Hello Christians.

[TeenagedAtheist]

As you may have ascertained from my username, I am an atheist. I stumbled upon your forum from another website and saw you had a section for people of my age. My question is, why should I believe in God/Christianity?

I'm looking for a serious, open-minded discussion free of insults or censorship. Are you up for it?

 

[DMMullinax]

I believe in Christ because he offers a lot better lifestyle than any I could ever try to build with my own hands. He also offers redemption like none other, and an unconditional love that surpasses anything. As well as the fact that He sent his perfect Son to die on a cross for undeserving sinners, and all for us to be plucked from the hands of Satan, death and Hell. And that I've seen time and time again how He is always right, and my way of doing things is completely warped. Pretty fantastic in my opinion

 

[Johnnybabe]

Here's the thinking process that I went through to determine that there is a God:

1. Most scientists agree that the universe has an age.
2. Most scientists also agree that there has to be a reason for everything.
3. Something must have set the conditions for the creation of the universe--this is regardless of whether or not there was a Big Bang, because even that would need certain events to happen to set up the proper conditions.
4. God, presumably being all-powerful, would be able to set up these said conditions because He is all-powerful.
5. If we accept that God is a spirit, and therefore not having a physical body to inhibit Him, He would theoretically be able to exist outside of the said universe.
6. And because of His infinite intelligence, he would know exactly what to do.

 

[Wedjat]

I'm not sure if TA is coming back, but if he isn't I'd like to take a second to address Johnnybabe's post.
I'm not sure that your second premise is actually true. Most things have causes, there are some things that we don't know the causes of, examples being laws of the universe such as gravity and physics. It is possible that that may simply be how things are, without cause. Maybe it's semantic, but "reason" encourages one to ask a philosophical sort of "why" rather than a technical one. Science isn't supposed to deal with philosophy.

Your third premise isn't really within the realm of our knowledge either. To say something must have set the correct conditions is somewhat fallacious as we don't know what those preexisting conditions might be (though we have some pretty good ideas), nor is it really necessary for "something" to set them, they could just as well be as they were without prompt.

Premises 4-6 are all based on another premise that God exists, in order to prove a conclusion that God exists, this is circular logic.

Further, although it would be completely fair to say that we don't know how the universe began, which is what most of your argument seems to be hinged on, to say then that it is reasonable to suppose that a divine being is responsible is known as an "argument from ignorance", more commonly referred to as "God of the gaps".

While this sort of reasoning is perfectly sound given the existence of a god, and may serve you well enough given that you believe in God, I only mean to point out why the logic doesn't stand for someone who does not believe that such a being exists.

 

[solarwave]

The thought that kept me from losing my faith when I thought I was going to was that there is no reason for the universe to continue to exist and to stay in existance with the same laws that keep life.

It makes more sense to me that a 'mind' would choose a universe arbitrary laws continue to exist than another law which might be seen a arbitrary anyway.

 

[Girder of Loins]

I came to an un-refutable conclusion about an omnipotent Creator through various arguments. My favorite is the 'backward infinite theory." Matter has to be in a specific spot at a specific time. Matter cannot be created nor destroyed, therefore it has always existed. If matter has always existed then time has always existed. If time has always existed, then it would be an infinite amount of time before matter did not exist. Since it is impossible to reach infinity, then neither you nor I would exist right now. We would never be having this conversation until time has gone backwards to infinity. But since this is impossible, as we are having this conversation, time must be finite and matter must have been created. Now you can blame this on spontaneous entrance of matter, which goes against the Laws of Thermodynamics, or a force that is not bound by physical means has to have created matter and set up the universe as a whole. I believe this is a Creator, not some "metaphysical" force that drove the universe into existence. I believe in one God. The God. I AM. YWHW. The God of the Holy Bible. Why not other religions? Well, thats a long, drawn out debate over other religions. Thank you for being open-minded about this subject and generating healthy debate.

 

[solarwave]

Now you can blame this on spontaneous entrance of matter, which goes against the Laws of Thermodynamics, or a force that is not bound by physical means has to have created matter and set up the universe as a whole. I believe this is a Creator, not some "metaphysical" force that drove the universe into existence. I believe in one God. The God. I AM. YWHW. The God of the Holy Bible. Why not other religions? Well, thats a long, drawn out debate over other religions. Thank you for being open-minded about this subject and generating healthy debate.

I accept that the universe must have had a start, but why does it have to be God that creates rather than being random? The laws of physics break down as you go closer to the beginning of the universe (Big Bang) so this could apply to the Law of Thermodynamics too.

 

[Kitty.]

I believe in Christ because without Him, I am nothing.
Christ has given me what no one can, a relationship with Him and the gift of eternal life.

After being through all I have been through/currently going through, I know for 100% fact that Christ is the best friend anyone can have.

 

[Girder of Loins]

I accept that the universe must have had a start, but why does it have to be God that creates rather than being random? The laws of physics break down as you go closer to the beginning of the universe (Big Bang) so this could apply to the Law of Thermodynamics too.

To be honest, I have never heard of this. I don't know how scientists would even accomplish this as this is not a relivable event. Isn't the scientific method only available when a phenomenon is observable, repeatable, and measurable. Until science changes to include things unobservable, then I refuse to believe in such a theory. I believe in Laws(somewhat since new evidence always comes in to destroy laws). If this becomes a law, then sure. I'll believe it, but until then, the "backward infinite theory" holds true. And the theory is not scientific, its more a philosophical argument. And another reason the Big Bang theory can't hold any weight. If the laws of physics degrade as you go back in time, then when did it reach full strength? At what point did it start? Like how strong was it? Did some points apply but not other points? There are so many "what-ifs" that I can't believe it.

 

[solarwave]

To be honest, I have never heard of this.

It still might be true that energy and matter can't randomly come into existance even if what I said was true. I was just saying it is unsure and that laws are only descriptions of what we see happen, it doesn't mean what we see happen must always happen.

I don't know how scientists would even accomplish this as this is not a relivable event.

I think it is from the maths that they get this information. I'm not sure though because I havn't read up on it for a while. Google timeline of the big bang wiki.

Isn't the scientific method only available when a phenomenon is observable, repeatable, and measurable. Until science changes to include things unobservable, then I refuse to believe in such a theory.

Even if you don't think it is scientific it doesn't mean it is wrong. If you are a Christian you likely believe historical evidence is good, and so theorys like the like this could be seen as historical evidence.

I believe in Laws(somewhat since new evidence always comes in to destroy laws). If this becomes a law, then sure. I'll believe it, but until then, the "backward infinite theory" holds true. And the theory is not scientific, its more a philosophical argument. And another reason the Big Bang theory can't hold any weight. If the laws of physics degrade as you go back in time, then when did it reach full strength? At what point did it start? Like how strong was it? Did some points apply but not other points? There are so many "what-ifs" that I can't believe it.

I agree that there cannot be infinite regress, but how do you get from 'there was a beginning' to 'God did it'?

 

[Girder of Loins]

It still might be true that energy and matter can't randomly come into existance even if what I said was true. I was just saying it is unsure and that laws are only descriptions of what we see happen, it doesn't mean what we see happen must always happen.

Even if you don't think it is scientific it doesn't mean it is wrong. If you are a Christian you likely believe historical evidence is good, and so theorys like the like this could be seen as historical evidence.

I agree that there cannot be infinite regress, but how do you get from 'there was a beginning' to 'God did it'?

Yes, a law is only a description of why something happened or how something happened, and yes, laws can be refuted in the future with new evidence. But while they are still a law, I will believe it, not as truth(as science cannot establish truth) but as unshakeable evidence. Once something shakes it and makes it fall, then sure, I'll believe that. And if you looked at every single thing as something that will become refuted(as it sounds like you are assuming all laws will become extinct) then you believe in nothing and all truth is relative, no absolute truth.

Yes, historical evidence is great, but its only evidence and could have been flawed. If it lines with the Bible, the great. Thats my source for truth. Everything that society does, uncovers, or makes I put up to the Bible to see if it right or wrong, true or untrue.

As for me believing in God, I take a quote from C.S. Lewis.
"Suppose there were no intelligence behind the universe. In that case nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. Thought is merely the by-product of some atoms within my skull. But if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course, I can't trust the arguments leading to atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I can't believe in thought; so I can never use thought to disbelieve God."

 

[Girder of Loins]

Christianity is based SOLEY on faith. Don't bother looking for proof, there is none.

Whoah buddy, there is a lot of proof. You, trees, rocks, the natural order of things. Why the world spins one way instead of another. Everything is proof of a Creator.

 

[itisdeliciouscake]

Christianity is based SOLEY on faith. Don't bother looking for proof, there is none.

Christianity disagrees with this statement.

 

[cRIO]

Hello.

I must say, I admire Wedjat for thinking more critically about the arguments for God.

It seems that many of the arguments on here are something along the lines of "without God, I am nothing." This doesn't actually prove God's existence, though; it just means that you rely on God, whether he is only a idea or something more. Saying that he has given you a better life also wouldn't really convince anyone, as the original poster seems to want.

Also, Girder of Loins give the "backward infinite theory" that has many apparent flaws. First, matter does not necessarily have a definite place. Matter is composed of very tiny particles (atoms), and so the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle applies, which says that it's impossible to know both the velocity (direction and speed) and position of a particle, and so we can't know the exact place of matter at a given time. Though, just because we can't know it, doesn't mean that it doesn't have a definite position.

Second, matter can be created and destroyed. Energy cannot be created or destroyed (at least, for the purpose of this), and matter can be converted into energy (e=mc^2). This means that matter may not have always existed, at the beginning of the universe (if you believe the Big Bang Theory), then a bunch of energy may have turned into matter. Also, according to the BBT, time didn't exist before the Big Bang, so infinity is avoided. Furthermore, the laws of thermodynamics don't prevent the spontaneous production of matter (again, e=mc^2, but energy to matter this time). All it takes is for the universe is to become more disorderly in some other way, assuming you were talking about the 2nd law.

As for the laws of physics breaking down as you go backwards, that is true, in a way. The laws as we know them didn't exist for the first fraction of a second of the universe (again, BBT). After that, they pretty much stayed the same until the present.

Finally, about scientific laws, just to clarify, they only describe what happens, but do not propose a mechanism. And about the CS Lewis quote, even if something like your brain wasn't designed by something to think, it still could serve that purpose. For example, if God didn't exist, hands would still clearly serve their purpose of grasping things.

If anything needs more description, just say so.

 

[Girder of Loins]

Hello.Also, Girder of Loins give the "backward infinite theory" that has many apparent flaws. First, matter does not necessarily have a definite place. Matter is composed of very tiny particles (atoms), and so the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle applies, which says that it's impossible to know both the velocity (direction and speed) and position of a particle, and so we can't know the exact place of matter at a given time. Though, just because we can't know it, doesn't mean that it doesn't have a definite position.

Second, matter can be created and destroyed. Energy cannot be created or destroyed (at least, for the purpose of this), and matter can be converted into energy (e=mc^2). This means that matter may not have always existed, at the beginning of the universe (if you believe the Big Bang Theory), then a bunch of energy may have turned into matter. Also, according to the BBT, time didn't exist before the Big Bang, so infinity is avoided. Furthermore, the laws of thermodynamics don't prevent the spontaneous production of matter (again, e=mc^2, but energy to matter this time). All it takes is for the universe is to become more disorderly in some other way, assuming you were talking about the 2nd law.

As for the laws of physics breaking down as you go backwards, that is true, in a way. The laws as we know them didn't exist for the first fraction of a second of the universe (again, BBT). After that, they pretty much stayed the same until the present.

Finally, about scientific laws, just to clarify, they only describe what happens, but do not propose a mechanism. And about the CS Lewis quote, even if something like your brain wasn't designed by something to think, it still could serve that purpose. For example, if God didn't exist, hands would still clearly serve their purpose of grasping things.

If anything needs more description, just say so.

Actually, you can know where matter is. Its just electrons are like that. You can pinpoint the location of an electron, but not the velocity. You can pinpoint the velocity, but not the location. At least not at the same time.

Well, yes. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. But energy has a mass, does it not? And mass needs time. Simply because mass exists within the fourth dimension(time). Mass is anything that takes up space, and space(as we know it) exists within time. So energy is still bound to spontaneous appearance. Now onto the laws of physic not existing for a fraction of a second. Why? How? When? How much evidence do you have for this? Where is it? It seems to me that in order observe the unobservable, then call it science(which requires observation) is a little messed up. I don't use God to prove God's existence. I come to the conclusion that no other theory makes sense, so I choose God.Then I use science to understand how God made the universe work and to understand Him more. It seems scientists have become fine with using "logic" and unobservable observations as science. It sickens me. Lets stick to facts, and not trusting in theories.

 

[cRIO]

Do I really have to provide the definition of a scientific theory?

The thing that many people seem to be stuck on is the fact that there may have been a "time" when time as we know it did now exist. I can go into more detail about how the Big Bang may not be what most people think of also. It could have just been a transition from dimensions that we can't understand to those we can. And as for evidence, we have direct evidence for the Bing Bang. We can see it in radiation that comes from far away (13 or so billion light years away). This radiation comes from the time of the Big Bang, and so we can observe the unobservable.

 

[Girder of Loins]

Do I really have to provide the definition of a scientific theory?

The thing that many people seem to be stuck on is the fact that there may have been a "time" when time as we know it did now exist. I can go into more detail about how the Big Bang may not be what most people think of also. It could have just been a transition from dimensions that we can't understand to those we can. And as for evidence, we have direct evidence for the Bing Bang. We can see it in radiation that comes from far away (13 or so billion light years away). This radiation comes from the time of the Big Bang, and so we can observe the unobservable.

A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has been proven. But a large majority of theories have been disproven. So, I do not put sole trust into a theory. And what do you mean a "dimension we can't understand?" We live in all the dimensions, its just they involve various planes(x,y,z,etc..). The lower dimensions require the higher ones, but at some point, the planes must have been created by something. Because then time would have had to been made(or spontaneously appeared). And how do you know for certain, without a doubt, without a single shred of doubt, without any chance for rejection that this radiation is from the big Bang. How do you know the Big Bang created this radiation? Sure, you can theorize infinitely about the big Bang, but did you actually observe the Big Bang? No. Therefore, no amount of evidence that you shuffle away towards the Big Bang can actually be counted as evidence for the Big Bang. Sorry.

 

[cRIO]

Also, the HUP applies to more than just electrons. It applies to any small particles. And using math to prove things is valid; it's led to many discoveries in the past. There's another hypothesis that states that time is just another spacial dimension, and our cnsciousnesses just perceive it to be different. You also say no other theory works, so you choose God, but even if this were true, it would mean that nothing has been found to work yet. Assuming God when nothing else works is only a "God of gaps." Thousands of years ago, lightning was thought to be the thnderbolts of Zeus, but as we know, it is nt (directly) attributed to God.

 

[cRIO]

How do I know without a shred of doubt? I don't. But how do you know God exists? You Dmitted he was a god of gaps, that you only accept him because there is no alternative. You have no doubt, not even one bit? I accept that the radiation is from the BB because evidence points to it. Why do you believe in God?

 

[cRIO]

Oh, I almost forgot: it's possible for higher dimensions to exist. Computers can easily simulate the fourth spacial dimension, and presumably higher ones. String theory postulates ten (yes, I know you hate theories). And if you deny everything that you are even the slightest bit unsure about, you should deny reality. After all, we only interact with the world through our senses, and they can be deceived.