User Name:

Password:

FAQ Donate Join

General Discussion
God exists because ppl know about him

hey guys given people spend so much of their life wondering whether there is a God or not, so doesnt that show you how God has made his existence known by placing it in the mind of every human being??

also, what makes you feel purpose and meaning in what you do in your day to day life? im sure you may feel you should make the most of the 1 life you have, but to what end?

Carly said, "hey guys given people spend so much of their life wondering whether there is a God or not, so doesnt that show you how God has made his existence known by placing it in the mind of every human being??"

I do not spend on minute wondering whether there is a god or not. There is no god. The fact is I think far more about science and space than any other subject. The subject of god is only interesting to me from the standpoint of studying ancient history. The concept of these ancient religions has no relevance in today's world. The fact is religion has the same purposes today that it always had. It provides answers to things that the uneducated do not understand and their ignorance is used to control them. They are lured into religion by the concept of another life and a reward after death. This keeps people from demanding the truth and a better life in this world.

The Biblical concept of god was created in the minds of the authors. These authors were promoted as authentic eyewitness accounts, when in fact there are no original manuscripts and nobody knows who wrote them. We know (for many reasons) that they are not eyewitness accounts. It was within these documents called scriptures, that god was created. The idea of a god existing is a concept that is learned not something that just happens. From the standpoint of believing god/gods, demons or any other supernatural being exists many people who study ancient history know it isn't true.

The Concept of Gods Demons and all the rest comes out of ancient Sumer it was recorded in tablets in Cuneiform texts. ENQI was the "God Of the earth". Enlil was called Dammuzi Or Gabriy which is where the name Gabriel originated. Enlil was the father of Tammuz by the female Deity Ishtar.

Tammuz was called Adonis, the supreme and gave birth to the concept of a Supreme Being. According to ancient cuneiform tablets recorded thousands of years before the bible, Tammuz was appointed to rule in the place of his father Enlil who art in heaven. He was also known as Horus to the ancient Egyptians. Alah to the ancient Babylonians.

Later the title kurious and kristos was given to him in greek from the sanskrit and meant christ the son of the god. Enlil of the heavens; and his blessed mother Ishtar, also known as in ancient Egypt Isis whose husband was Osiris, another name for Dammuzi. Dammuzi is another name for Yashua (Jesus) whose ancient name is Tammuz. The name Tammuz can be found in ancient tablets called Tammuz and Ishtar in Cuneiform. Tammuz is the name of an ancient Sumerian deity whose name is mentioned in the Akkadian tablets. Tammuz can be found in the Old Testament in Ezekiel 8:14.

The worship of Tammuz in Babylonia and those adjacent lands to which it spread were cults of sorrow, death and resurrection. The name Tammuz is Sumerian and means the "sprout forth as a faithful son". This is where the concept of "Son of God" in (Mathew 3:17) originated. Tammuz was the son of Enlil.

This is an example of how these ideas evolved. It's interesting if you like ancient history, but I don't know of anyone who became a crazy as bat shit fanatic because they studied ancient history.

Carly said, "also, what makes you feel purpose and meaning in what you do in your day to day life? im sure you may feel you should make the most of the 1 life you have, but to what end?"

Knowing what is true or real is very important. I know people who talk about characters on soap operas as if they are talking about real people - sometimes it seems they don't know what is real from what is fake. That is not different from being entertained by ancient myths decorated with magic and folklore. I know the difference. There are many worthwhile real things in life that one could spend time on - too numerous to mention. Learning about space and the exploration of space is one of them.

From my standpoint, people know about God because He exists. They just don't accept it.

And for the theists, they can account for the things they do in their life. For atheists, however, I don't know what their definition of meaningful is when it comes to life. I mean, they have reasons for doing something but does it make any difference if they do nothing?

MJ said, "From my standpoint, people know about God because He exists. They just don't accept it."

I guess people who know about god abandon all logic, because your input (as usual) defies all logic. People know about the Roman god Jupiter, and the Greek god Zeus, and all the gods that came before them. So, why shouldn't we accept them? Do you think that knowing about something means its real? People know about a lot of things that don't exist or aren't true. Many people believe in astrology and fortunetellers: so, by your standards of "a lot of people know about something" I guess that means it's not a sham. Unfortunately, that is how shams continue (word of mouth) or testimonies.

If there is no evidence for god there is no justification for belief. If you have got proof that any god exists send me the evidence. You can eliminate personal experiences, answered or unanswered prayers (no matter what the answer it's from god) and last but certainly not least the bible, which is the most convincing proof of all that there is no Supreme Being. The bible was most certainly written by primitive people who apparently thought the sun, moon, and stars go around Earth because they had no understanding of how our universe operates.

Proof that something exists is usually easy to find (if the thing exists) but lets face facts the presence of god is equivalent to the absence of god. There is just no way to prove the presence. When there is just no possible way to test or falsify a hypothesis it has to be considered erroneous. You can't use the word "evidence" when you are incapable of describing "it" and you cannot observe or detect "it".

MJ said, "And for the theists, they can account for the things they do in their life. For atheists, however, I don't know what their definition of meaningful is when it comes to life. I mean, they have reasons for doing something but does it make any difference if they do nothing?

Democritus, an ancient Greek philosopher and an atheist, was the most prolific and influential of the philosophers that came before Socrates. Democritus's atomic theory is regarded as the intellectual culmination of early Greek thought. This atomic theory, is uncanny for the likeness of the theoretical formulations of modern physicists, he is sometimes called the 'father of modern science'. Plato advised that all of Democritus' works be burned. Religion has never enable people to do great things, it has always stood in their way.

People achieve great things because of their own hard work and dedication, not because of the supernatural, superstition or suppression.

I believe in God, and I don't think I abandoned all logic. In fact, I believe that God designed the mind for logical purposes. You discredited the Bible as an evidence because you see it as a book written by primitive people who lacked knowledge in operational science. Honestly, I don't even know how you got to such an assumption such as that. Maybe it's because of the straw-man arguments that you presented me before.

You can state what Greek philosophers achieved; what they contributed; what things they produced, and how people in a religion hindered knowledge. But if you consider attributing atheism to that as an argument against religion... Have you considered Galileo? Yes. The Roman church had a conflict against his discovery. But it's only because he revealed that the church was no longer subjecting herself to the Word of God, but accepted Aristotle's view of the universe.

Hello again MJ,

As we've seen from your other posts on Creation Science, logical inferences are worthless if the premises underlying the conclusions are wrong. Sound logic isn't the only requirement.

That may be true. But we have to acknowledge that since we don't have the past, and thus have no full knowledge about the past. We interpret what happened to the past using the things we have in the present.

I hope I will not be misrepresenting your view but I believe you hold on to one of Carl Sagan's famous quotes, "The cosmos is all there is, was or ever will be"; that , for example, a certain tree grew in a certain way because we observe that trees with similar characteristics grow that way.

Secular scientists use this principle to origins science: the Grand Canyon was formed slowly because similar things form likewise; Dinosaur bones are found underneath the earth because layers or soil gradually covered them over time. Death and suffering is happening because it's what happened before. All this started with the assumption that this earth we have now is because of those millions of years.

For Creation Scientists, they start with the assumption that is according to the Bible, which explicitly indicates that the earth is about 6000 years old. The Grand Canyon was formed, and Dinosaur bones are under the earth because of the Great Flood. The diversity of language is the cause of what God did at the Tower of Babel. Death and suffering was because of Adam and Eve's disobedience.

The Bible has undergone question after question concerning it's validity of being a history book, likewise answer after answer, and rebuttals after rebuttals. A process going back and forth up till now. No matter how many answers one party will receive, the other won't give in. So there's almost no telling who's right or wrong.

MJ said: "Secular scientists use this principle to origins science: the Grand Canyon was formed slowly because similar things form likewise; Dinosaur bones are found underneath the earth because layers or soil gradually covered them over time. Death and suffering is happening because it's what happened before. All this started with the assumption that this earth we have now is because of those millions of years."

Actually, you've got it backwards: Early scientists were quite surprised when they found the first evidences of the age of the earth (look it up!). It was completely beyond their existing paradigm.

BTW, you don't need assumptions about natural processes to collect data on the dates of different layers of the grand canyon (or count tree rings or ice core layers, etc..). That's a great thing about science: Plenty of surprises.

MJ,

I know that this is in response to my rebuttal to your comments on this thread, but have answered my rebuttal on COMPARATIVE RELIGION topic 'What Would Be Your Choice Next to Atheism'? I answered your response (Posted Feb 7, 2011 on that thread.

(In response to my comments on this topic) MJ said, "I believe in God, and I don't think I abandoned all logic. In fact, I believe that God designed the mind for logical purposes."

The Scriptures teaches creation as a completed event even though we know that all life evolved over a very long period of time. Scientists know that some organisms didn't continue to evolve because they were defective and became extinct (like the Neanderthals) a creator design defective species? Darwin's theory of evolution proposes that animals well suited to their environment survive - and pass on their genes. Animals that are not well suited perish before they have offspring. Their mixture of genes dies with them.

The human brain's circuits are subject to natural selection (through the genes that encode for the major neural pathways) and have evolved so as to generate behaviors that are adapted to environmental circumstances. Most of what happens in our brain does so without our being aware of it, so that many things that seem easy to us actually involve highly complex neural circuits and operations. Various types of neural circuits have become specialized in solving various kinds of adaptive problems.

Scientists know far more about how the human brain evolved and its fundamental functions than creationists ever thought about. The brain evolved when nerves appeared in the course of the evolution of life and nerve centers formed precursors of brains. The formation of ever more complex networks of nerves led to the appearance of large accumulations of interconnected nerves close to the output of the most important sensors for fast responses based on memory. This evolved into the complex brain of mammals. The expansion of the cortex in the frontal regions led to greater memory. A higher degree of consciousness evolved when there was an increase in memory, ability and competence, and language skills started to form. Then the higher intellectual capabilities for mental creativity and strategy formulation begin. Opinions and beliefs are not scientific and they are not proof of anything. I can believe something is true but if it can not be proven then it isn't the truth.

Consciousness comes from a long process called evolution. Intelligence evolved in organisms in order to survive - the harder it was to survive the more intelligent the species became - and these traits were passed on to through reproduction to the next generation. When evolution scientist look for those traits they find them in droves. There is no scientific theory for a "god consciousness of the gaps" it has absolutely nothing to do with anything scientific. It is creationism pseudo-science.

MJ said, "You discredited the Bible as an evidence because you see it as a book written by primitive people who lacked knowledge in operational science. Honestly, I don't even know how you got to such an assumption such as that. Maybe it's because of the straw-man arguments that you presented me before."

You are claiming scientific theory is a "straw-man" while advocating a god-did-it hypothesis. There is no instance of a supernatural explanation (god-did-it) supplanting a 'natural cause' that has ever been observed. Science is doing away with superstition and a supposed supernatural explanation that is why many believers decided that science is the enemy of religion. The concept of supernatural beings is not reality it is a fantasyland of gods, demons, angels, spirits and wizardry. Like any myth or fairytale, because that's what it is.

Evolution is proof that there was no need for an Intelligent Designer. Everything in the Universe evolved from the Big Bang. And the Cosmic Microwave Background is incontrovertible proof that there was a Big Bang. DNA would have falsified evolution - instead if has confirmed it. Scientists have proven that there is no "abrupt appearance" we know this from the transitional fossil record.

MJ said, "You can state what Greek philosophers achieved; what they contributed; what things they produced, and how people in a religion hindered knowledge. But if you consider attributing atheism to that as an argument against religion... Have you considered Galileo? Yes. The Roman church had a conflict against his discovery. But it's only because he revealed that the church was no longer subjecting herself to the Word of God, but accepted Aristotle's view of the universe."

That is not what Galileo Galilei's conflict with the Church was about. The Roman Catholic Church is the origin of Christianity. Christianity and all religion have historically impeded science as was witnessed in the case of Galileo. The conflict was between science and religion, but it was a conflict between Copernican science and Aristotelian science. Aristotelian science was Church tradition because it supported the erroneous astronomy of the bible. Galileo expressed his scientific views supporting Copernicus.

Galileo's major work published in 1632 resulted in Galileo's conviction on suspicion of heresy and a lifetime house arrest.

Aristotle believed the universe is finite and spherical with a stationary earth at its center. This was a serious scientific error based on an earth-centered cosmos. Copernicus developed a cosmology with the sun at the center; the earth rotating about a polar axis, and the earth and planets circling the sun, essentially as we know it today.

In 1615 Galileo wrote a letter outlining his views to Madame Christina of Lorraine, the Grand Duchess of Tuscany, "Concerning the Use of Biblical Quotations in Matters of Science." The tribunal used this letter against him in his first trial in 1616. They directed Galileo to renounce Copernicus theory and to stop teaching, defending or even discussing the Copernicus's theory.

This means that there were two theories the Copernican (sun centered) and the Aristotelian or (earth centered). Which one is science and is the correct theory should have been the question, and not which one agrees with ancient mans ideas about the Cosmos that are found in the bible.

The Holy Tribunal condemned Galileo's theories heretical because Galileo did not believe that the earth was the center of everything with the sun and all the planets circling around it, because it is expressly contrary to the Holy Scripture.

You don't have to be very smart to conclude that this conflict occurred because real science does not support the (Holy Scripture) or bible. There have always been - and always will be - people stupid enough to try and make science fit what they already believe - instead of finding out what is really true.

"We know that all life evolved over a very long period of time." - No we don't. We weren't there to see it; we weren't there to observe it. Molecules-to-man evolution isn't observable, and mutations do not prove that it did.

"Darwin's theory of evolution proposes that animals were well-suited to their environment to survive - and pass on their genes." - I believe that this is more concerned about the theory of natural selection (passing on of already-existing genetic information) rather than about the particles-to-people evolution (creation of new, never-before-existed genetic information).

You presented a nice story about the development of the brain. But have the scientists observed this? I mean how did they know that language developed? What is the evidence that language, complex circuitry, etc. developed in such a way? And what are the chances?

"Consciousness comes from a long process called evolution." - Unless there is a way to show the evidence of the rearranged pond-scum found a way to create genes for the brain, this theory would be considered as a story.

"You are claiming scientific theory is a 'straw-man' while advocating a god-did-it hypothesis." - What I was trying to say is that you presented some arguments that you believe creationists believe, but they don't. And I would prefer advocating the God-did-it hypothesis because you advocate the no-intelligent-designer-did-it hypothesis.

"Evolution is proof that there was no need for an Intelligent Designer." - It would be if it was true.

"Scientists have proven that there is no 'abrupt appearance' we know this from the transitional fossil record." - From what I know scientists have found a handful of fossil records, of which they argue whether they are transitional or not. So unless they are fully verified, fossils do not prove anything about transition.

"The conflict was [not] between science and religion...." - Maybe. Also because Christianity is not against observable science.

"You don't have to be very smart to conclude that this conflict occurred because real science does not support the (Holy Scripture) or bible." - Actually, I don't have to conclude that this conflict occurred because of [as you stated] scientific theories that conflicted each other, where the Bible was accused of going against that is real.

Carly said: "hey guys given people spend so much of their life wondering whether there is a God or not, so doesn't that show you how God has made his existence known by placing it in the mind of every human being??"

That's not really accurate: There are many religions in the world, quite a few of which involve many gods (does this then imply that many gods must exist?), and some of which actually cede that there are no gods at all (read up on certain sects of Buddhism). Given this variety, god really hasn't done that good of a job by your original standard.

Carly said: "also, what makes you feel purpose and meaning in what you do in your day to day life? I'm sure you may feel you should make the most of the 1 life you have, but to what end?"

I'm sure everyone has a different list of what makes living worthwhile, and I suspect most of ours are actually the same as for you: Friends, family, love, life, experiences, beauty, thought, recreation, etc... To what 'end' do other life forms on this planet exist? Some certainly recognize death (e.g., elephants, apes, wolves, etc..). Yet none other appear (as best we can tell) to have any religion. Are they then doomed to meaningless/hopeless psyche's? Seems unlikely (lemmings aside, perhaps). However, if the existence of some imaginary being is required by you for 'purpose and meaning' in life, aren't you leaving yourself rather psychologically vulnerable if something happens that rattles whatever foundations you have for that unproven belief?

Follow us on:

twitter facebook meetup

blip.tv ustream.tv

Join us for the Bat Cruise Lecture, 1:15pm September 27th at Trinity United Methodist Church, at 40th and Speedway. Lecturers will be Richard Carrier and Chris Johnson.

The ACA Bat Cruise is set for Saturday, September 27th, 6-8pm. Purchase tickets in advance here.

The audio and video from Dr. Shahnawaz August lecture is now available.