Do you believe in god?

Question

I personally dont believe the story of "god" as our creator only because I believe in evolution and deitie's were created through the curiosity of man. I will never s***t on anyones beliefs and hey I could be wrong but I'd like to here other's opinions

Answer 1

YOU ASKED!

EVOLUTION V. CREATION

One main reason evolutionists and creationists differ in opinion is because they have a different premise. Evolution scientists believe everything originates from a series of changes and can be explained by time, chance, and continuing natural processes that are inherent in the organization of matter and energy. (Creation X) Evolution is commonly applied to the historical development of life and has been expanded into virtually any subject matter all the way to the development of the universe itself. Like most ideas, the Theory of Evolution has evolved into something it was not originally believed to be.

Creationists believe in evolution, but not to the extreme that every living thing evolved from a single cell into the complex organisms of today. In essence evolution means change. Micro-evolution (small changes) within species is a scientific fact that Creationists readily acknowledge (120). However, macro-evolution (tremendous changes) is a belief that is simply not evident in nature.

There are two kinds of Creationism; scientific and Biblical. Scientific creationism bases its beliefs upon the scientific data. In fact, creation scientists believe that scientific creationism and Biblical creationism should be taught independently of each other. Some of the most brilliant scientists in the history of the world were creationists: Newton, Pascal, Pasteur, Galileo, Faraday, Kepler, and so on.

While it is often asserted that Creationism is based on religious beliefs, evolution has its beliefs based in atheism and secular humanism. The Supreme Court has classified atheism and secular humanism as religions. The evolution model is atheistic in nature while the creation model is theistic. One evolutionist wrote an article titled, "Creation 'Science' Is Dishonest." On the contrary, scientists who assert evolution as a "fact" only need to look at the history of their false findings and hoaxes of man's "missing links" to see their hypocrisy (156 and 159). It is one thing to personally believe in evolution and relate it and all evidence associated with it as circumstantial, but to assert it as a "fact" is unethical and prejudicial.

Another reason why creation scientists view things so differently from evolutionists is simply a matter of differing interpretation of the data. Even evolutionists do not agree with one another because of differing interpretations of the data, especially when it comes to biological classifications. So, why are creation scientists shunned?

Evidence for evolution can be interpreted in different ways. Comparing anatomical similarities between different organisms can provide evidence for evolution. The forelimb in vertebrate animals can be compared bone for bone. The upper arm, forearm, wrist, hand, and fingers are distinguishable (53 and Britannica 7:9). While evolutionists contend that this is evidence of, "descent from a common ancestor (evolution)" creationists believe that this is no more than proof of, "a common design (creation)."

A second piece of evidence for evolution is shown in the development of organisms. The embryonic stage of development is so similar that a frog, chicken, salamander, or human embryo are virtually indistinguishable. Evolutionists believe these amazing similarities show how organs and structures have changed their form and function with evolution. Creationists show what evolutionists call "useless evolutionary leftovers" are in reality necessary functional structures (62 and 66).

A third source of evidence that evolutionists use comes from chemical evolution or "hot soup" as Dr. Stanley Miller calls it. In 1953 he conducted an experiment using a "primordial solution" along with an electrical discharge to simulate lightning. He became successful in producing amino acids commonly found in nature. Creationists hold that it is no more than science fiction that would make a scientist conclude that life could result from a hypothetical chemical evolutionary process. There is no evidence to support this kind of speculation.

A forth source of evidence is related to genetics. This evidence relies on the process of mutation in order to validate the theory of evolution. In the documentary Genetics: Patterns of Diversity it concludes, "But still, the controversy remains. The challenge to Darwin's theory is to explain these molecular changes in terms of natural selection." There are many other challenges to Darwin's theory. Creationist Dr. Parker states:

Evolutionists assume that all life started from one or a few chemically evolved life forms with an extremely small gene pool. For evolutionists, enlargement of the gene pool by selection of random mutations is a slow, tedious process that burdens each type with a "genetic load" of harmful mutations and evolutionary leftovers.

...The creationist mechanism works and it's consistent with what we observe. The evolutionist assumption doesn't work, and it's not consistent with what we presently know of genetics and reproduction. As a scientist, I tend to prefer ideas that do work and do help to explain what we can observe. (Creation 115)

It is an established fact that mutations can not be the mechanism that explains the process of evolution because it leads to the destruction of the organism.
Now, the creation model for variety that Parker refers to is the genetic square (114). This is the mechanism which is believed to have caused differences among people at the Biblical "Tower of Babel" incident. "Variation within created types" is a scientific fact (107). This is the (creationist) mechanism by which we observe such diversity among organisms. Evolutionists try to exaggerate this scientific fact to further their claims. The fact is, as Dr. Gary Parker wrote, "Creationists don't believe that frogs turn into princes... but rather that frogs and people were separately created from the same kinds of molecular 'building blocks'". The creationist mechanism works!

The fifth and most popular source of evidence used by evolutionist stems from the fossil record. Evolutionist Jay Savage states, "We do not need a listing of evidences to demonstrate the fact of evolution..." (V). Encyclopaedia Britannica (14:376) under a section called "The speculative nature of phylogeny [via fossil record]" states, "...judgements of relationships among organisms are almost always based upon incomplete evidence..." This means assumptions are used to fill in the missing pieces of evidence. Britannica also states, "The overwhelming majority of species that have ever lived have long since been extinct and with them the connecting links necessary for the direct demonstration of the descent of modern organisms from common ancestors." This statement shows that the evidence does not exist for Savage to "demonstrate the fact of evolution." He sidesteps the scientific process and logic thereby showing his bias thereby discrediting himself, his profession and the theory.

SCIENCE AND GOD'S EXISTENCE:

The following evidence comes from THE GREAT BOOKS OF THE WESTERN WORLD vol. 2 & 19. St. Thomas Aquinas said:

ARTICLE 2. Whether It Can Be Demonstrated That God Exists?
I Answer that, Demonstration can be made in two ways. One is through the cause, and... The other is through the effect... When an effect is better known to us than its cause, from the effect we proceed to the knowledge of the cause. And from every effect the existence of its proper cause can be demonstrated, so long as its effects are better known to us, because since every effect depends upon its cause, if the effect exists, the cause must pre-exist. Hence the existence of God, in so far as it is not self-evident to us, can be demonstrated from those of His effects which are known to us.

ARTICLE 3. Whether God Exists?
I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways.

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion.... [Newton’s second law of motion] whatever is moved must be moved by another. If that by which it is moved be itself moved, then this also must be moved by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover, seeing that subsequent movers move only because as they are moved by the first mover... Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover which is moved by no other. And this everyone understands to be God.

The second way is from the notion of efficient cause.... There is no case known (nor indeed, is it possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself, because in that case it would be prior to itself, which is impossible.... Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect.... Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity... [or] to be or not to be. ...If everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. [FACT: Matter can not be destroyed nor created; at most it changes form i.e. solid, liquid, gas. Physical Law: the first law of Thermodynamics.] Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence -- which is clearly false. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary.... Therefore we must admit the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble, and the like. But “more” and “less” are predicated of different things [like a match in comparison to the sun]... Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being [a Supreme Being], goodness, and every other perfection. And this we call God.

The fifth way is taken from the governance of things. We see that things which lack knowledge, such as natural bodies, act for an end... Hence it is plain that they achieve their end not by chance, but by design. Now whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence, as the arrow is directed by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are ordered to their end; and this being we call God.

DEMONSTRATING EXISTENCE OF THE HOLY TRINITY:

The HOLY TRINITY is defined as:
A term used since A.D. 200 to denote the central doctrine of the Christian religion. God, who is one and unique in his infinite substance or nature, is three really distinct persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The one and only God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Yet God the Father is not God the Son, but generates the Son eternally, as the Son is eternally begotten. The Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son, but a distinct person having his divine nature from the Father and Son by eternal procession. The three divine persons are co-equal, co-eternal, and consubstantial and deserve co-equal glory and adoration.

We need to know how we are created in God's image to grasp the concept of the Holy Trinity and I think your question is a good one.

To understand this better, chart it out or use a diagram of two triangles of equal proportions like the Star of David. This allows an easier understanding of the relationship between the Essence and Existence of a thing. The following words should be distinguished in the following categories: Physical, Mental, and Spiritual. These three words encompass everything in the Universe and make up the CREATIVE PROCESS to help describe the Creator, creatures, and creation.

God is spirit. He cannot be seen. If you were to examine all the creatures, the CREATOR has made a pattern emerges: angels and demons are intellectual creatures without a body; plants and animals do not have an intellect but a body and mortal soul. IT IS ONLY LIVING, HUMAN, BEINGS, that have a MIND, BODY, and SOUL. Only human beings have all three. Now, living, human, being is the existence of man. Those words describe the essence of man's mind, body, and soul. The Body is living, the Mind makes us human and distinguishing us from animals, and our Soul makes us the being that we become (good or evil).

Now, even Muslims will agree Allah is omnipotent (all powerful), omniscient (all knowing), and omnipresent (ever present). These words describe the existence of God. So, what is the essence of God? I will hold off answering this question till the end.

Now, if you think about the existence of a person they have a triple existence: physical (body), mental (mind), and spiritual (eternal soul). In fact, whenever we create something it has all three of these parts. When we cook we have a recipe (in our mind), we gather all the raw ingredients, and we cook (don't burn it, ha ha) what it is we are making. Cooking has the physical, mental, and spiritual parts. Same with engineering or technology it has three parts: the blueprints (to convey an idea), the raw materials (physical), and the workmanship (spiritual). If something goes wrong investigators will look for a design flaw, material flaw, or faulty workmanship. THIS DEMONSTRATES CREATION HAS THREE PARTS LIKE THE CREATOR.

Now, in the Bible it says Jesus is the visible likeness of the invisible God. (Colossians 1:15) The ESSENCE OF GOD IS: Father (mental), Son (physical), Holy Ghost (spiritual). ONE TRUE GOD IN THREE JUST LIKE A PERSON. THREE PARTS ONE PERSON. When you are sick you send for a doctor; when you are mentally troubled, a psychiatrist; when spiritually seeking you seek out a holy person.

Answer 2

For what it's worth, here's mine.

I believe that life and evolution are part of a plan. Consider this:

I have been in business and the building trades all my life. I have never seen anything succeed without a plan or purpose. Without these, there is only chaos and failure. You can throw steel and concrete into a pile for years, but without a plan, they will never become a bridge.

Life and evolution are the greatest success in possibly all the universe. Complicated, precise, and ever adapting, I have seen nothing in life to believe it could possibly have happened by chance. Nothing in life works that way.

It makes a lot more sense to me, and even more sense the more I learn, that it is happening according to a plan and purpose, than the idea that it all just fell together.

Answer 3

Yes, but as a Hindu my defination of God may vary from other people's defination of God. Brahman is Sanskrit and means "expanding consciousness"...this is one term that Hindus use for God. Ishvara (personal deity) is another name used often, too, as well many other names that are really more reflective of attributes (similar to the many names of Jesus : Prince of Peace, King of Kings, etc...only in Sanskrit and usually combined so it'd look like Princeofpeace, Kingofkings.....example Ganesh comes from Ga Na Esh which means Lord of Intellect & Wisdom...thus reminding the devotee when saying the name that God is the source of intellect and wisdom or Kamesh which comes from Kama Esh which means Lord of Love which reminds the devotee that God is the source of Love.....of course in Hinduism God is the source of everything and everything is God because it came out of God and yet God also remains unmanifested beyond everything)

I believe in evolution, too, and in fact it fits well with the ancient philosophical beliefs of Hinduism (that also were mythologized, too, but usually the myths aren't about what actually happened but more about our own inner natures...atleast that's the case in Hinduism). Hinduism has always said that all things in the universe came out of God and that it started small and gradually got bigger and bigger and as been evolving and changing and adpating, etc....and eventually the entire universe will begin turning inward and regressing and slowly dissolving away and finally re-entering it's source, God (from which everything came out and maintains the divine spark) and then the process will begin yet again and yet another universe will come into being.

That's my own humble opinion.

Answer 4

I've actually never had any problem believing in God and Evolution. I don't see the Christian Bible as the infallible word given to man directly from God. I see it as a guidebook. Even when I was a staunch Christian myself (now am pagan), I believed in Evolution. I looked at it like this: We were said to be created in God's image. Man loves to create things, watch them grow or develop to see what happens. How much grander a scale must God do this? Thus, evolution is the creator's way of seeing what develops. I never believed that God when Poof! here is everything. I think it was man's way to try to understand the reality of existence and how we came to be. But this is only my opinion. :)

Answer 5

i was born into a catholic family but every since i was little it never "felt" right for me. yeah, i went to church, prayed and all that but i was never to into it. i remember being 8 and praying to god, but it just felt so stupid( no offence to anyone) to me; i felt like i was praying to nothing. i was pretty much a weak catholic. and then one day in 5th grade something happened to me (i won't say) that completely changed my perspective on life. and so i renounce my faith and became an atheist. i really that i will still be the same person, but the only difference is that i dont believe in god. im still me. a good human being with great morals and a big heart. :-)

Answer 6

Yea I believe in God, but probalby in a sense most people wouldn't believe. anyway, my question is how is it that evolution conflicts with the theory of a Creator? maybe I should post that as my own question

Answer 7

Umm properly i've got faith at evening God and Goddess, they dont truly care if I make blunders....as long as I dont reason harm to nature, which i could by no potential do because of the fact i'm vegetarian and that i admire the Earth =)

Answer 8

Please read my words carefully:
If you see footmark in the sand, you'll say that someone passed from here...
If you see a piece of dog sh*t on the ground, you'll say that a dog passed from here...
So what about the enormous universe, the sky, stars, planets, earth and all the beauty in it, doesn't it lead to that someone made it?!!!

Some people say that everything is created by itself after the big-bang... I won't ask you about what caused the big-bang, but I'll ask you a simple question:
If you take all the letters of the alphabet, multiples of them, and you threw them randomly on the floor. Do you expect (by a chance of one in infinity) to get a poem like shakespear's??!!

Can't you see how organized our universe is, the planets, the eco-system on earth, look even in your own body... Can you control your heart-beat? Can you control your breath while you're sleeping? Who stopped your eye-lashes from growing after reaching a certain length? Who told the baby turtles to move towards the sea and not to the earth after they come out of their eggs? Who taught the bird how to make nests?

My friend, think with your heart and brain. If you're still lost, think about the following:

Do you know how to play safe?
Your point:
If there's no God and you do all what you want in life, then nothing will happen to you after life. But if there was God and you were mistaken, then you'll blame yourself FOREVER...

Believer's point:
If there's God and I followed His commands in life, then I'll be in Heaven after life FOREVER. But if there was no God and we're mistaken, then nothing bad will happen to us after life...

Now you know how to play-safe, in case you're not convinced?

Answer 9

No I personally do not believe in a god. I am an Atheist. I respect other peoples right to believe in what ever they want to as long as they don't push their beliefs on me.

Answer 10

I just cant help but see intelligent design in our universe. I do not believe in any one god however. But life itself, where could that have come from? There's more to it than a huge cosmic accident.

Answer 11

Yes