To those who deny the existence of God?

Question

I've seen there are many here who use science as their reason to deny the existence of God. Even WITH science there are many holes left unfilled. I know many are quick to refer to evolution, but before any of that what was here on Earth? How did this place go from a lifeless planet with the ingredients of life to where we are today? Scientists have been able to genereate building blocks of life but have fallen far short in explaining how these blocks put themselves together. In short they can't. Even through the spectacle of science it still requires a form of faith to believe in the thoeries laid out before us.

To parrot: I never said anything of the Christian God, I was refering to a god, any god.

Answer 1

I'm a rollin' stone all alone and lost
For a life of sin I have paid the cost
When I past by all the people say
Just another guy on the lost highway

Just a deck of cards and a jug of wine
And a woman's lies makes a life like mine
On the day we met, oh I went astray
I started rolling down that lost highway

I was just a lad, nearly twenty two
Neither good nor bad, just a kid like you
And now I'm lost, too late to pray
Lord I paid a cost, on the lost highway

Now boy's don't start to ramblin' round
On this road of sin are you sorrow bound
Take my advice or you'll curse the day
You started rollin' down that lost highway
You started rollin' down that lost highway
You started rollin' down that lost highway
You started rollin' down that lost highway

Answer 2

I hate doing this this way, but here goes:

If you look the definition of the word faith on www.m-w.com, you will see that one of the entries is: "firm belief in something for which there is no proof". That is why religious people have *faith* in god. They believe in something for which there is no proof. Religion is a system that, at its best, promotes this belief in an attempt to explain the world around us.

Science on the other hand is a system set up to explain the unexplainable by eliminating the belief in something for which there is no proof. It is a system meant to explain the world around us to the point where we can predict what will happen next under a certain set of circumstances. If there is no proof of the connection between an action and its corresponding reaction, then you cannot predict what that reaction will be, and therefore the process of the circumstance is still unexplainable. (Which leaves us right back at square 1.)

The main difference between how science and religion is applied is this: Science requires a method of thought that teaches a foundation as well as a process of evaluating new information that arises, especially information that conflicts with the foundation. Religion on the other hand requires you only to believe the foundation you are taught, and to ignore or deny any evidence that is contrary to that foundation.

So if you are looking to explain the unexplainable, the scientific method is a proven method for doing so. It accounts for new and conflicting information, it is repeatable, and if you go through the process long enough, you will get a real answer. It may leave you with other questions, but you just have to re-apply the scientific method to those questions too.

If you use religion to explain the unexplainable, you simply say "God did it" and leave it at that.

So what do you think? Which is going to give you the correct answer?

Answer 3

Denying the existence of God does does not mean that people say so because of the evolution theory or because some people could not create life in the laboratory. Life (even if you believe or not) is purely a coincidental event happened here on the planet.
There are tons of books out there which will make you think about how life might have been evolved here on the planet.

After doing the research (honestly without any bias towards anything) for about an year, ask yourself the same question and see the tremendous difference in your thoughts.
I did the same thing, my friend. I was a firm believer in GOD in the past but i know that i am just coating that answer over myself just to give a purpose to my life. When i did the research, i realized for myself the absolute truth (that there is no such thing).

GOOD LUCK..

Answer 4

On the other hand, all of the evidence pointing toward evolution still holds up, even if science hasn't been able to pinpoint the exact origins, yet. But science is an ongoing process, it's a whole body of knowledge that continues to expand as new discoveries are made, and there's been a lot of good research done that hints at some pretty good hypotheses as to how life began. So even if you say they can't explain it, you have to add the word yet.

And even if they can't explain it, what makes you think your notions about god are anymore credible? At least with science you have conclusions drawn from hard evidence, as opposed to a simple assertion of a supreme being. And if you want to talk origins, it's not like you can explain where god comes from, you just satisfy yourself that he is.

Even if evolution were entirely disproven, that still doesn't prove that there's a god. Of course, anything that replaced evolution would also have to account for all of the phenomena that falls under the theory of evolution, only better.

Also, Berg hasn't been keeping up with the research. Doubtless he's just parroting his favorite Chick Tract or something, but actually, a lot of the experiments that the superstitionists refer to when they talk about "conditions unlikely to have existed" were actually designed to determine whether organic materials could form in an inorganic environment. Which they clearly did. So then the superstitionists had to move on to flimsy arguments about how they were cheating. But now more research has been done that's been even better able to demonstrate the possibility of life forming without any sprinklings of fairy dust. But again, science is an expanding body of knowledge, and there are still mysteries to explore, that's why the research continues. So no, science doesn't have all the answers, but that doesn't mean you can just make up your own.

Answer 5

The gaps that are found in human knowledge are merely things that we haven't discovered yet... Why are you so quick to fill them with an answer based on nothing but a lack of evidence? Does it help you cope with life knowing that you've filled these gaps with something... anything? Humans used to believe that the earth was flat, like a tabletop, and supported in space on the back of a giant tortoise... We've found out that this isn't the case, that earth is nearly spherical and suspended in the gravity-less vacuum of space... Gap filled with an explanation that can be verified as true. What will you say on the day when it is demonstrated how life could have come from nonliving materials? Which hole will you stuff your god in next?

Answer 6

You're mostly right. Science does not have an solid answer for abiogenesis. But your statement "In short they can't" is wrong. Just because science doesn't yet have an answer does not mean that science never will have an answer.

It's possible that it will take longer than our lifetimes for science to obtain the answer. That's OK with me -- the journey is as much of a reward as the destination.

Your attitude is defeatist. You seem to think that because we don't know, we shouldn't even try to know. If we had applied that logic to all problems, we'd still be living in caves without even a reliable means of lighting a fire to stay warm.

Answer 7

There is a big difference in what scientists can do in a lab over a short period of time and what was created over millions and millions of years of yes here it is EVOLUTION.

I do not deny the existence of god. God exists in the minds of the believers in christianity. Anything more is fiction. We all have to respect the rights of people to have different faiths as long as it harms none. If not it just becomes a joke like 2 kids arguing over who's dad can beat up the other.

Answer 8

because of the fact they many times say different gods do no longer exist. occasion: "there is in basic terms one god." finally although, i'm particular maximum Pagans and polytheists could prefer you deny their gods' existences than a great variety of the different terrible issues monotheists have pronounced approximately and accomplished to "heathens." Acknowledging somebody else's god exists yet calling it a topic of evil is thoroughly disrespectful, so i do no longer comprehend what you're attempting to coach right here. -- So calling it a pretend god, or something else undesirable, is by some ability extra effective than announcing it would not exist?

Answer 9

So when should we just stop and say 'god did it'? Should we have stopped five years ago, before we knew how old the universe was, or what caused ulcers? How about 50 years ago, before we had all the medical technology and computers we have today? A hundred years ago? Two hundred? Don't you see how dangerous it could be to just sit back and say 'maybe we'll never know'?

Science requires no faith. Don't believe them? Try it for yourself. Do your own experiments to test the theories. You don't have to believe - it works anyway.

Answer 10

What I want to know is: How can you possibly rule out other gods so quickly? You claim that science can't explain everything, so the rest must be God. Okay, great. But why does it have to be the Christian God? A Muslim could make similar claims in support of Allah. The Ancient Greeks could've made similar claims in support of Zeus. That's the problem with that argument. How are we to know which god did the creating?

Answer 11

Not understanding every step does not mean that it is magic. It just means that you haven't figured it out yet.

The fact that evolution happened is clear in the fossil record with absolutely no understanding of the why in order to see that. Your book said it happened in a very different order with a very different time scale so it is very plain that the people that wrote it had no idea what happened let alone what caused it.

Yes science does quibble over details of the how. That is good because it is striving for what is true, not what we want to be true.