How does one come to believe something?

[As I was saying]

#3 should read, "Therefore, People who are Christians only came to believe that God exists by evaluating WHAT THEY CONSIDER TO BE evidence."

Of course, what someone considers to be evidence may not actually be evidence.

And it is true to say that what some atheists consider evidence may not actually be evidence. Richard Dawkins said in talking about ancestry that our great great great grandfather umpteen times removed was a fish and we all have that same grandfather.

I would not call that evidence. I would call that fanciful speculation.

When I read scripture, it says that we created after our own kind. When I study anthropology I see that we are created after our own kind. Dogs produce dogs. Cats produce cats. Lions produce lions. Zebras produce zebras. Salmon produce salmon. Tarantulas produce tarantulas. Yellow bellied parrots produce yellow bellied parrots. Dolphins produce dolphins. Penguins produce penguins. Human produce humans and so on and so on and so on.

I have never seen a dog become an elephant. A cat become a tiger. A fish become a bat. A spider become a jellyfish. A wombat become a kangaroo. A dung beetle become a meerkat. A monkey become a human and so on and so on and so on.

So if we are talking about evidence, the odds are overwhelmingly in favour of what God said not what Dawkins said. Now if Dawkins is wrong then the atheist should call him to account but they do not so we have to assume they believe that Dawkins is right.

 

[Davian]

"A story of a god creating something from nothing is only that - a story."
So you say. What did create the universe from nothing?

Have you no reason why should that story should be given any credence?

 

[Wayne R.]

And it is true to say that what some atheists consider evidence may not actually be evidence. Richard Dawkins said in talking about ancestry that our great great great grandfather umpteen times removed was a fish and we all have that same grandfather.

I would not call that evidence. I would call that fanciful speculation.

When I read scripture, it says that we created after our own kind. When I study anthropology I see that we are created after our own kind. Dogs produce dogs. Cats produce cats. Lions produce lions. Zebras produce zebras. Salmon produce salmon. Tarantulas produce tarantulas. Yellow bellied parrots produce yellow bellied parrots. Dolphins produce dolphins. Penguins produce penguins. Human produce humans and so on and so on and so on.

I have never seen a dog become an elephant. A cat become a tiger. A fish become a bat. A spider become a jellyfish. A wombat become a kangaroo. A dung beetle become a meerkat. A monkey become a human and so on and so on and so on.

So if we are talking about evidence, the odds are overwhelmingly in favour of what God said not what Dawkins said. Now if Dawkins is wrong then the atheist should call him to account but they do not so we have to assume they believe that Dawkins is right.

Ahhh, Mr. Dawkins. Well educated. He made an interesting comment in an interview where he was bashing creationists. The interviewer asked him his view on the origin of the universe and began to to speak about multiverse as a possibility, but then made the statement, "Whatever this intelligence is...". Amazing where your mind will go when you allow logic to overcome bias.

 

[Davian]

"What did create the universe from nothing?" Or does your atheism prevent you from believing the universe was created?

Atheism is a theological position on the subject of deities, not astrophysics.

Do you collect stamps?

 

[Davian]

...

I have never seen a dog become an elephant. A cat become a tiger. A fish become a bat. A spider become a jellyfish. A wombat become a kangaroo. A dung beetle become a meerkat. A monkey become a human and so on and so on and so on.

Where does the scientific theory of evolution state that we might expect otherwise?

So if we are talking about evidence, the odds are overwhelmingly in favour of what God said not what Dawkins said. Now if Dawkins is wrong then the atheist should call him to account but they do not so we have to assume they believe that Dawkins is right.

 

[Wayne R.]

Atheism is a theological position on the subject of deities, not astrophysics.

Do you collect stamps?

So, being an atheist prevents you from realizing the universe had a beginning? If your atheism doesn't allow to consider this reality, maybe you should consider a different belief system. Doesn't sound like atheism permits common sense. Or do you believe that to be a matter of astrophysics? I'm beginning to realize why you ask so many (pardon the term) intellectually infantile questions. No insult intended, just an observation.

 

[Davian]

So, being an atheist prevents you from realizing the universe had a beginning?

No, but it does not inform it.

If your atheism doesn't allow to consider this reality, maybe you should consider a different belief system.

Atheism is not a belief system.

Doesn't sound like atheism permits common sense.

Common sense would have us believing that the Earth is flat.

Or do you believe that to be a matter of astrophysics?

Common sense is not science.

I'm beginning to realize why you ask so many (pardon the term) intellectually infantile questions. No insult intended, just an observation.

Have you observed that we are in a philosophy forum?

It was a simple question: do you collect stamps?

 

[Colter]

"A story of a god creating something from nothing is only that - a story."
So you say. What did create the universe from nothing?

The universe is Gods volition rather than being something from nothing, it's something from something. The creation narratives of the finite mind have given us a false concept. The material creations are the pattern of the eternal isle of Paradise.

 

[David4223]

MOD HAT ON

This thread has undergone a cleanup. If your post is missing, please review the CF rules before posting, including:

Flaming and Goading
● Please treat all members with respect and courtesy through civil dialogue.
● Do not attack another member's character or actions in any way, address only the content of their post and not the member personally.
● NO Goading. This includes images, cartoons, or smileys clearly meant to goad.
● Stating or implying that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christian is not allowed.


MOD HAT OFF​

 

[KCfromNC]

And it is true to say that what some atheists consider evidence may not actually be evidence. Richard Dawkins said in talking about ancestry that our great great great grandfather umpteen times removed was a fish and we all have that same grandfather.

I would not call that evidence. I would call that fanciful speculation.

Which field of biology was your PhD in?

If you gave us some evidence to back up your opinion we could take a look at it. But you didn't, so we're stuck just have to trust your professional judgement in this area. Might as well find out what sort of research you've led to see how useful your feeling on the matter are.

 

[Kylie]

And it is true to say that what some atheists consider evidence may not actually be evidence.

That's right. That's why we test that evidence and try to show that it is wrong. If we do this and yet nothing we can do can show it is flawed, then it's likely to be correct.

Richard Dawkins said in talking about ancestry that our great great great grandfather umpteen times removed was a fish and we all have that same grandfather.

Yes. There's a wealth of genetic evidence to support this claim, which has withstood a great deal of testing and has not been proven incorrect.

I would not call that evidence. I would call that fanciful speculation.

How can you think it is just "fanciful speculation" when it is supported by evidence?

When I read scripture, it says that we created after our own kind. When I study anthropology I see that we are created after our own kind. Dogs produce dogs. Cats produce cats. Lions produce lions. Zebras produce zebras. Salmon produce salmon. Tarantulas produce tarantulas. Yellow bellied parrots produce yellow bellied parrots. Dolphins produce dolphins. Penguins produce penguins. Human produce humans and so on and so on and so on.

That's correct, yes.

But how many generations did you observe for? Even in the longest human lifespans, you'll only see the tiniest changes. The genetic evidence, however, shows that over thousands of years, small changes that give reproductive advantages do cause changes.

I have never seen a dog become an elephant. A cat become a tiger. A fish become a bat. A spider become a jellyfish. A wombat become a kangaroo. A dung beetle become a meerkat. A monkey become a human and so on and so on and so on.

And evolution never says that any of these things would happen. Dogs don't give birth to elephants. And no modern species evolved from any other modern species.

So if we are talking about evidence, the odds are overwhelmingly in favour of what God said not what Dawkins said. Now if Dawkins is wrong then the atheist should call him to account but they do not so we have to assume they believe that Dawkins is right.

What you claim is evidence does not stand up to detailed scrutiny.

 

[jonesdon]

If your god is of no significance, then your question is answered. It doesn't matter. ...

===== RESP: 1) OK, so you STILL refuse to answer my simple Q (Is God or no-God a better choice? Based on post #187). -- Davian says "If your god is of no significance, then your question is answered. It doesn't matter." [What do you mean "IF"? By my 1st post #187, obviously, my God (not god) is significant to me. Given my comments there, you don't think so? i.e. Your didn't really answer my question abt. YOUR view. P.S. And, if God is not significant, then what are you doing on this blog? ]

2) And, obviously, you don't care about our American society or way of life. -- Davian says "Not being from your country, no." [This explains much! Your country (or world) is messed up, so you're trying to mess up America now? Sad! ;-( ]

3) You are stuck in your own world! Sad! ;-( Davian says "Indeed. I call it "reality". You are all welcome to visit!" [Smart answer. But, when are you to answer my Qs? God or no God? Then, we'll talk "reality". By the way (again) Is a concept a reality?]

4) I guess no answer is your answer. Davian says "At least until you can show your god to be of significance." [OK. We're done. You (still) can't answer my Qs and/or respond as to why my "significance" points in post #187 are no good. Just saying "insignificant" is a cop-out w/o saying why.]

 

[jonesdon]

"Common sense" would have us believing that the Earth is flat.

RESP You've got a choice for me before common sense or anything else matters -- Is a God or no God best for our society?

 

[jonesdon]

Very true! Just attempt to get one of them to prove the universe created itself, or what forces were involved in the Big Bang and how. You won't get an answer, just more attempts at flipping the question because they can't prove what they believe, they don't even know what they believe. There is no logic in believing in a self-created universe, so logical questions go right over their heads. Mention man having a spirit and see where it goes. lol

 

[jonesdon]

Very true! Just attempt to get one of them to prove the universe created itself, or what forces were involved in the Big Bang and how. You won't get an answer, just more attempts at flipping the question because they can't prove what they believe, they don't even know what they believe. There is no logic in believing in a self-created universe, so logical questions go right over their heads. Mention man having a spirit and see where it goes. lol

===== REPLY: I refuse to get ahead of ourselves (myself) -- their diversionary tactic so far. But, w/o an answer to my first, basic Q (God or no God best for America?), I'm ready to move on to my next step -- ignoring atheists & anti-theists -- to the seeker, agnostics, humanists, etc.

 

[jonesdon]

First of all, I don´t understand the term "God". Please be specific in your description.
2. I am not seeing how the existence of an entity is a choice - it either exists or it doesn´t exist, independently of my or anyone´s choices.
3. I am very cautious when dealing with someone else´s valuing qualifiers (here: "better"). Misunderstandings are kind of preprogrammed. "Better" for whom, "better" for what, "better" in which way...?

==== RESP: 1) One answer, the God that is know by most on this blog/thread by believer or non-believer. Else, the non-believers wouldn't have a subject to attack! The better answer -- reread my 1st post (#187) and you'll get my drift. Then, along the way, I've indicated "the ultimate" to superlatives. As in ultimate justice, hope (for eternal happiness), & oversight (social order). You could also add comfort.

2) Just answer my Qs -- Is God or no-God best for American society? As I gave some of my reasons in #187. And, does a concept exist?

3) I agree. As fallible humans, such value qualifiers are subjective. But, we have a concept of greatest (or smallest), as in math/calculus & physics, that, just, works!

 

[lumberjohn]

When I read scripture, it says that we created after our own kind. When I study anthropology I see that we are created after our own kind. Dogs produce dogs. Cats produce cats. Lions produce lions. Zebras produce zebras. Salmon produce salmon. Tarantulas produce tarantulas. Yellow bellied parrots produce yellow bellied parrots. Dolphins produce dolphins. Penguins produce penguins. Human produce humans and so on and so on and so on.

If you have studied biology, you will know that there were not always cats, or zebras, or penguins. We have no record of such creatures in the early fossil history or any other source. We begin to have evidence for them just when evolutionary theory predicts we would -- once sufficiently distinct species developed through natural selection. Their features are, in each case, modifications of features of earlier species, built upon the genetic scaffolding of their ancestors.

Evolutionary theory can show the mechanism by which many of the changes occurred that led to these species. In many cases, it can show how these changes occurred. It allows us to systematically trace the development of species on a timeline. The theory could be disproven easily by showing just one thing out of place on that timeline. But it never has been.

No alternate theory has ever accounted for this evidence. The most creationists can do is to claim that the underlying evidence is unreliable. But if that is the case, why does that same evidence continue to allow us to make such accurate predictions? Why does the same evidence used to support evolution, for example, also support all modern medicine? If you trust any medicine you have taken in the last fifty years, you are confirming that this evidence is indeed reliable. The entire field of genetics represents a confirmation of evolutionary theory.

I have never seen a dog become an elephant. A cat become a tiger. A fish become a bat. A spider become a jellyfish. A wombat become a kangaroo. A dung beetle become a meerkat. A monkey become a human and so on and so on and so on.

And it is safe to say that you never will. Evolutionary theory predicts no such thing. It does, however, predict that given the right environmenal conditions, small genetic changes will occur from generation to generation that will, over time, result in significant recognizable changes. If you doubt this, just look at the wide array of dogs created through selective breeding. Creationists attempt to dismiss such evidence by manufacturing a rhetorical distinction between "microevolution" and "macroevolution." But that is like acknowledging that wind can erode rock, but refusing to believe it can ever change the shape of the rock. Given enough time "microevolution" must necessarily lead to "macroevolution."

 

[jonesdon]

Rather than raging about the atheist "agenda," why not just articulate your question more clearly as several of us have reasonably requested? 1) If I were to ask you "Deal or no deal?" how would you respond? You would probably have no idea because you aren't even sure what I'm talking about. You might understand the terms in isolation, but in the context of this question there is much that is unclear. Likewise, 2) people have very different understandings of what is meant by "God." For some, it is a passive "first cause" that can be demonstrated by logic alone. For others, it is a more active being that intervenes in the physical universe and is therefore, at least in theory, detectable through empirical means. For still others, it is an emergent quality of the universe, such as for those who say "God is nature" or "God is love." 3) Also, what do you mean by "better?" Perhaps you are talking about whether belief in God would improve your social standing or make you happier. Perhaps you are asking whether such belief is more intellectually defensible than the alternatives. I think it is perfectly reasonable to delve a bit deeper into your question so that we can formulate an appropriate response.

4) It is pretty common to attempt to reach agreement on the definitions of key terms before beginning a discussion. It need not suggest any nefarious ulterior motive.

=== RESP: 1) Easy, "Deal or no deal" has no subject. God is a subject. What word don't you understand in "Is God or no God best for our society?". 2) I think in my first post (#187), and in subsequent posts, that I've put God into context. You are indicating qualifiers on your "yes" or "no" response. 3) More qualifiers on your resp. These are YOUR choices, not mine. The basic Qs still stand! So, your answers are?

4) Yes, this is the point -- to come to a common definition and I want YOUR ideas! This is, rather, than giving mine first, which ilk like you will only attack w/o giving your ideas! It's much easier to attack (like some of today's Repubs) w/o giving any answers or solutions of their own! ;-(

 

[Archaeopteryx]

And it is true to say that what some atheists consider evidence may not actually be evidence. Richard Dawkins said in talking about ancestry that our great great great grandfather umpteen times removed was a fish and we all have that same grandfather.

I would not call that evidence. I would call that fanciful speculation.

When I read scripture, it says that we created after our own kind. When I study anthropology I see that we are created after our own kind. Dogs produce dogs. Cats produce cats. Lions produce lions. Zebras produce zebras. Salmon produce salmon. Tarantulas produce tarantulas. Yellow bellied parrots produce yellow bellied parrots. Dolphins produce dolphins. Penguins produce penguins. Human produce humans and so on and so on and so on.

I have never seen a dog become an elephant. A cat become a tiger. A fish become a bat. A spider become a jellyfish. A wombat become a kangaroo. A dung beetle become a meerkat. A monkey become a human and so on and so on and so on.

Why would you expect to see that?

 

[lumberjohn]

My friends, I had not intended to discuss this controversial subject at this particular time. However, I want you to know that I do not shun controversy. On the contrary, I will take a stand on any issue at any time, regardless of how fraught with controversy it might be. You have asked me how I feel about God. All right, here is how I feel about God.

If when you say God, you mean the bloodthirsty tyrant of Israel (Isaiah 34:2-7), the wrathful being who calls himself “jealousy” (Exodus 34:14), the source of all evil, anguish and misery (Amos 3:6; Lamentations 3:38; Isaiah 45: 6-7), the sender of evil spirits (Judges 9:23, Samuel 16:14, 18:10) who engages in deliberate deceit (Ezekiel 14:9, 2 Thessalonians 2:11), the champion of war (1 Samuel 15:2-3), the enabler of rape (Exodus 21:2-7, 20-21; Leviticus 25:44-46; 2 Samuel 12:11-19; Numbers 31:32-35), and the murderer of children (Numbers 31:17-18), then certainly I am against him.

But if when you say God you mean the protector of the meek (Matthew 5:5), the voice of the outcasts (Luke 15:1-31), the champion of the poor and marginalized (Matthew 6:1), and the sponsor of peace and forgiveness (Matthew 5:9), then certainly I am for him.

This is my stand. I will not retreat from it. I will not compromise.