Honest question, not an insult, I honestly want to know why it's easier to believe God always existed?

Question

I mean, even the big bang theory doesn't say it just came out of nowhere, everything could have always been here in some form or another, maybe strings if you like the string theory. How it was organized isn't the question right now (although it can be explained), what I want to know is why it is easier for some people to believe God always existed than it is to believe in strings (mathematically backed up to an extent). Is it really just because that's what you were taught? Or did you think it up on your own? And you should read into entropy before you use it in your argument. Also I don't see why people think it had to have a purpose, diamonds happen on accident over around 600,000 to billions of years (around 3 billion I think) and again, as an accident. I really want some one to explain to me how they reason this, it seems like people just can't accept that they don't know how it happened to me. Maybe we'll never know but religion sounds like wishful thinking.

To mikewonaus
....wha?

And it doesn't really surprise me that people are worried about what others think here, it is yahoo answers after all, haha. But I mainly ask to inspire thought.

Answer 1

honestly, because its scarier to me if He didnt exist...I mean the thought that this is it..really frightens the hell out of me I guess because it is so unfair-- ppl like me and you that have enough to eat, a place to sleep every night... real easy to sit and ponder and debate about Gods existance...for those millions that struggle just to stay alive every day... maybe they do just have to have something else to hang on to. You seem to like numbers-- so look up the odds that you should even exist.. or any of us for that matter...does God sit wherever He is and wring His hands just hoping we will believe in Him? I tend to doubt it...and its not about what I was taught...i have questioned God as much as anybody here, believe me...but after fifty years of being here...and having been around the world a couple times... after searching every religion and philosophy-- i am thoroughly and utterly convinced He is there...thats about as honest as i can get

Answer 2

Honest answer... look around you, you really think all of nature is an accident?
The Earth is the only planet that supports life. Why? Because God planned it that way.
You mention diamonds as an argument that the earth is that old i guess. It is a scientific fact,yes.
how does that disprove the existance of God?
If you read the bible it says that god created man at a certain time, the earth had already existed a long time before that.
It says.. One day for God is a thousand years for man.---
Time is not the same to God as it is for Man.

And yes diamonds also were created by God, not by accident, but in Nature just like everything else. God has given us the brains to learn and understand the creations He has made. With Science we are able to put names to the processes.

Answer 3

in some respects, it is wishful thinking that creation was a real event. now even astronomers are in an argument about whether the big bang theory works due to the discovery of some stars that, according to one astronomer, are older than what is believed to be the age of the universe. using proven mathematical methods, this asrtronomer has determined the age of some newly discovered to be 8-12 billion years old, while the universe is thought to be from 6-8 billion years old. that makes the new stars older than the universe, which doesn't seem possible if the big bang theory is correct. this has created an argument which will probably not be resolved any time in the forseeable future. so you see, the dilemna is what difference does it make?

Answer 4

Some people only believe in the "scientific" thing. Others only believe in the "Adam and Eve" thing.

If a person thinks it out on his/her own it is entirely possible to fully understand the science of things and yet still believe that farther out beyond the provable science could be a Creator. I think this type of thinking may more common than some people would have you believe.

This type of thinking doesn't go along with the thing that God created a bunch of one-shot masterpieces out of clay when He created Adam and Eve and animals; but believing that a Creator could have designed and started the whole scientific process of life and that life is a work in progress could explain why life, while amazingly perfectly designed is so many ways, still needs some finishing touches.

One other note: Why do some people suspect that a Creator could be behind the scientific processes? Because many, many people have had things happen in their lives that are so strange and so awe-inspiring they can't help but suspect there is more than just science at the root of the big picture.

In fairness, though, to the people who believe in the Adam and Eve thing; even that could be explained if, say, they were created out of clay in some other universe, and if, say, something happened like some piece of star (or something) carried some kind of "fertilizing material" from one place to another, and it ended up here. I'm not saying I believe this one. I'm just saying that there is at least the possibility that some version of that type of thing could have occurred, and if there is some Grand Creator and Choreographer out there somewhere why wouldn't it be possible for Him/Her to have some "telepathic" means to pass His/Her word on to people on whatever planets He/She wants to?

Its funny to me that on here there are so many people who are worried about what other people think.

Answer 5

The God case is always a mistery and its not easy to believe God is always existed. But come to think of it; these universe running through a splendid sistem. Like the moon, the sun and the stars. Olso in the earth itself; rain fall to the ground and how the water end up inside fruites? Its must be something who control this sistem magically.

Answer 6

Religion is more than wishful thinking. It's the placebo effect applied to the ming. Suppose God really exists..... then He will be there to help you or at least confort you in your most difficult times.... and you will be helped. Suppose God does not exist and suppose you do believe in Him,although he does not exists. In times of despair and need that belief will act upon your brain in many ways, in some ways that belief will act upon your brain in such a way that key chemicals are produced in much the same way as you had ingested a key medicine, and you will be able to perform and do things, and gather strenght where none was left before.......Therefore, to believe in God is actually easier that not to believe in him because if you dont, then you are left to yourself and in extreme cases where racionality clearly tells you there is no way out.... perhaps there will be no way out......

Answer 7

It's not. That is why the gate to heaven is narrow (Matthew 7:13, 14). It is hard to believew in something that we cannot see, cannot define, cannot mathematically calculate. This calls for faith. Read In the book of Hebrews, chapter 11, verses 1-3.

Faith; you got it or you don't.

Answer 8

you are asking now a question posed for many thousands of years. i do not believe in a god or higher power though i know i could be wrong. i would this call myself an atheist-agnostic. i believe in one thing but know that i could be wrong. to you i say good luck and if in fact you find the answer, you are the greatest mind ever thus-far. you would have done what no man has yet been able to do.

Answer 9

A reading of the book The Analysis of Behavior by James G. Holland and B.F. Skinner explains precisely why people believe. The research is clear. Go to bfskinner.org and you will find the book free for downloading. It is unique. It is wonderful.
The quick answer is that humans have the capacity to invent explanatory fictions for almost everything they do not know. Freud invented Id, Ego, Super-ego. They don't exist, can't be measured. He found them useful explanatory fictions.
Today religious extortionists use explanatory fiction and fear to fleece the flock. It works well, particularly in churches whose financial operations are not completely transparent

Answer 10

There are some subtleties at work here that seem to escape the notice of most people. They have to do with the nature of 'belief'.

A rational person might say "I believe in the Big Bang." A religious person might say "I believe in creation, as described in Genesis." But these statements are not even remotely similar, with respect to what is meant by the word 'believe'.

For the rational person, the statement of 'belief' in the Big Bang means that they understand that the concept provides a scientifically and mathematically consistent explanation, congruent with the evidence, which accounts for the evolution of the universe from a fraction of a second after the initiating event, up until the present. When the 'inflationary model' came to the fore, rational people said "Well, good... that clears up a few questions and makes things even more coherent." NOBODY threw up their arms and wailed "Oh, no... oh, no... ain't so... ain't so... the Big Bang is the inerrant truth... not this ridiculous, atheistic 'inflationary' model."

See... when we say "I believe in the Big Bang", we don't really mean the same thing as the religious person means when he says "I believe in creation, as described in Genesis," or "I believe in God." Our 'belief' in the Big Bang (or anything else) isn't really a 'belief'... it is more properly a 'paradigm'... a useful way of looking at something, or thinking about something. If additional information is uncovered that adds to the conceptual model, that is a good thing... not a disaster. If part of the conceptual model is discovered to be incorrect, and must be tossed in the trash and replaced with something completely different... that is also a good thing... not the end of the world as we know it. And often, no matter how highly confident we may be of the accuracy or completeness of a particular paradigm, we may have reason to apply a DIFFERENT paradigm to the same thing, in an effort to tease out new insights; for example, we might want to contemplate the potential implications of a change to a theory from the perspective of the Tao Te Ching, the Gaia hypothesis, or ecological homeostasis. We KNOW that all theories are approximations... and that is OK. We KNOW that we don't have all the answers... and that is OK, too. There is nothing wrong with saying "We don't know... yet; but we're working on it."

But these modes of thinking, perceiving, contemplating and understanding are utterly alien to the 'religious' mind. For the religious mind, a 'belief' is not a paradigm... not a useful way of thinking about something... it is an internalized conviction that one knows the absolute 'truth' pertaining to some aspect of existence and/or fundamental reality. 'Beliefs' are one of the key interpretive component filters of the religious person's 'self-description'... a part of what DEFINES them as a person... the very thing that creates their world-view... an underpinning of their 'subjective reality'. Any challenge to one of these internalized 'beliefs' is perceived and interpreted as a vital threat... an attack upon the 'self-description'... and an assault upon their subjective reality.

And here is the key difference: When there is a change in one of the paradigms dealing with a scientific concept, or a new insight into the workings of the universe, to the 'rational' person it merely constitutes an interesting new piece of knowledge and understanding... a new insight. However, if that same new insight, or piece of information (a feature of the universe, for example) seems to threaten a tenet of Christianity, everybody goes to battle stations, goes into 'damage control' mode... for fear that the whole edifice will come crashing down. And, ultimately, it will.

So, when a fundie disparages evolution, for example, it really has nothing to do with a genuine, intellectual dispute regarding scientific details... they are generally scientifically illiterate, anyway. Any 'scientific' arguments that they present are inevitably not even understood... they are just lifted from the pre-packaged lies and misrepresentations that are found on dozens of 'Liars for Jesus' (LFJ) web sites, and parroted. They are in a battle. They are trying to sink science before science sinks them. They are desperate... and science is (mostly, and unfortunately) oblivious to the fact that they are even in a fight, and that somebody is trying to sink them. They are just blithely bopping along, doing what science does... figuring out how nature works.

No... none of this has anything to do with a mere disagreement pertaining to evidence and understanding. It has to do with minds that deal with fundamental issues in an entirely different way. It has to do with a flexible, open-minded, intellectually honest (willing to question and doubt one's own presumptions) curiosity about the universe, contending with a rigid, unyielding world-view that depends from a certainty that certain delusional faith-based (willful ignorance and magical, wishful thinking) 'beliefs' represent the absolute 'truth' of reality.

We might as well be talking to an alien species, from a distant planet.

When the religious enter a venue like this one, they are (generally) NOT seeking answers, or new information... these might cause them to QUESTION their beliefs, or might put their beliefs at risk. No... they are seeking VALIDATION... of their beliefs, and hence, of their self-description.