Do you believe in God?

Question

State logical reasons please

Answer 1

I am an atheist because I don't believe in deities and the word atheist describes this state of disbelief. I don't believe in deities because no argument or evidence presented to me in support of their existence has been convincing.

1. Biology adequately describes life and emotions without appealing to mystical invisible dieties

2. Astronomy adequately describes the formation of stars/planets/universe/etc without appealing to mystical invisible dieties

3. Geology adequately describes the evolution of the Earth, land formations, etc without appealing to mystical invisible dieties

4. Psychology describes the human psyche better than appealing to mystical invisible dieties

5. Appealing to mystical invisible dieties is an appeal to ignorance

6. There's no physical evidence for the existence of mystical invisible dieties

7. A myriad of mystical invisible dieties have been posited by emphatically superstitious societies and have been proven to be products of overly active imaginations (today's religion is tomorrow's myth) and ignorance.

8. Believing in mystical invisible dieties seems to become quite absurd when those who posit the mystical invisible dieties begin explaining why and how they exist in the face of contradictory physical evidence.

9. As scientific knowledge increases, the role of the mystical invisible dieties oddly gets pushed further and further back.

10. Mystical invisible dieties are mystical invisible dieties (ie can never be found by empirical methods)

That should be enough to get you started.

Answer 2

Yes I believe in God. I believe that there exist the greatest power out there some where or should I say up there? Logical Reason? Can't really explain. It's just a feeling I get that someone or something is watching over me.

Answer 3

Well, I definately believe in God, and over the past year, I too have sought out evidence:

• Science is limited – we cannot directly experiment on the past. As a past [evolutionist] science teacher admitted to me “How can you predict the past?”
• Variation exists, so does microevolution.
• The universe could not have created itself, because it would have needed to exist in order to create itself – paradox; everything that begins has a cause behind its beginning.
• Laws of Thermodynamics: 2nd law: the amount of usable energy [for work] in the universe is running down or entropy is increasing – thus, the universe could not have existed forever or all usable energy would be gone.
• Stars being seen from the earth are billions of years old. The universe is expanding [as Hubble noted], thus the light from the past would have had a shorter distance to travel [thus, we would have seen the stars at an age closer to what they were]. Now, the stars are further apart and light must travel further [thus, s=d/t example 5=10/2 > raise the distance (but keep the speed of light constant) and you get 5=15/? = 3 … thus it takes longer for the light to reach earth and the stars are seem older as time moves on and distance increases. Relativity baby.
• Young Earth: Earth’s magnetic field is diminishing at a relatively rapid rate. If the earth were millions of years old, Earth would no longer have a magnetic field. If the layers of sedimentary rock formed over the course of millions or even hundreds of thousands of years, shouldn’t we be able to easily see erosion patterns in between layers? Dating methods = inaccurate. Carbon dating is only accurate up to tens of thousands of years, from there on, all dating is based on presumption. Relative dating methods based on layers of sedimentary rock are based on circular reasoning: the fossils are dated based on their position in the rock, while the rock is dated based on the fossils within. Also, the earths crust is very active in moving and twisting layers of rock around. Thus, it is impossible to be sure of age based on these dating methods. Lyell and Hutton assumed that it must have taken millions of years for geological features to have changed – this does allow for evolution, but it was based on presumption, not fact.
• The new species of fruit flies: no potential advantages of their “evolution” and they were produced in a controlled environment.
• Darwin’s finches were very diverse in adaptations, but were still the same species.
• Miller and Urey’s experiment: did not accurately simulate the atmosphere, produced wrong type of amino acids, and is a controlled environment.
• Molecular mechanisms are made up of many parts that interact in complex ways, and all the parts need to work together. A single part has no useful function unless all the other parts are also present and therefore there is no way the Darwin process could build such a system step by step. If one part is removed the whole function is lost. Examples: bacterial flagella; a “motor-like” tail of a bacteria – if one part of the flagella was missing then it would not work, thus the bacteria would fall victim to natural selection. Bits and pieces of the flagella couldn’t have accumulated over time – because they wouldn’t have had any adaptive significance to the bacteria. What would have been the previous form of the flagella if it had evolved?

*What is necessary in the equation: A higher Being.

Answer 4

The concept of evolution is rather a recent concept. The concept of a God is a from Judaism. The more ancient debate is one God or many gods. Three main religions in the world are Judaism, Christianity and Islamic faith. These three religions have the same Abraham roots and agree with the first 5 books of the bible. They devided along doctrine and understanding of the Messiah and the sons of Abraham. Islam is from the son Ishmael, Judaism is from Isaac and Christianity believes God came in the incarnation of Christ.

The more recent choice is evolution which is rather an intelligent man's way of rejecting God.

If you are to believe in evolution, you must believe something came from nothing. One of the principles of science is that nothing is add or subtracted from an atomic level. If that is the case, how did the first atom form? The concept of a pre-existence atom is making atoms into a gods. The other option is to believe in the eternal pre-exsitance of God. Both require faith but since science does not allow for faith, then that nullifies itself.

If your to believe in the god of atoms or evolution that our creation was merer chance you must ask yourself "if that is your god, will you eventually evolve into atoms/god at the end?

The typical atheist has turned his eye away from God and used science as their alibi to forget Him. They typicaly have experience tremedious lose or been hurt from the church. The real question is not "is there a God?" but "why did you turn your eye from Him?". Why did you make a new god atom.

Like Adam, satan wants you to think you can be a God.

Like Atom, science wants you to think you can be a god.

So, do you want to be a god or to Worship God? That is the real question, isn't it?

Answer 5

i know the truth but now i am not going to tell you. When you get the true then your every activities will be the truth and impressive and you may take away my girlfriend.But you will know later on the future. Actually, I have a formula for the truth. Ok enjoy man. You can add this id to your contact.

Answer 6

Yes. God is evident by his creation, look around you and explain to me how such a complex miracle as life can happen by chance.

Arrogance is denying God and stating that our world developed randomly. Mathematically near impossible.

In addition, you cannot justify faith with logic. Logic is dependant on our limited intelligence. Faith is based on our intuitive knowledge of truth.

How can you explain the willingness of someone to die for a cause? That's not logical and cannot be explained by science - in a convincing manner - such action is based on faith. There are many other examples.

Even our concept of God, our concept of perfection is not possible without us having experienced it. We cannot phantom what we cannot relate. In order for us to understand perfection and imperfection, we must have experienced a being without fault. Aka God.

Follow your heart and be smart enough to know the limitations of your brain.

I am Muslim by faith.

Answer 7

I believe in God the Father Almighty, the Creator of Heaven and Earth. God is the Natural Law. The author of the Natural Law.

For God is the immanent, and not the extaneous, cause of all things. I say, All is God, all lives and moves in God. . The Universal laws of nature and the eternal decrees of God are one and the same thing. From the infinite Nature of God all things .... follow by the same necessity, and in the same way, as it follows from the nature of a triangle, from eternity to eternity, that its three angles are equal to tw right angles. All things on earth are upheld in God.

Thanks for asking. Have a great day!

Answer 8

i dont know. thinking of something bigger to life is great but is it there to answer what we cant which is how we started? i dont know and dont plan to find out till the time comes and you should wait to patience is good so wait and if hes real, hope yu end up with the answer man

Answer 9

I'm not sure. I mean there is NO proof. But then again... why would people believe for thousands of years if there was no kind of higher being?

And wouldn't it stink if you got to "heaven" and whatever you picked was wrong.

Answer 10

Yeah with all my heart & soul I can't really explain the reason why but its just a feeling I get.