Why I believe in God.

[Kayenneh]

Someone asked why I came to these forums, and to be honest I don't know. I also go on religious forums, always interested in hearing thoughts of other people.

It's ok, you don't have to have a specific reason, I was just curious

[neverinchurch]

However I still believe in God and purpose of life. What is my belief based upon? Well I think primarily that knowledge of God is ingrained in humanity.

Yes, knowledge of God's existence has been ingrained in us...by other people throughout the years, not by God. There are so many believers that want their beliefs to be true that they'll ingnore any type of evidence to the contrary because it makes them feel good and gives them comfort in life.

For example, in Islam, hadiths, both sunni and shia teach killing people whom leave Islam is a command of God. Now a lot of Muslims would disagree with these hadiths, yet a lot accept them. Some people believe it's wrong and some people believe it's right. Now can anyone know it's wrong? I would imagine most people would agree we can know it's morally wrong to kill people for leaving a religion, be it the true one or not. We can also believe deep down inside people whom support it, know it's wrong, but suppress that knowledge because hadiths support it and they wish to support what the hadiths teach.

Anybody with a sane mind understands that killing is wrong. Is this really debatable?

In the same way, it can be that knowledge of God is properly basic, but it's yet disputed for other reasons than that we have no way of knowing him. Another objection is how come people differ about God if God is properly basic. Well just as people differ on what is great and what is moral, yet that doesn't mean there is no such thing as greatness and morality, the same can be true of Ultimate Greatness. Our conception of Greatness can differ but at the end, we may know Ultimate Greatness exist, and know some things about Ultimate Greatness and can know right things about it, even if people differ.

You can talk to ten different believers and get ten different versions of what God is and what he's all about. Who's right?

A proof of design I believe is consciousness. I don't believe evolution can account for consciousness appearing out of non-conscious. There is no process leading from one to other. There has to be a step where there is no consciousness and then there is consciousness, but that is too complex for it to happen by a mutation, so the step will never happen.

Says who? Just because you can't comprehend it doesn't mean it didn't happen. We're talking about changes over millions of years not a few weeks.

I also believe things like butterfly wings couldn't have evolved. Something coming out of the side of a bug is not going to jump right away or even be able to be moved, until many mutations, but natural selection will not favor it. In the same way 1/999th of a butterfly wing wing will not be more advantageous of 1/1000th wing, and it's not heading by natural selection towards a wing. The process won't lead to it.

There you go again. Those that don't want evolution to be true will focus on the smallest of details and claim that they don't see how this can happen therefore is must not be true. Evolution isn't perfect and scientists never have claimed it is. Do you think scientists are so stupid as to overlook the simple facts regarding this process?

Now other proofs go on the line that I think an infinite chain of cause and effects, is an effect it self, because of chains of effects are effects themselves. This means there needs to be a cause outside chain of effects, and this includes even if it's infinite chain of effects. This as well as that I don't think infinite time before is possible in the same way we cannot get to an infinite time in the future from the present. This tells me there is a finite regression of time. Now the only question is what was there at point zero, before time existed. I think something material couldn't have just started to cause time and motion, while there was no time and motion before. The notion of powerful spiritual being that can cause time makes more sense to me.

The universe may have existed in one form or another before point zero. We still have quite a bit to learn about the universe and we may not get the answers as soon as you would like. What do you think God make the materials out of? Where did he get them from?

Also reflecting on morality, tells me that morality itself has eternal bais, and has ultimate morality as it's source to be true. This again is not hard to accept if it's true that source of morality is God, then the nature of morality would be based on his essence. That would be the nature, and we would see it like that. I believe without it having an eternal basis, it becomes rather an illusion, and becomes arbitrary. We can easily see this when we think what if the Creator created morality and decided morality without knowledge of it before hand...this would make it arbitrary and unreal in the sense we understand morality to be.

Why would God create the world and then not get involved anymore as if he didn't care? Since he knew how it would turn out...what's the purpose?

[Mystic]

Yes, knowledge of God's existence has been ingrained in us...by other people throughout the years, not by God.

How do you know it's not ingrained by God? We come across morality from other people, does it mean it's not ingrained in us? Does it mean it's not properly basic? Also people can't make you know God exists as properly basic, at most they can suggest the idea. But to argue it's not ingrained by God as properly basic to many people, you would have to prove either "God doesn't exist" or "If God exists, he would not ingrain us with knowledge of himself". Both of these I don't think can be proven.

Anybody with a sane mind understands that killing is wrong. Is this really debatable?

It's obvious to you, because your untainted with the factors that lead others to believe killing people whom leave Islam is right. Most Muslim scholars teach that killing apostates is right, and their minds are sane.
The point I'm making is that you can have properly basic knowledge, not just belief, even if others doubt that knowledge or deny it. It can also be the case that the people whom deny it can know it's wrong, if they learn to question themselves, and if they really deep down inside know.

So the point I was making was that a fact can be obvious to someone and properly basic, yet someone else can disbelieve in that knowledge that is properly basic.

So it can be that most people believe in God in a way they feel they just know he exists in a properly basic way, without inference, and it doesn't matter if others don't feel like that way, because properly basic knowledge can be suppressed due to various factors (perhaps hearing that one needs inferential evidence to know God exists is a significant factor) just like killing apostates being wrong is suppressed by many Muslims due to various factors (belief in authority of hadiths being a huge factor).

You can talk to ten different believers and get ten different versions of what God is and what he's all about. Who's right?

Well they all agree that he is Ultimate Greatness, whatever Ultimate Greatness maybe. Now just as you may differ with someone on a moral issue or what is great, doesn't make morality and greatness all subjective with no objective way of knowing the truth of it, the same is true of Ultimate Greatness. If we concede to greatness, then we can have positive knowledge of Ultimate Greatness and Ultimate Morality. This is true unless you make knowledge of greatness and morality all subjective, in which case, you deny morality and greatness being real.

Says who? Just because you can't comprehend it doesn't mean it didn't happen. We're talking about changes over millions of years not a few weeks.

I don't think this an argument of ignorance, but through knowledge of what we know consciousness is. There has to be a step where consciousness appears out of non-consciousness, but it's to complex of a step to happen in transition step. It doesn't matter how much years you give, natural selection is not leading towards consciousness out of non-conscious, there is no process leading it.

There you go again. Those that don't want evolution to be true will focus on the smallest of details and claim that they don't see how this can happen therefore is must not be true. Evolution isn't perfect and scientists never have claimed it is. Do you think scientists are so stupid as to overlook the simple facts regarding this process?

I'm not calling anyone stupid but I don't think arguing from authority proves what I said was wrong. Before even something moves on the side that it is growing towards a wing, there has to be many mutations guided by natural selection, but this is not going to happen, because it's not advantageous. There is nothing beneficial of something sticking out of the side that does nothing. And 1/999th of a butterlfy wing is not really advantageous over a 1/1001 of a butterfly wing, so hence there is a problem, it's not heading towards a wing by natural selection.

The universe may have existed in one form or another before point zero.

I'm not referring to big bang theory, I rather discussed infinite regression is not possible (stated two reasons) and said thus time must be finite. At point zero, before time began, I don't think a material existence could have caused time.

What do you think God make the materials out of? Where did he get them from?

Well he can cause existence from his own existence, without losing any of his existence. For all I know, the true existence is spiritual, and we live in a matrix like world, where only conscioussness exists, and material and space is just through experience.

Why would God create the world and then not get involved anymore as if he didn't care? Since he knew how it would turn out...what's the purpose?

Why God doesn't communicate and send guidance is counter intuitive, that is why I think most people whom believe in God are inclined to believe in a religion. However I have reasons for this, I'm going to be putting in the other thread about arguments against deism and for religion.

[ElDinero]

I'm not calling anyone stupid but I don't think arguing from authority proves what I said was wrong. Before even something moves on the side that it is growing towards a wing, there has to be many mutations guided by natural selection, but this is not going to happen, because it's not advantageous. There is nothing beneficial of something sticking out of the side that does nothing.

Again, just because YOU cannot think of a way it developed, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

As I said, evolution is an established fact as certain as gravity. So they did evolve, whether you can picture it or not. Have you ever actually looked into the theories of how wings could have developed? It's uncertain, but there's three or four plausible ideas.

[The Grand Nudger]

So the strength of the argument that this knowledge is ingrained would be that it is an unfalsifiable proposition? I'm not sure why you feel that this is a strength, but to each his own.

The subjectivity of "the obvious". And what would we follow this with?

a criticism of subjectivity, using two things so easily described as subjective that I can't believe you've even hit post. Are you implying here that nothing that is "real" can be subjective? Art critics the world over would like to have a word with you.

It is an argument from ignorance. No matter how many times you repeat it, it won't become anything else. Nothing comes from nothing, okay, noted.

Fundie response alert.

You'd prefer "something from nothing" to infinite regress? I thought evolution was right out on these grounds alone?

So god can cause existence from his existence? Did he cause his own existence, and did he cause the cause of his own existence..ad infinitum? I thought you discussed this above. "For all you know" eh? Can I have all of your illusory stuff then?

Is it? You know why god doesn't communicate with us? Perhaps this new thread could start by establishing that god exists to communicate in the first place? Surely you'd have that handled before you proceed to give me a tour of the divine.

[Mystic]

Have you ever actually looked into the theories of how wings could have developed? It's uncertain, but there's three or four plausible ideas.

I've read theories of how insects and birds developed wings, but I always find they explain steps without explaining how natural selection guided the million steps towards those steps. At to me, the real problem is in small steps being guided towards it, not seeing as stages as advantageous over the other. As for butterflies, I tried finding an explanation, and haven't found it.

[Faith No More]

I don't think this an argument of ignorance, but through knowledge of what we know consciousness is. There has to be a step where consciousness appears out of non-consciousness, but it's to complex of a step to happen in transition step. It doesn't matter how much years you give, natural selection is not leading towards consciousness out of non-conscious, there is no process leading it.

But you don't know that consciousness can't come from non-consciousness. You only know that you can't understand how it could happen making this a textbook definition of an argument of ignorance.

[The Grand Nudger]

You couldn't find an explanation for the evolution of wings (or evidence that demonstrates how this happened)? Strange, because I googled "evolution of flight" and the first link was to a website called The Evolution of Flight.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates...volve.html

They address your objection directly within the first couple of paragraphs. There was no guidance, because evolution doesn't "guide" anything. Let's get focused though. Fundies commonly ask "what good is half a wing?". I googled that too. First link I find is a website called What Good is Half a Wing.
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/HalfaWing.HTM

Are your interwebs broken, or is something else malfunctioning?

[Mystic]

You couldn't find an explanation for the evolution of wings (or evidence that demonstrates how this happened)? Strange, because I googled "evolution of flight" and the first link was to a website called The Evolution of Flight.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates...volve.html

They address your objection directly within the first couple of paragraphs. There was no guidance, because evolution doesn't "guide" anything.

I was talking about butterfly wings. I said I read about birds and insects like flies and mosquitoes.

[ElDinero]

So, what? Bird wings did evolve, but not butterfly wings?