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

[Dan Brooks]

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?

Well how would I know what would be adequate justification for you to believe as I do? Wouldn't that be up to you? I thought you wanted to know why I believe what I believe. We may never convince the other of our respective positions. But I think that means we can't have a discussion.

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.

Of course no one knows what was here before the universe. No one was there. But what I was saying was, that it is highly illogical, in my opinion, to think that nothing caused the universe, because nothing has no power to do so. Otherwise, it isn't nothing. So we agree that it is more logical that there has always been something. That is the logical conclusion. But to say that God doesn't explain it, I don't see how that is the case. I mean of course it might not be the only explanation, and of course many disagree with that explanation, but it is an explanation. I mean, you have, ?<-cause->universe. If you insert God, you have God<-cause->universe. Of course it doesn't explain the "how" that He did it. It says that He spoke it. So to answer the technicalities of the science of how God was able to speak it into being, then I don't have that answer, and neither does anyone else. But that doesn't make it illogical to believe that it is at least a possible explanation for the cause of 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.)

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.

What I'm saying by that is, that since the odds of life occurring by chance are so minuscule, that chance is an unlikely factor in the production or cause of life. This leads me to believe that something other than chance produced life. I'm not sure which terms are undefined. I looked up odds for life by chance in google, and found several sources. I posted results only from secular sources, so as not to skew the data. The odds I posted were given by the various secular sources that I randomly selected (naturally, of course), in order to convey the idea of the odds. The information I got about the peptides was from one of the sources I cited with the odds for life. It was trying to say that the odds weren't as bad as they look. But the disclaimer said that the model they used was a hypothetical model, and that the peptide in question was not conducive to life, therefore basically just mooting his whole point.

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.

So then it really is just a fortunate happenstance. Pretty lucky for us, huh? (This makes me want to play the lottery more often!)

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.

It says He spoke it into existence. I'm not omniscient or omnipotent to know how that works. 

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.

All I can offer you is the reasons why I believe. I can't in any way know what would be deemed adequate justification to believe as I do unless you seek it out for yourself. I can't tell you something like, Go into your bathroom, turn the lights out, light a candle, close your eyes, click your heels, say there's no place like home three times, open your eyes and you'll see God in the mirror. There's no formula like that. I think God reveals Himself in both general and specific ways, and if someone doesn't receive the general ways He reveals Himself, then He won't offer the specific revelation to them either. That's my opinion. In Hebrews it says that we have to first believe that God is, and then that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him. I believe that He is, and have diligently sought Him, and I have been rewarded for it. But if someone doesn't even believe that God is, why should he expect to receive more specific revelation from Him?

---

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.

How am I taking the dodge? What did I not answer? Why we don't treat leprosy the same now? Because we use antibiotics now. Just like Frank's Red Hot, we put that s**t on everything! So should God have told them to take antibiotics? I guess they should have gone to their local drug store and gotten one. Or maybe God gave them an alternative method since there weren't any readily available antibiotics at the time. 

I have no idea what claim I made that I haven't supported. You asked me two questions. My first response only answered the second question, so I assume you mean I dodged the first question. Well, the above is my answer to that. As for making a claim, I don't remember what claim I made that I didn't support. I was just answering your question.

---

Okay that is a lot to read but does that make any sense?

I think so.

[WinterHold]

---

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?"




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

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


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


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.

Mohammed's generation was mainly composed of merchants; the scientific move began to show itself obviously with Persians, Indians and ex-Romans converting to Islam. Islam was never expanded by Arabs alone; long after the prophet's death other races carried the faith, like the Ottoman Turks.

But it's the leaders who hated the guts of science because it defied their rule in many cases; take the late Ottoman regime that banned the use of typewriters as an example. The only science left without touching from the ruling regime was military and economical science that would benefit the regime.

When I try to put the story of the universe in the context of models like the big bang; this is the only logical conclusion I get: we need a point of start. Just like my comment to SaStrike, I find the thought of the singularity a very exiting similarity to the idea of God. A mere label changing.

[Dan Brooks]

If it's not feelings, then what is spiritual speaking?  Is it linguistic?  Is it a hunch that you shouldn't get on a plane, and then it crashes?  Please elaborate.

Yes linguistic. Actual words. Of course there are other things, like you said about the hunch and stuff, but what I meant was actual speaking. Not audibly as in a hallucinatory thing, but inside. It sounds like if you read something silently, or think to yourself. You actually think the words inside yourself. Only it isn't my own thoughts. It may be something I already knew that He reminds me of, or it may be something I've never heard of before, and I know I didn't think of it myself. And I know it's not me, because the things He says are most definitely not what I'm thinking about at the moment. But I know it's God and not someone else, because He always agrees and confirms what the Bible says. It's pretty hard to explain to someone if the person hasn't had it happen to them.


When I was posting at Reasonable Faith, someone actually went on about how he'd been riding his bike down hill, closed his eyes and took his hands off the bars.  To his mind, he'd been given all the signs he needed when he didn't crash.  Yup, okay then.

That sounds pretty ridiculous to me.

---

I know I'm not allowed to say that I know the Bible is the revealed word of God because it says so...

You are allowed to say it, but what does it saying so really matter? What other document is given credibility by claiming the merits of the document inside the document itself? Does a science textbook become more factual if it contains the phrase "everything in this textbook is a fact"? Or is its credibility determined otherwise...

I know you deliberately distanced yourself from that statement because it wasn't a debate you wanted to get into, but it is a weak point; that's probably why people pounce on it.

Well if it says it is and it isn't, then it is lying. If it's lying then none of it should be believed. But since it's hard to know whether or not that particular claim is a lie, the only thing we can really do is look at the rest of it and see if anything in there is absolutely known to be a lie. If there is an indisputably known lie in it, then we know it can't be the revealed word of God, because it says that God cannot lie. And no it's really not a debate I wanted to get into. I was just trying to answer the question. 
But as far as science books, they basically do say that everything in them is a fact. I've seen in some of my own text books in school where it said that evolution is a fact. And in another place it would say it's a theory. And then in the back the definition it gave for theory was, the best explanation for something (paraphrase, but basically what it said.)
That doesn't mean that every science book necessarily does that, but I have seen ones that do. I would hope its credibility would be determined otherwise. But how could a layperson verify its claims as to whether they are true or not? What layperson is going on paleontological excavations or testing things in a lab? The layperson has to choose whether to believe it or not believe it. There really isn't a way to prove it true or false unless you're doing the experiments and studies yourself.

[Astreja]

If there is an indisputably known lie in it, then we know it can't be the revealed word of God, because it says that God cannot lie.

Don't you see the problem here, Dan?  Your alleged god could actually be lying through its teeth, and compounding the lie by claiming in its holy book that it cannot lie.

[downbeatplumb]

...assassinated a fig tree...

Hahahaha!

God hates figs.

[Dan Brooks]

When we sin, our literal blood becomes corrupted. That's why we all die.

So, you can show, scientifically, that an infant's blood is somehow different, uncorrupted, since they've never sinned?!?

Yeah, didn't think so.

Lay off the iron age voodoo bullshit, kid. It'll fuck up your brain faster than crack.

We're already in that condition, because we come from Adam, who sinned. So he passed that on to everyone. If we didn't have that condition, and then we sinned, our blood would then be corrupted. As for how it is now, we all already have corrupted blood. 
I had never thought about whether or not there had been studies about the difference between babies' blood and adult blood. But apparently there have. And there are differences, but nothing that would prove the differences are due to the corruption of blood because of sin. But there have not only been studies but actual experiments done on mice, and it has been shown in mice that injecting old mice with young mice' blood, it reverses the affects of ageing, and makes them quicker and more agile, and improves their memory.  So the age of the blood affects the age of the entire being. It's interesting. 
But no, it doesn't prove or even indicate necessarily that sin is the reason for that. It just shows that there is an actual difference.

[brewer]

---

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

How am I taking the dodge? What did I not answer? Why we don't treat leprosy the same now? Because we use antibiotics now. Just like Frank's Red Hot, we put that s**t on everything! So should God have told them to take antibiotics? I guess they should have gone to their local drug store and gotten one. Or maybe God gave them an alternative method since there weren't any readily available antibiotics at the time. 

I have no idea what claim I made that I haven't supported. You asked me two questions. My first response only answered the second question, so I assume you mean I dodged the first question. Well, the above is my answer to that. As for making a claim, I don't remember what claim I made that I didn't support. I was just answering your question.

Why do we use antibiotics now? Why isn't the bible's/gods treatment still used?

Does gods power to cure not stand the test of time? I think the obvious answer is........NO. Which then begs the question of did it ever work. Answer, apparently not or it would have been used from that time until now. So what changed? 

This can be applied to all of gods "science" in the bible. Why, because it was not from a god. It came from the minds of men.

[LastPoet]

Hahahaha!

God hates figs.

I hate Figs.

Therefore I am God. And I need you money!

[Whateverist]

So, you can show, scientifically, that an infant's blood is somehow different, uncorrupted, since they've never sinned?!?

Yeah, didn't think so.

Lay off the iron age voodoo bullshit, kid. It'll fuck up your brain faster than crack.

We're already in that condition, because we come from Adam, who sinned. So he passed that on to everyone. If we didn't have that condition, and then we sinned, our blood would then be corrupted. As for how it is now, we all already have corrupted blood. 
I had never thought about whether or not there had been studies about the difference between babies' blood and adult blood. But apparently there have. And there are differences, but nothing that would prove the differences are due to the corruption of blood because of sin. But there have not only been studies but actual experiments done on mice, and it has been shown in mice that injecting old mice with young mice' blood, it reverses the affects of ageing, and makes them quicker and more agile, and improves their memory.  So the age of the blood affects the age of the entire being. It's interesting. 
But no, it doesn't prove or even indicate necessarily that sin is the reason for that. It just shows that there is an actual difference.

The part I bolded and most of this is like a shared understanding between Christians.  For the rest of us that means nothing.  Considering your audience you might want to try addressing those who will read what you're writing here, rather than someone who shares all those insider stories.  (On the other hand, you will find a great number of atheists who know the bible far better than you would imagine.  I'm just not one of them and have no interest in any of it.)

[Ravenshire]

So, you can show, scientifically, that an infant's blood is somehow different, uncorrupted, since they've never sinned?!?

Yeah, didn't think so.

Lay off the iron age voodoo bullshit, kid. It'll fuck up your brain faster than crack.

We're already in that condition, because we come from Adam, who sinned. So he passed that on to everyone. If we didn't have that condition, and then we sinned, our blood would then be corrupted. As for how it is now, we all already have corrupted blood. 
I had never thought about whether or not there had been studies about the difference between babies' blood and adult blood. But apparently there have. And there are differences, but nothing that would prove the differences are due to the corruption of blood because of sin. But there have not only been studies but actual experiments done on mice, and it has been shown in mice that injecting old mice with young mice' blood, it reverses the affects of ageing, and makes them quicker and more agile, and improves their memory.  So the age of the blood affects the age of the entire being. It's interesting. 
But no, it doesn't prove or even indicate necessarily that sin is the reason for that. It just shows that there is an actual difference.

Nice backtracking. Your words indicated that our blood becomes corrupt when we sin. So which is it? You gonna provide evidence for your actual claim or are you going to stick with innocents being guilty because of something their alleged forbear did,

---

We're already in that condition, because we come from Adam, who sinned. So he passed that on to everyone. If we didn't have that condition, and then we sinned, our blood would then be corrupted. As for how it is now, we all already have corrupted blood. 
I had never thought about whether or not there had been studies about the difference between babies' blood and adult blood. But apparently there have. And there are differences, but nothing that would prove the differences are due to the corruption of blood because of sin. But there have not only been studies but actual experiments done on mice, and it has been shown in mice that injecting old mice with young mice' blood, it reverses the affects of ageing, and makes them quicker and more agile, and improves their memory.  So the age of the blood affects the age of the entire being. It's interesting. 
But no, it doesn't prove or even indicate necessarily that sin is the reason for that. It just shows that there is an actual difference.

The part I bolded and most of this is like a shared understanding between Christians.  For the rest of us that means nothing.  Considering your audience you might want to try addressing those who will read what you're writing here, rather than someone who shares all those insider stories.  (On the other hand, you will find a great number of atheists who know the bible far better than you would imagine.  I'm just not one of them and have no interest in any of it.)

It continually blows my mind that the courts can figure out that I'm not guilty of the crimes of my father, but the thumpers keep wanting me to believe that I'm guilty by association because my alleged great-great-great-great-great-and-so-on-grand-pappy ate some fruit.