Why don't you believe in God?

Question

Look around, in the natural world, we see "evolution" never happening, things are deteriorating, not advancing. God said that when sin entered the world, things would deteriorate and they ARE. And another thing about evolution and the creating of the planets, where did the gravity come from that packed the non-existant dust together to create suddenly molten rock planets that float around in suddenly existant space?

Answer 1

wow. time to take some biology and astronomy classes. Maybe a little darwinism aswell. So many problems with this I dont know where to start but most importantly planets, stars and solar system are formed all the time its not gravity its chemical reations. Case in point, the sun is a ball of hydrogen that is fusing into helium. when the hydrogen depleats the force that holds it together will give way to allow the sun to grow bigger than the orbit of jupiter. the helium will then be released to allow the sun to shrink back down leaving a lifeless white dwarf star. I would say that kind of force and many others that are present can produce all kinds of things.

Answer 2

Just because someone accepts evolution, does NOT mean that they don't believe in God.

Look around you, do you not see that the sun and stars circle around the Earth each day? Therefore it makes sense that the Earth is the centre of the universe. Unfortunately it is wrong if you look deeper.

Scientists see evolution happening all the time. Mutations, neutral, negative and positive are abundantly observed. Change in the frequency of alleles in populations are observed all the time. And speciation (macroevolution) has been observed.

This does not disprove God, and science never can disprove God. Is not studying Science studying the glory of God?

Answer 3

I don't believe in anything for which there is no proof. No Santa, no Tooth Fairy, no ghosts, no leprechauns, and no deities.

We see evolution happen all the time, hon. It's just micro evolution. The big-scale stuff takes more than our lifetime to occur, and so we must rely on archaeological proof, which we have tons of.

Evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the planets; it is biology, not geology or astronomy. If you truly want to know the answer to that question, you need to read up on it from legitimate scientific sources; I'm a writer, not a scientist.

Answer 4

Because there are none.

Evolution has been seen happening first hand. We have observed speciation. Even if we didn't observe that, we have observed tons of other evidence for evolution.

And, yes, we don't know how gravity came about, but it seems to be a property of this universe. We also don't know how the universe came to be.

But guess what... Human ignorance about a topic never demonstrated the existence of any gods.

And there is too much evidence that points to gods being man made. In each religion, claims of gods doing things have consistently be knocked down by facts.

Sorry, but no god ever wrote anything. That's because no god has ever existed.

Answer 5

Umm nicely i think at evening God and Goddess, they dont incredibly care if I make errors....as long as I dont reason harm to nature, which i might under no circumstances do by way of fact i'm vegetarian and that i admire the Earth =)

Answer 6

Science can answer all of those questions, but it is very complicated physics that one needs alot of scientific knowledge to comprehend. Basically the gravity answer can be answered through string theory, gravity is a circle while other things are joined to a brane. For evolution, go to college. Then you will get it.

Answer 7

There is no possible naturalistic explanation for the origin of matter/energy which does not contravene the laws of nature, and there is no possible, naturalistic explanation for the origin of life anywhere in the universe which does not contravene the laws of nature (according to laws of nature, matter/energy which are finite cannot simply arise of their own accord from nothing. According to the Law of Biogenesis life cannot arise spontaneously from inert matter. According to information theory, the information within the universe which governs life etc. could not have simply arisen from matter. Information can only originate from an intelligent source).

Beliefs such as the ‘Big Bang’ theory, the spontaneous generation of life and evolution, all defy natural law. But because they are naturalistic events, they are bound by natural laws and cannot possibly contravene them. How can it be logical to assume that they could? Atheists would like to convince us that events such as the origin of the universe and of life, could have happened naturally. The atheistic notion that events which defy natural law can take place naturally, without any supernatural intervention, is surely illogical. Isn’t it amazing that they can regard such impossible, naturalistic hypotheses as plausible, and yet dismiss the explanation, which accepts the fact that events occurring outside of natural law, such as the origin of the universe and life cannot take place without supernatural intervention.
Such a thing as love and other emotions could never have developed through Darwinian evolution? The hopeless creed that says; we came from slime and that we will return to slime, so you tell me what naturalistic reason is there, not to act like slime?

I'm afraid the Godless, evolution story, is about nature red in tooth and claw, the survival of the fittest, No.1 is the only thing that really matters, the selfish gene and the selfish individual par excellence.
Love, on the other hand, is about the exact opposite, i.e. selflessness, the self- sacrificing individual.

Love and emotions, just like information, are not material entities, as such, they cannot arise by any known naturalistic means. The fact that they exist at all indicates that there must be an intelligent, non-naturalistic power controlling the universe.

The universe itself is not capable of creating anything. It is entirely bound by the laws governing matter and energy. It could not have created life, love, or the human brain. These things simply cannot be the result of blind forces of nature. To believe that the material universe has the inherent potential or an intrinsic blueprint to initiate life of its own accord at some stage in its purported, evolutionary development is to believe an absurdity. The biggest scientific hoax in the history of the world is Darwinian evolution.
It is not just bogus science it is actually anti-science and brings science into disrepute.

The evolution story, right from its very beginnings in the primordial soup, breaks scientific law. To present such a fable as 'scientific' is not only dishonest, it is an absolute disgrace and an insult to real science and honest scientists.
IF YOUR HYPOTHESIS BREAKS SCIENTIFIC LAW, IT IS NOT 'SCIENTIFIC.' It is time the supporters of evolution acknowledged this.

Evolution is just a set of beliefs, with no greater validity than any other set of beliefs. In fact, it is far less logical than those beliefs which recognise that any happenings outside the laws of nature require a supernatural agent. To claim that an event can take place in a purely naturalistic manner, when it defies natural law (as evolution does), is just ridiculous.

Once upon a time, a very, very long time ago there was nothing. Then lo and behold, all of a sudden, this nothing exploded and became everything.
Or perhaps it was a cosmic egg that exploded? On second thoughts, no! we had better not go there, because someone might just ask if a cosmic chicken laid the cosmic egg?

Anyhow, whichever you prefer, they are the two versions of the 'Big Bang' fable, simplified for the layperson.

Just like the fable itself, the choice is simple, you can either allow yourself be blinded by the so-called science, or you can be just like the little boy in the story of the Emperor's New Clothes. The mind unfettered by ideology and vested interests can see through the whole farcical story.

A singularity? What the hell is that? If a Creationist dared to suggest that the universe originated by means of a one off event where the Laws of Science did not apply, they would be called crazy.

All sensible scientists are opposed to the 'Big Bang' because the whole thing is totally illogical and, dare I say it, 'unscientific'.

Let those who wish to believe in the 'miracle' or 'magic' of a singularity do so. I can assure you that BELIEF is all it is.

The 'Big Bang' is purely a matter of belief and so you don't have to be a scientist to be opposed to it. The man on the Clapham omnibus has just as much right to oppose it as the highly qualified scientist with oodles of letters after their name. Remember, they don't teach wisdom and common sense at any university.




.

Answer 8

You cannot see evolution, it takes thousands of years. Do you have any common sense at all? I don't see any of it in this absurd question. I am no scientist but I bet one could explain gravity and where it came from to you. Do you care to really know the scientific answers to your assumptions? I would bet that no, you would not care to be enlightened. Go read that bible until you have the intelligence to investigate assumptions.

Answer 9

It's not that I don't believe in god. It's more the fact that I don't believe the bible. But I've been looking other religions to see what they say because I do beleive we have an afterlife with a god.

Answer 10

Because there's no evidence that he exists.

And if he does exist, there's more of a reason to believe he's cruel and/or stupid.