has budded off from another universe as a result of quantum fluctuations, as opposed to our Universe being all that exists.[5]

"Who told us that the universe would be destroyed; and a new one will begin"?

Sura 29, The Quran:
( 19 )   Have they not considered how Allah begins creation and then repeats it? Indeed that, for Allah, is easy.
( 20 )   Say, [O Muhammad], "Travel through the land and observe how He began creation. Then Allah will produce the final creation. Indeed Allah, over all things, is competent."

So if I want to represent my belief to you in modern words I would say:
"I believe there was a big bang, produced by a singularity. Soon, after who knows how much, the universe will end, and I believe all the material in it, will form into a new singularity of infinite density and the process will repeat. Billion billion billion of years; though".

That's why I believe in God. He caused the big bang. He arranged the matter, space and time to produce the universe as we know it, and that is how "fate" is created.

I just read the Quran.. somebody discussed those advanced scientific topics since ancient times.

---

Let me say first of all that some of the first Muslim scholars (not Muhammad's generation maybe) were certainly very intellectual and advanced.  I don't want to denigrate what astronomy or philosophy they may have delved into.  At about 500-600 AD, obviously they were much more advanced than the writers of the Old Testament.

That being said, the things you've quoted are too general, and not supported by enough specific details to be sure that what you say they mean is really what their writers intended.

But I accused you not of a documentary fail, but of a logic fail.  "We don't know, therefore Allah" is a poor argument.  So is claiming to know that which cannot be observed.

[Dan Brooks]

You are right, scientific books are not the same as the Bible in the way you mentioned it. While science can be updated as new discoveries are made, etc, The Bible is a standard. And yes, I would compare what a theologian says to the Bible to see if he was right or not. 
I know I'm not allowed to say that I know the Bible is the revealed word of God because it says so, and it would take hours to explain all the reasons I believe it to be so. But one reason I have other than it saying so, is the spiritual confirmation I get from God that it is true. And as I told someone else, I understand that that is hard to believe, or really impossible to believe by someone who doesn't believe in God or the supernatural. It's not like I could say, "God proves it to me." and you'll say, "Oh, ok, well then that answers that." Because you don't believe He's real. So really it's a difficult question to answer, because there's not really much I could say that would make sense or be believed. But still, that is one of the reasons I believe it. There are literary reasons, prophetic reasons, etc, but the main thing is the spiritual reasons, which is why it's hard to explain and answer.

Well then, how do you propose believers and non-believers should carry on in light of the fact that neither of us can give the other a reason he would accept as valid to change what we believe?

I just need not to be proselytized to in order to help someone win a holy merit badge.  I don't need you to actually lose your belief in god, but I have to tell you that anyone who just believes what they think they're supposed to believe isn't someone I'd be able to carry on a conversation with for long.  My goal for believers is that they think realistically about what they know and what they hope is true.  If someone tells me they can no more prove that god does exist than that I can prove he doesn't but that they choose to believe any how, I can respect that.  You won't like it but that would make you an agnostic theist, just as I am an agnostic atheist.  You wouldn't have to actually be in any doubt that god exists -any more than I have any doubt that one might exist- but if you acknowledge that there is no reasonable way to persuade a fair listener, then you acknowledge that faith does not lie within the provence of knowledge.  Your choice to believe has more to do with who you are, what else you believe and what you need to believe than it does with any evidence.

I wonder how you feel about the idea of uncoupling faith from the concept of knowledge?  To me, I've always thought that someone who believes in the clear light of the absence of conclusive evidence shows more strength of character than the person who psyches themselves up to make the unqualified claim that God just does exist as certainly as the sky is blue, etc.

Well I didn't say that I have no reasons to believe in God. I gave a small list of cursory reasons for it. I'm just simply saying that the biggest reason for me is ore than just empirical evidence. It's spiritual evidence that makes me believe more than anything else, which is difficult to convey to someone who doesn't have a spiritual interest. 

Here are some reasons I believe other than spiritual reasons:
Logic. Now by this I'm not saying that someone by logic could not also come to a disbelief in God as well. But for me personally, it isn't logical that anything, much less an entire universe could spontaneously generate from nothing without it being caused. Nothing, as far as I know, has no generative powers, or any other powers for that matter, which I think would be necessary in order for it to be classified as nothing. So if there was nothing, that is, no material, before the universe, then to me, it is logical that something or someone immaterial had to have caused the instance of the universe. Of course this line of thinking doesn't force me to believe that it must be the God of the Bible, but it does direct me to believe that an inconceivably intelligent and powerful being must have begun the universe. 

Math. Odds of life occurring by chance. Depending on the source, different odds are given. 1 in 4300, 1 in 10390, 1 in 10450, etc. Some scientists have said that under certain conditions, with billions of trial runs taking place, and trillions of amino acids in place, that the chances of producing a hypothetical 32 amino acid long, self-replicating peptide would be reduced to less than 1 in 1040. This sounds much better except that 32 amino acid long hypothetical peptides don't cause life, and also anything greater than 1 in 1030 is considered impossible by most scientists. (I'm sure I'll be ridiculed for this, and people will say the odds I'm presenting are way off, etc. That's fine. I didn't do the calculations myself, obviously.)

Nature. Beyond the fact that there is life at all, but so much of it, and such a wide variety of it, all working together in a near perfect ecosystem marred only by the foolishness and selfishness of man (which I believe is the only physical creature capable of sinning, which is another reason for believing in God). All the food that exists, in such a wide variety also, and ready to be eaten easily. What was responsible for this selection process? The food itself or the living creatures who eat it? And the seemingly impossible combinations of chemicals like certain gases which provide for life. For example, oxygen and hydrogen, both of which are highly flammable by themselves, but together at a 2 to 1 ratio, they are inflammable and conducive to life. In fact, necessary for life. And of course the extreme abundance of these elements, which allows for multitudes of forms of life for an extremely long period of time. The coexistence of plants with animals and humans in that plants exude oxygen and take in carbon dioxide, and we exude carbon dioxide and take in oxygen. That's quite a fortunate happenstance.  

Observation. Although some scientists say that they have been able to observe some level of micro-evolution in a lab setting, I have yet to see any evidence of evolution from kind to kind, or species to species, in a lab or in nature. (If there is a case of this, I'd like to see it.) What I have observed, and assume everyone else has observed, is that everything reproduces after its own kind. This is in line with the creation account in the Bible, and not with evolution, which requires things to reproduce after another kind, even though over a long period of time, adding DNA information and passing it on to the next generation by whatever means, most commonly supposed to be by mutation, which are shown to be harmful rather than beneficial, and reduce information rather than adding it. 

Entropy. The fact that things are not better now than they were before. There is much evidence that earlier man was stronger, healthier, and more intelligent. This evidence includes skeletal finds, archaeological findings of technologically advanced artifacts, ruins, and ancient buildings such as the pyramids, which many engineers admit could not be built today the way they were built back then. Life is short, health is worse, there is more disease, not to mention the obvious moral decay all over the world. Besides, entropy, as far as I know, is still a law of science. Everything left to its own, without intelligent effort and energy being expended, becomes more disorganized over time. (My own top-of-my-head definition.) I know many scientists say that entropy only exists in a closed system, and in a open system, entropy wouldn't occur. But this to me is a moot point, since we are in a closed system. And if we were in an open system, then entropy wouldn't be a law of science, because it wouldn't be observed.

So those are some of my reasons for believing that God must exist, and that evolution cannot have occurred, nor is occurring. 

So from there, then it's a matter of looking for which God it is. 
So why the God of the Bible instead of some other god?
Literary consistency. The Bible was written over a period of about 1500 years by about 40 writers, and yet it is consistent in its portrayal of God, and there is no doctrinal discrepancy in it from start to finish. Other writings aren't like that. The Quran, for instance, was written by one man, and yet has both informational and doctrinal discrepancies and contradictions.
The Sutras of Buddhism were written by one man. (Although there were additions and reinterpretations by others who came later on). But I know Buddhists who claim that their most fundamental unanswered question in life is the problem of suffering. Now this was the one thing that the Buddha claimed to have a remedy for. It was the only thing he taught. Why then would it be that a Buddhist would have their most fundamental unanswered question in life be the problem of suffering? Didn't Buddha answer that for them? Apparently not. 

Extra-biblical corroboration. Not everything the Bible mentions in its historical accounts have been discovered, and not everything that has been discovered is necessarily mentioned in the Bible, but where these things overlap, the evidence corroborates what the Bible says about. A more detailed explanation of this would take an entire post, but there are many names, places, and events the Bible mentions that have been discovered over time as actually being true. There are details about Egypt, Babylon, Assyria, Persia, Greece, Rome, etc, all of which are corroborated by an abundance of evidence. It also mentions specific people whom much evidence shows actually existed. People like Nimrod, Shem, Abraham, Moses, King David and Solomon, Jesus Christ, Paul, Pontius Pilate, a long list of kings of both Israel and other nations, etc. Events like the flood are corroborated by both extant natural evidence, and also written accounts of it found all over the world. Events like the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ are multiply attested by both biblical and non-biblical accounts, and is, by much research, one of the most provable events in history. 

Answers. Other texts may claim to have answers, but really don't have the answers to even the most basic, not to mention the most important questions. The Quran claims to be a completion of the OT and the NT of the Bible. It supposedly tells us more about the God of the Bible yet it just muddies the waters, and makes the way of salvation completely obscured. What's the way of salvation in the Bible? Christ. What's the way of salvation in the Quran? Well hopefully you'll do enough good works and be accepted. Good luck.
And as I said the Buddhist Sutras claim to teach the alleviation of suffering, yet I know Buddhists who don't have the answer to that question. The Bible has the answer to that question. There are several answers for it, but the main answer is that sin is the cause of suffering. And the remedy for it is the redemption of our souls and eternal life where there is no death or sorrow or sickness or hunger or pain. The Vedas are claimed to have been written down by sages, who heard their words from the gods. They are claimed to have supernatural authorship, yet they have questions in their texts such as "What is the origin of the universe? Do even the gods know the answer?" And this question is left unanswered. That's a pretty basic question, that a supernatural author should have the answer to. Ask the Bible that question, and you have an answer in the very first book, in the first chapter. (Now of course you may not agree with that answer, but you do have an answer.) I could ask more and more questions and find the answer in the Bible. I know it's probably possible to come up with a question that the Bible may not have a direct answer for, but there is an answer for every question we really need an answer for.
Claims. I know of no other god who has given a detailed account of the creation of everything, along with the reasons for the things that were made. And I know of no other god who claims to be sovereign over every single thing; the heavens and the earth, Heaven and Hell, nature and all creatures, servants and enemies, good and evil, life and death, and the souls of men. And I know of no other god who gives us such a detailed law of what He expects from us, so much so as it is impossible to keep. This speaks to His absolute righteousness and holiness. The myths of other gods have them committing fornication and other sins, and sound like a cosmic soap opera. The God of the Bible isn't portrayed that way. 
Also, I know of no other god who provides a remedy for the problem of sin. If God is really is holy and righteous as He claims to be, and we're really as sinful as He says we are (which I think is readily evident), then we have a big problem. Even man has laws against things that are universally accepted as wrong. Even in the corrupted system we have in America, we still have laws against theft and murder, etc. Why? (Well in this country in particular, things are legal or illegal mainly because of money, but that's another issue.) But why is it that in general that man has laws against such things? Because we know it's wrong, and it harms the one that the crime was committed against. So even corrupted sinful man still recognizes certain things as wrong, and implements punitive actions against those things. How much more then should God impose punitive actions against people who do wrong, and especially if He is as holy and righteous as He claims to be, and we are as sinful as He says we are, and not only that, but if He also made us, and gave us life? If all this is true, we're in a lot of trouble. 
And none of us can help or save another, because we're all in the same condition. The only one who can save us from the anger and punishment of God is God Himself. And God has no obligation to do so. But He did. Only a man can save men. And only one who is sinless can save those who are sinful. And only by blood can sins be remitted. So the only way to save man is for there to be a sinless man who sheds His blood on our behalf. So God became a man and lived in this earth, and kept His whole law, which none of us could do, and provided Himself the blood sacrifice on our behalf for the remission of our sins. And what does He require from us in order for this to be applied to us? Believing it. That's all. One of my sayings I used to say is, The world says, "I'll believe it when I see it." But God says, "You'll see it when you believe it."

So those are some of my reasons for the God I believe in being the God of the Bible. Reasons other than the spiritual ones that I already mentioned in the other post. And even though as I said it's difficult for me to explain the spiritual reasons, they are the main reason why I apply all the reasons above to me personally. God has spoken to my spirit many times since I was a child, and either told me things I wouldn't have otherwise known, or reminded me of something I needed to know at the time, or convicted me of doing something wrong, or given me specific answers to prayers, etc. And how do I know it's the God of the Bible speaking to me and not some other god? Because He confirms the truth of the Bible to me. Another god wouldn't do that.

Oh, and I don't say these things and tell people about God to get some sort of heavenly brownie points. I don't care if I get a little shack to live in in the next life. I just want to be with Him. I know He has given me eternal life after this one, even though I don't deserve it, and the reason I tell others about it is so that maybe at some point they might end up having it too.

[Brian37]

No sorry Dan, you are simply hiding behind the word "spiritual" which is nothing more than your own wishful thinking.

Life can be and is amazing sure, but it is hardly handed down to us from above. Life also has some pretty nasty shit in it too. The only difference between you and me is that I don't assign any of this to sky heros or ground villains, good or bad.

But I most certainly do have intense feelings when pondering the good. I feel a great sense of love and loss for my late mother. I feel an intense sense of awe when my cat does something cute. What I don't do is chalk those things up to fictional beings. Just like I dont chalk cancer or earthquakes up to ground villains.

[Dan Brooks]

---

I don't have sinless blood. Jesus does. It's a spiritual cleansing that takes place when we believe on Him and what He did, and that He did it for us personally. We receive Him as our Lord, and our Savior, and He receives us as His children. I know it sounds foolish and ridiculous to people who don't believe it.  But once you do believe it, it's amazing what happens.  The peace you have, the assurance you have, the joy you have. It's pretty much impossible to explain to someone who doesn't believe it.

Answer the questions. jesus was not around at the time of Leviticus. The blood can't symbolize something they haven't perceived yet.

Or are you opting for the dodge?

God had already told about the Redeemer who would come at a later time. He mentioned it in Genesis several times. And Job, which was written a little after the flood, says, "I know that my Redeemer liveth, and in my flesh, I shall see God." David also mentions Him, and he lived around 1000 BC. And also certain prophets, especially Isaiah, give even a more detailed description of the coming Messiah. Even the magi knew by their reasonings that Christ was to be born, and when, and where. It was all written. This wasn't just something that happened as a surprise. Now of course they knew much less about Him in the Levitical times, but they still knew of him.

---

No sorry Dan, you are simply hiding behind the word "spiritual" which is nothing more than your own wishful thinking.

Life can be and is amazing  sure, but it is hardly handed down to us from above. Life also has some pretty nasty shit in it too. The only difference between you and me is that I don't assign any of this to sky heros or ground villains, good or bad.

But I most certainly do have intense feelings when pondering the good. I feel a great sense of love and loss for my late mother. I feel an intense sense of awe when my cat does something cute. What I don't do is chalk those things up to fictional beings. Just like I dont chalk cancer or earthquakes up to ground villains.

Neither do I.

---

He thinks the OT is all about Jesus, mh.

it is. Jesus even said so. 
John 5:39

Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

[brewer]

Answer the questions. jesus was not around at the time of Leviticus. The blood can't symbolize something they haven't perceived yet.

Or are you opting for the dodge?

God had already told about the Redeemer who would come at a later time. He mentioned it in Genesis several times. And Job, which was written a little after the flood, says, "I know that my Redeemer liveth, and in my flesh, I shall see God." David also mentions Him, and he lived around 1000 BC. And also certain prophets, especially Isaiah, give even a more detailed description of the coming Messiah.Even the magi knew by their reasonings that Christ was to be born, and when, and where. It was all written. This wasn't just something that happened as a surprise. Now of course they knew much less about Him in the Levitical times, but they still knew of him.

So....... you are choosing to take the dodge. Make a claim, can't support it, move on. How christian of you.

[Whateverist]

Well then, how do you propose believers and non-believers should carry on in light of the fact that neither of us can give the other a reason he would accept as valid to change what we believe?

I just need not to be proselytized to in order to help someone win a holy merit badge.  I don't need you to actually lose your belief in god, but I have to tell you that anyone who just believes what they think they're supposed to believe isn't someone I'd be able to carry on a conversation with for long.  My goal for believers is that they think realistically about what they know and what they hope is true.  If someone tells me they can no more prove that god does exist than that I can prove he doesn't but that they choose to believe any how, I can respect that.  You won't like it but that would make you an agnostic theist, just as I am an agnostic atheist.  You wouldn't have to actually be in any doubt that god exists -any more than I have any doubt that one might exist- but if you acknowledge that there is no reasonable way to persuade a fair listener, then you acknowledge that faith does not lie within the provence of knowledge.  Your choice to believe has more to do with who you are, what else you believe and what you need to believe than it does with any evidence.

I wonder how you feel about the idea of uncoupling faith from the concept of knowledge?  To me, I've always thought that someone who believes in the clear light of the absence of conclusive evidence shows more strength of character than the person who psyches themselves up to make the unqualified claim that God just does exist as certainly as the sky is blue, etc.

Well I didn't say that I have no reasons to believe in God. I gave a small list of cursory reasons for it. I'm just simply saying that the biggest reason for me is ore than just empirical evidence. It's spiritual evidence that makes me believe more than anything else, which is difficult to convey to someone who doesn't have a spiritual interest.

But the salient part of my question was do you have any reason which should be considered adequate justification for me -or a fair-minded impartial person- to believe as you do?  My suggestion is that neither of us has that for the other.  So in light of that impasse, how do you think believers and nonbelievers should carry on?



As for the rest:

Here are some reasons I believe other than spiritual reasons:
Logic. Now by this I'm not saying that someone by logic could not also come to a disbelief in God as well. But for me personally, it isn't logical that anything, much less an entire universe could spontaneously generate from nothing without it being caused. Nothing, as far as I know, has no generative powers, or any other powers for that matter, which I think would be necessary in order for it to be classified as nothing. So if there was nothing, that is, no material, before the universe, then to me, it is logical that something or someone immaterial had to have caused the instance of the universe. Of course this line of thinking doesn't force me to believe that it must be the God of the Bible, but it does direct me to believe that an inconceivably intelligent and powerful being must have begun the universe.

No one knows if there was ever nothing before there was something, so long as 'something' is understood to mean some state of energy or matter capable eventually of becoming what we see today, then there has probably always been something.  No one really knows the answer to such questions but inserting a god doesn't really shed any light on the questions either.  With god all you have is "strange and wonderful ways", and that explains nothing.

Math. Odds of life occurring by chance. Depending on the source, different odds are given. 1 in 4300, 1 in 10390, 1 in 10450, etc. Some scientists have said that under certain conditions, with billions of trial runs taking place, and trillions of amino acids in place, that the chances of producing a hypothetical 32 amino acid long, self-replicating peptide would be reduced to less than 1 in 1040. This sounds much better except that 32 amino acid long hypothetical peptides don't cause life, and also anything greater than 1 in 1030 is considered impossible by most scientists. (I'm sure I'll be ridiculed for this, and people will say the odds I'm presenting are way off, etc. That's fine. I didn't do the calculations myself, obviously.)

Probabilities are meaningless when your terms go undefined and you have not even one exemplar of something 'supernatural' which isn't just something natural that hasn't yet been understood.

Nature. Beyond the fact that there is life at all, but so much of it, and such a wide variety of it, all working together in a near perfect ecosystem marred only by the foolishness and selfishness of man (which I believe is the only physical creature capable of sinning, which is another reason for believing in God). All the food that exists, in such a wide variety also, and ready to be eaten easily. What was responsible for this selection process? The food itself or the living creatures who eat it? And the seemingly impossible combinations of chemicals like certain gases which provide for life. For example, oxygen and hydrogen, both of which are highly flammable by themselves, but together at a 2 to 1 ratio, they are inflammable and conducive to life. In fact, necessary for life. And of course the extreme abundance of these elements, which allows for multitudes of forms of life for an extremely long period of time. The coexistence of plants with animals and humans in that plants exude oxygen and take in carbon dioxide, and we exude carbon dioxide and take in oxygen. That's quite a fortunate happenstance.

Reminds me of the story of the puddle and the hole.  The puddle was just so grateful that such a hole could exist that would fit himself so perfectly.  Like the water puddle, life on this earth has evolved to fit.  No reason not to be grateful, there just isn't anyone to thank for making it so.

Observation. Although some scientists say that they have been able to observe some level of micro-evolution in a lab setting, I have yet to see any evidence of evolution from kind to kind, or species to species, in a lab or in nature. (If there is a case of this, I'd like to see it.) What I have observed, and assume everyone else has observed, is that everything reproduces after its own kind. This is in line with the creation account in the Bible, and not with evolution, which requires things to reproduce after another kind, even though over a long period of time, adding DNA information and passing it on to the next generation by whatever means, most commonly supposed to be by mutation, which are shown to be harmful rather than beneficial, and reduce information rather than adding it.

Evolution is as well as established as most other scientific theories, and better than many.  I'd say it is much better understood than gravity.  I think it is the beginning of life where you can best place a god without appearing uninformed.  Those of us who assume life arose naturally haven't been able to demonstrate precisely how in a laboratory.  That still puts science ahead of religion where the origins of life is concerned in that no theist has a clue how god could have created life.


Got to go now.  Maybe more later, but then all of your reasons have been presented repeatedly here and no one is ever tempted who doesn't start out assuming god to begin with.  Hence my question:  do you have any reason which should be considered adequate justification for me -or a fair-minded impartial person- to believe as you do?  I admit I have nothing persuasive to offer you, I'm just looking to see if you can concede that much.

[Dan Brooks]

There is no evidence whatsoever of macro-evolution, which has to have occurred if evolution was the mechanism by which everything came to be here the way it is now.

But if you accept evolution generally, then macro-evolution is just simply a logical extension of what you already accept.

Now if this had been happening for so long a time, millions of years worth of evolution tasking place, why is there not a plethora of evidence of intermediate species?

I've read articles and seen heaps of videos on evolution, and what I've learned is that there are all sorts of evidence for [macro]evolution. Maybe you need to watch some videos yourself? There are quite a few relevant videos on YouTube, catered to laypeople like you and me.

And I don't mean the occasional tooth or jaw bone, I mean piles of bones and other evidence. The type evidence we do see of the species we do know about.

We've got heaps of evidence for evolution in fossils, DNA, vestigial organs, geographical distributions, and so on. Way too much, honestly. That you're in denial about this doesn't make it false. If you're sincere, you will look for some videos on YouTube, and see for yourself. It's good to challenge your views and be open to discarding them in light of newly-learned evidence that contradicts them, after all.

And yes we don't need a bible to tell us that everything reproduces after it's own kind. That is what we readily observe on a daily basis all over the world, in every aspect of life. We don't observe evolution occurring on a daily basis all over the world in any aspect of life.

Evolution is happening right now, as we speak. It's a process, not some distinct event.

I didn't mean that we had to have the Bible tell us this. What I mean is, that the way it actually is, agrees with the way the Bible it would be. Evolution, however, requires that things reproduce after a different kind.

Individual reproductions don't directly yield different "kinds" (if by "kind", you mean what I suspect you mean), but that's not what is posited/required by evolution, anyway. Evolution, in the real sense, is not the same as what happens in the Pokemon games. When we talk [macro]-evolution, we are talking about populations, not individual organisms. Over time, populations do evolve from one "kind" to "another". Like I said before, macro-evolution is a logical extension of [micro]-evolution. It's not like, all of a sudden, there is some barrier in the way of further evolution. At least, we see no evidence for such a barrier. On the other hand, we have heaps of evidence for evolution. If you're going to continue to deny this in your next response to me, I will post a video here and demand you at least watch it before repeating the nonsense mantra that there's no evidence.

So our observation agrees with the Bible, and doesn't agree with evolution.

No, the observation is in harmony with evolution. You just don't understand really what evolution is.

Dogs coming from wolves is not evolution. They are the same kind.

Wrong, it is evolution. And the Bible doesn't support you here anyway. Nowhere in the Bible does it say dogs and wolves are of the same "kind". You not only don't know much about evolution, you don't even know your Bible.

You said that belief in God is just a belief. Why can't you also say that belief in evolution is also just a belief?

Because it's not just a belief.

And there has been plenty of both direct and indirect evidence of God observed here on earth, even by unbelievers.

Really? Can you give one example? I've been looking for any evidence for God for a very long time. Perhaps, you'll be the one to finally show me something.

Of course, if the unbelievers remain so, then they will explain it away by some other means. But that doesn't mean there has been no evidence.

I partially agree. Just because some people have opted to explain away the evidence doesn't mean it's necessarily not there. But the problem is that there really hasn't been any evidence for God, and that what theists think is evidence for God really isn't evidence.

As Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." I have seen no such extraordinary evidence for evolution, so I see no need to believe in it, just as you have seen no extraordinary evidence for God, so you see no need to believe in Him.
As I said before, when it comes to origins, whatever any of us might believe, it is just a belief.

Well, allow me to beg to differ. Go to YouTube and watch some videos. I say YouTube because there's a good chance you probably won't be bothered to read academic work. That's alright, I'm not too into academic work myself, especially if it contains jargon I have a hard time understanding.

Here's a video for you to watch:

Wolves and dogs can interbreed successfully and have fertile offspring. So can coyotes and dogs, and coyotes and wolves. Successfully interbreeding with fertile offspring makes them the same kind.
Non-kind interbreeding has been accomplished in the lab, but it never produces fertile offspring. So then how could it happen in nature?
And a British anti-Christian hit piece that shows a few slides and tells us that evolution is a fact is not quite enough for me to disavow God. It's certainly not extraordinary evidence. And there are various theories on both origins and evolution, so how can they be called a coherent group of general propositions? He calls evolution a fact. A fact is something that is indisputably the case. Yet it is disputed, and not only by theists, but even among evolutionists themselves. If it were indisputable, it wouldn't be being disputed. But you can of course find a group of people who don't dispute it, therefore making it in that case, technically a "fact". That doesn't make it the truth though. The truth doesn't need anyone to agree with it in order to be true. Evolutionism really is just a belief. 

One example of God proving Himself to a nonbeliever was in the life of Nebuchadnezzar. I know this is written in the Bible, so it will likely not be taken seriously, but there is evidence for Nebuchadnezzar in history and non-biblical accounts. 
"Nebuchadrezzar appears as a man, initially deceived by bad advisers, who welcomes the situation in which truth is triumphant and God is ."
From Encyclopedia Britannica, hardly a Christian source.

[WinterHold]

firstly, the "singularity" part that in your opinion caused the big bang, is just you trying to bend things to suit the quran text you quoted. but seems to me you misunderstood. the reason it says "he who is one" is because at the time the multi god religions were the in-thing so he (creator of islam, a man, men write books, creators of universe would do better in my opinion) wanted to emphasize that it is one god that should be worhipped, not the many gods being worshipped and that they were wrong. it does not mention a singularity causing the big bang. just looks to me as f he is trying to get people to say stuff. or, trying to make it seem as if an angel is telling him to say something.

secondly, the part about creating and destroying the universe. this is just you doing gymnastics again. humans and animals and life on earth is what is being mentioned. not the universe lol. the whole "begins creation then repeats it" means life on earth. which was obvious at the time. things being born. then in addition, it doesnt say anything about destroying? you unintentionally added things to the quran. since you read scientific theories, you were so focused on trying to fit it to the quran that you committed the mistake you despise: when people add their own things to quran. the universe creation and destruction was NOT mentioned. the part you quoted was about human creation. since destruction was NOT mentioned (and we know for a fact that in islam humans only get created and not destroyed, they are eternal) my translation is more probable than yours.

so no atlas, there is no scientific knowledge "way ahead of its time" no matter how much gymnastics will be done, there's always a more reasonable explanation as to why he wrote what he wrote. but not your fault, it's a very vague text, take that in with the willingness of people to find a link with science and religion, is an easy mistake to make.

Firstly; the singularity "didn't make the big bang", but the "big bang made the singularity" into a universe that makes sense.
Others say the "big bang" itself is the singularity.

After all, all materials and all space was actually compressed inside the singularity; so it can be expected that the big bang itself is the singularity.
I am not bending the theory; but initial singularity has the name of God written allover it.

1-It is time itself
2-It is space itself
3-It created everything we can see today
4-It existed before time and space
5-It is one and only.

Secondly; no the verses included the heavens too:

Sura 21, The Quran:
( 104 )   The Day when We will fold the heaven like the folding of a [written] sheet for the records. As We began the first creation, We will repeat it. [That is] a promise binding upon Us. Indeed, We will do it.

The whole universe is spoken about with this verse. We don't live in the "heavens"; but they will be the ones folded sheets.
Moreover:

Sura 39, The Quran:
( 68 )   And the Horn will be blown, and whoever is in the heavens and whoever is on the earth will fall dead except whom Allah wills. Then it will be blown again, and at once they will be standing, looking on.

It seems to me that everybody we be destroyed in the first blow of the horn; and the verse specified literally that everything in the heavens and earth would fall dead.

Sura 14, The Quran:
( 48 )   [It will be] on the Day the earth will be replaced by another earth, and the heavens [as well], and all creatures will come out before Allah, the One, the Prevailing.

The full picture can't be clearer. The universe (with its heaven and land) will witness the fall.