What conditions would have to be in place for you to not believe a god exists?

[NickCamp]

Christians: What conditions would have to be in place for you to not believe a god exists? As a non-believer, there are certain conditions which if in place, would provide sufficient evidence for me to believe a god exists. I am willing to revise my beliefs if the evidence is in place. So I am curious if there are certain conditions which if in place would cause you to revise your belief that a god exists?

There are no conditions that could change my faith. Logic, reason and science actually led me to believe in God. I used to be atheist and I'm 100% sure, I'm never going back.

 

[Akureyri]

Thanks for reading the thread and I appreciate your question. I don't hold a belief either way - that the universe had a beginning or didn't have a beginning.

Why not just say "I don't know"?

I seem to recall the question wasn't whether I know or not, but what my position was on whether or not the universe had a beginning.

Which would you say more closely identifies your position:
1) You are certain as to whether or not the universe had a beginning
2) You are uncertain as to whether or not the universe had a beginning

I'm at least as certain that the universe had a definite beginning as you are that the earth is really millions of years old or that apes and men evolved from the same ancestor.

Are you more certain that the universe did have a beginning than it did not have a beginning? Would you go as far as to say you know the universe did have a beginning?

How can you know the collection of past events doesn't go back infinitely?

You apparently do not understand what an "actual" infinity is. An actual infinity would not be something to which we could "add to". Since we can add each day to all of what has come before, then the idea of an "actual" infinity is an absurdity in logic.

Please enlighten me. Just how would you add a day to a previous point in time?

And if it doesn't go back infinitely, then what does that tell us about a god. It would mean that a god doesn't go back in time infinitely.

The mistake in your logic is that you are assuming that God resides *within* what scientists call "space-time". That's why God referred to himself as "I am"; there is no "I began to be" in reference to God..he just is.

Do you know if anything even exists outside of space-time? If so, how do you know that?

 

[NickCamp]

I seem to recall the question wasn't whether I know or not, but what my position was on whether or not the universe had a beginning. Are you more certain that the universe did have a beginning than it did not have a beginning? Would you go as far as to say you know the universe did have a beginning? Please enlighten me. Just how would you add a day to a previous point in time? Do you know if anything even exists outside of space-time? If so, how do you know that?

Being that time changes (or perception of it) drastically as you dive deeper in space, I think it's a safe assumption to say there is something outside of space and time. Also, when referring to the most common theory of the universes creation, the Big Bang was initially conducted where space and time was irrelevant or did not exist.

Does that make sense?

 

[Akureyri]

How can you be sure that there weren't natural causes for the universe?

By the employing the same laws of logic that atheists use. What do you think? Is it logical that a non-existent thing could make itself exist?

What kind of logic do atheists use? Since the only common attribute among atheists is the lack of belief that a god exists, there are probably lots of different types of logic that atheists use.

Please be a little more clear in your answer. Once again, how can you be sure that there weren't natural causes for the universe?

More importantly, if the universe - a physical entity - had a cause, then whatever that cause was would be by definition natural. Call it supernatural. But it would merely be natural events outside the universe.

To be clear, I am using the following Merriam-Webster definition of "supernatural":
"of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe"

By that definition, then Russell's Teapot is of the supernatural, as it isn't visible or observable.

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.[1]

And by your definition (or rather Webster's), a god which many Christians say has revealed itself would not be of the supernatural world, as it has been observed. Have you ever actually observed God?

And likewise, if I were to posit that there are thousands of orange unicorns roaming the plains of western Nebraska, then they would also be of the supernatural world. So do you believe that anything of the supernatural world can be detected and/or observed?

It doesn't require faith to not believe that God exists. Do you require faith to not believe that the Norse god Thor exists? Do you require faith to not believe that thousands of orange unicorns are roaming the plains of southwestern Kansas?

I was refering to the amount of faith you are employing to make an exception to what we normally experience: that whatever exists has an explanation for its existence.

Please do not put words in my mouth. I never have asserted that there is anything that exists which doesn't have an explanation for its existence.

For no apparent reason, atheists typically assert that the universe exists just as a "brute fact" and without explanation for its existence.

That's probably because Atheists don't insert a god into everything they don't know. They are humble enough to admit they don't know. There are other people - many of whom are Christians - who insist they do know. (now which sounds more arrogant?) But not a single one can explain how he/she knows.

Those atheists that assert this belief do so purely based on faith...no evidence whatsoever, and in fact contrary to what we normally experience.

Atheists don't hold beliefs based on faith. Atheists - just like all other people - hold beliefs based on evidence. Furthermore, as the only commonality among atheists is a lack of belief that a god (or gods) exist, there aren't any common beliefs among all atheists.

So in summary, what the argument proposes is that since everything we've ever seen has an explanation for its existence, then there's no reason not to believe that the universe has an explanation for its existence also.

Then you should be able to tell me if God has been observed/seen/identified/revealed, then what is the explanation for the existence of a god?

Further, since it would seem illogical that the universe could have come into existence all on its own, then it would be logical to reason that something outside of the "observable universe" could be the explanation for its existence. By the Merriam-Webster definition cited above..."supernatural". Since this something would necessarily exist outside of space-time, then there is no requirement for a time in which this something "began to exist".

The definition you provided didn't say outside of space-time. It merely said not observable or visible. We can work with this if you are able to find a definition of 'supernatural' which means to be outside of space-time.

So, now we can further reason that this something would not only be supernatural, but eternal as well.

No, you can't reason that:
1) There is no evidence that anything which exists and is outside the universe is beyond space and time
2) There is no evidence that anything exists outside the universe
3) If there was evidence that anything existed outside the universe, then it would by definition become part of the universe.

 

[Joshua260]

I seem to recall the question wasn't whether I know or not, but what my position was on whether or not the universe had a beginning.

Well, I was just kidding really by asking your famous question. But the point of that whole exchange was I was wondering if you were being inconsistent by not believing what science says when you don't like the possible implications (the beginning of the universe with it's possible causer), but believe the science when it's convenient (the evidence some cite for the age of the universe and the common ancestry of man and ape). To make my point clearer, can you answer the following?

Do you believe that the earth is millions of years old?
Do you believe that man and ape descended from a common ancestor?

If you say "yes" to either, then I have to wonder why you do not accept that the universe had a definite beginning when it is supported by the majority of scientists?

Are you more certain that the universe did have a beginning than it did not have a beginning? Would you go as far as to say you know the universe did have a beginning?

Again, I would go as far to say that I am as certain that the universe had a definite beginning as you are to say that you are certain that the earth is millions of years old and that man and ape descended from a common ancestor.

Please enlighten me. Just how would you add a day to a previous point in time?

That's not what I said. What I said was that it is absurd to have an amount (everyday before today) that you could add to (add today) and then call it an "actual" infinity.

Do you know if anything even exists outside of space-time? If so, how do you know that?

I just realized that you crossed over into the other exchange concerning the syllogism about the explanation for the existence of the universe. This exchange is about the impossibility of an infinite regress, which in effect philosophically proves that the universe had a definite beginning. LOL...this is what happens when you ask a billion questions. I would much rather that you segregate them more into separate threads.

 

[Joshua260]

Please be a little more clear in your answer. Once again, how can you be sure that there weren't natural causes for the universe?

You seem to be getting confused about what "supernatural" means so I'll rephrase by stating that I am questioning whether something inside of the universe can make the universe come into existence. Since you're an atheist, please enlighten me...do you think it's logical that something within the universe could make the universe come into existence?

By that definition, then Russell's Teapot is of the supernatural, as it isn't visible or observable.

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.[1]

And by your definition (or rather Webster's), a god which many Christians say has revealed itself would not be of the supernatural world, as it has been observed. Have you ever actually observed God?

Hmmm...I'm not buying your response here. Let's review the given definition: "of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe". Do you really think that definition just means what we can see through our best telescope? I hope not, as that would mean that you are now bordering on the ridiculous. I'm pretty sure that the definition means beyond what we could ever observe even if we had the ultimate telescope. But as I said, just forget the word "supernatural" and substitute for it "anything outside of the universe".

Please do not put words in my mouth. I never have asserted that there is anything that exists which doesn't have an explanation for its existence.

I don't think I did. I believe I said that atheists typically say this. So then, it sounds like you accept premise #1 that everything that exists has an explanation for its existence. Ok. Premise #2 simply states that the universe exists...I hope you agree with that one. So it sound like you are agreeing with the conclusion that the universe has an explanation for its existence. So I know you can't say for sure that you know or not, but would you venture to tell me what is more believable to you:

a) something inside the universe provides the explanation for the existence of the universe, or
b) something outside the universe provides the explanation for the existence of the universe?

That's probably because Atheists don't insert a god into everything they don't know. They are humble enough to admit they don't know. There are other people - many of whom are Christians - who insist they do know. (now which sounds more arrogant?) But not a single one can explain how he/she knows.

This was in response to my question of why the typical atheists makes an exception to the argument. If you notice, I did not go so far as to suggest that God was the explanation for the universe, only that the explanation seems to be a supernatural (uh-oh...I mean something outside the universe) and eternal one. As for your characterization of arrogant people...1) it's not relevant and 2) I won't address that.

Atheists don't hold beliefs based on faith. Atheists - just like all other people - hold beliefs based on evidence.

Wow. Great. Do you have any idea then why atheists typically make the exception to the argument I made without any evidence to support their contrariness?

Then you should be able to tell me if God has been observed/seen/identified/revealed, then what is the explanation for the existence of a god?

That's a different discussion.

The definition you provided didn't say outside of space-time. It merely said not observable or visible. We can work with this if you are able to find a definition of 'supernatural' which means to be outside of space-time.

Fine. Forget "supernatural" altogether. Let me rephrase it like this: Do you believe it is reasonable to believe that something within this universe caused the universe to come into existence?

No, you can't reason that:
1) There is no evidence that anything which exists and is outside the universe is beyond space and time
2) There is no evidence that anything exists outside the universe
3) If there was evidence that anything existed outside the universe, then it would by definition become part of the universe.

All I can say is "wow". You must be really getting desperate here. Let's start over.

1. Everything that exist has an explanation for it's existence.
2. The universe exists.
3. The universe has an explanation for its existence.

So, you seem to sound from above that you tend to agree with premise #1 and I don't see anywhere where you've been able to provide even one example of an exception. I think you agree with premise #2. So I would have to think that you must agree with the conclusion in #3. So all that's left is for you to answer what I asked above:

Which do you think is more believable?
a) something inside the universe provides the explanation for the existence of the universe, or
b) something outside the universe provides the explanation for the existence of the universe?

(it's okay, I'll accept your answer as just your opinion if you like, but I'm really interested in which option you think is more reasonable).

 

[Akureyri]

There are no conditions that could change my faith.

What exactly is your definition of faith? Is it your belief? Is it hope? Is it trust? Is it confidence? I'd really appreciate it if you could share that with me.

Logic, reason and science actually led me to believe in God. I used to be atheist and I'm 100% sure, I'm never going back.

If you are correct, then the billions of people who are of other religions are incorrect. Yet a good portion of them are just as sure their religion is right as you are that your religion is right. Are you saying those millions of people who believe in a different god than you do have been deluded? And how can you be sure your certainty is not a delusion?

 

[Akureyri]

Being that time changes (or perception of it) drastically as you dive deeper in space, I think it's a safe assumption to say there is something outside of space and time. Also, when referring to the most common theory of the universes creation, the Big Bang was initially conducted where space and time was irrelevant or did not exist.

Does that make sense?

No, it does not make sense.

1) How do you know that time (or the perception of it) changes drastically as you dive deeper into space? Have you ever experienced this first hand?

2) Please explain how something (the Big Bang) can be conducted, happen or occur if there is no time. How can something occur or happen if there is no time for it to occur in?

 

[NickCamp]

No, it does not make sense. 1) How do you know that time (or the perception of it) changes drastically as you dive deeper into space? Have you ever experienced this first hand? 2) Please explain how something (the Big Bang) can be conducted, happen or occur if there is no time. How can something occur or happen if there is no time for it to occur in?

1. I haven't experienced it first hand, for someone who who seems to love science, you don't know your stuff. Do some research on Einstein's work and answer that yourself.

2. Exactly. Are you making a point or destroying your own "argument"? It's hard to tell. Or you don't believe in the Big Bang theory, but that means you also don't trust science's best explanation of the universe? Do you believe in the gravity of theory even though it's still considered a theory?

I think you should reflect, research and then re-ask questions.

 

[Akureyri]

I seem to recall the question wasn't whether I know or not, but what my position was on whether or not the universe had a beginning.

Well, I was just kidding really by asking your famous question. But the point of that whole exchange was I was wondering if you were being inconsistent by not believing what science says when you don't like the possible implications (the beginning of the universe with it's possible causer), but believe the science when it's convenient (the evidence some cite for the age of the universe and the common ancestry of man and ape). To make my point clearer, can you answer the following?

Do you believe that the earth is millions of years old?
Do you believe that man and ape descended from a common ancestor?

If you say "yes" to either, then I have to wonder why you do not accept that the universe had a definite beginning when it is supported by the majority of scientists?

I will be happy to answer your questions. But to keep a little bit of order here, I'd like to propose that you answer my questions first. When the questions I have asked have been answered, then we can address your questions (save for questions you have about clarifying what I'm asking).

Once again, how can you be sure the universe hasn't existed forever?

Are you more certain that the universe did have a beginning than it did not have a beginning? Would you go as far as to say you know the universe did have a beginning?

Again, I would go as far to say that I am as certain that the universe had a definite beginning as you are to say that you are certain that the earth is millions of years old and that man and ape descended from a common ancestor.

This isn't about what I know. It's about what you know. So please don't try to introduce my level of knowledge as a baseline.

Again, how can you be certain the universe hasn't always existed?

Please enlighten me. Just how would you add a day to a previous point in time?

That's not what I said. What I said was that it is absurd to have an amount (everyday before today) that you could add to (add today) and then call it an "actual" infinity.

Yes it is what you said. And what you're saying here is incorrect. How would you know that time couldn't go backwards infinitely and the future being non-existent?

Do you know if anything even exists outside of space-time? If so, how do you know that?

I just realized that you crossed over into the other exchange concerning the syllogism about the explanation for the existence of the universe. This exchange is about the impossibility of an infinite regress, which in effect philosophically proves that the universe had a definite beginning. LOL...this is what happens when you ask a billion questions. I would much rather that you segregate them more into separate threads.

Obviously you don't know if anything exists outside of space-time. If you did, then you would be able to point out how you know this.

Allow me to ask - were you there to observe the beginning of the universe? If not, then you can't know for sure it had a beginning.

 

[NickCamp]

What exactly is your definition of faith? Is it your belief? Is it hope? Is it trust? Is it confidence? I'd really appreciate it if you could share that with me. If you are correct, then the billions of people who are of other religions are incorrect. Yet a good portion of them are just as sure their religion is right as you are that your religion is right. Are you saying those millions of people who believe in a different god than you do have been deluded? And how can you be sure your certainty is not a delusion?

Firstly, if I have to define faith for you, I might as well hold your hand and spell it out. Do you not know the definition or know how to use a dictionary? I could show you how... But that's as far as I'm willing to go.

And that is faith.

Also, using deductions you can conclude that indeed, there is one religion. I've done all of this but I'm not willing to type it out on my iphone. As far as I'll go is telling you how I began. I started with the two most popular, Christianity and Islam, just the core, not denominations because those are man made. The reason I chose to start out with these two, is because their holy books (at the end times) conflict. And I worked my way backwards. Please refrain from asking me the definition of backwards. Slowly I worked my way through other religions that are least well known, some primarily based in Africa. Suddenly I began to notice how Christianity is entirely different from every religion, I'll recommend you research it, because there's a lot of information. And I'll admit, initially doing more research on Christianity because of how much it stands how is indeed bias. Then I began to notice truths in archeology, geology, the most accurate account of creation (not just the poem of genesis in the beginning, yes it's a poem, do more research, also there is more than one creation account in the bible that goes more in detail, didn't know that did you?) and so on and so fourth.

I must leave you though, I have a wife to spend time with, feel free to message me if want information or want to know how to use a dictionary.

Thanks,

N.C

I formally apologise for errors, I'm using my iphone.

 

[NickCamp]

Firstly, if I have to define faith for you, I might as well hold your hand and spell it out. Do you not know the definition or know how to use a dictionary? I could show you how... But that's as far as I'm willing to go. And that is faith. Also, using deductions you can conclude that indeed, there is one religion. I've done all of this but I'm not willing to type it out on my iphone. As far as I'll go is telling you how I began. I started with the two most popular, Christianity and Islam, just the core, not denominations because those are man made. The reason I chose to start out with these two, is because their holy books (at the end times) conflict. And I worked my way backwards. Please refrain from asking me the definition of backwards. Slowly I worked my way through other religions that are least well known, some primarily based in Africa. Suddenly I began to notice how Christianity is entirely different from every religion, I'll recommend you research it, because there's a lot of information. And I'll admit, initially doing more research on Christianity because of how much it stands how is indeed bias. Then I began to notice truths in archeology, geology, the most accurate account of creation (not just the poem of genesis in the beginning, yes it's a poem, do more research, also there is more than one creation account in the bible that goes more in detail, didn't know that did you?) and so on and so fourth. I must leave you though, I have a wife to spend time with, feel free to message me if want information or want to know how to use a dictionary. Thanks, N.C I formally apologise for errors, I'm using my iphone.

Though other than research that was conducted, in the end, the final choice to convert was based off of personal experience which cannot be used as evidence to others, so I have proof, that is denial able by almost everyone and that is how you get to the breaking point of faith.

 

[Akureyri]

Please be a little more clear in your answer. Once again, how can you be sure that there weren't natural causes for the universe?

You seem to be getting confused about what "supernatural" means so I'll rephrase by stating that I am questioning whether something inside of the universe can make the universe come into existence. Since you're an atheist, please enlighten me...do you think it's logical that something within the universe could make the universe come into existence?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds as if you're defining the point at which the line is drawn between natural and supernatural as the same point as the limits of the universe.

No, I don't think something that is a product of object X can be the cause of object X. However, products of object X can develop a moniker for the cause of object X. This still doesn't make the moniker the actual cause of object X.

Please provide me an example of an occurrence which would be outside of the universe.

By that definition, then Russell's Teapot is of the supernatural, as it isn't visible or observable.

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.[1]

And by your definition (or rather Webster's), a god which many Christians say has revealed itself would not be of the supernatural world, as it has been observed. Have you ever actually observed God?

Hmmm...I'm not buying your response here. Let's review the given definition: "of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe". Do you really think that definition just means what we can see through our best telescope? I hope not, as that would mean that you are now bordering on the ridiculous. I'm pretty sure that the definition means beyond what we could ever observe even if we had the ultimate telescope. But as I said, just forget the word "supernatural" and substitute for it "anything outside of the universe".

Do you think something that was physically tied to a cross while many people watched is beyond the visible observable universe?

Do you think an occurrence in which many sick people get well - and is observed by many humans - is beyond the visible observable universe?

Do you think an occurrence where a person is spoken to is beyond the visible observable universe?

Do you think that any humans can observe and/or see a god?

Please do not put words in my mouth. I never have asserted that there is anything that exists which doesn't have an explanation for its existence.

I don't think I did. I believe I said that atheists typically say this. So then, it sounds like you accept premise #1 that everything that exists has an explanation for its existence. Ok. Premise #2 simply states that the universe exists...I hope you agree with that one. So it sound like you are agreeing with the conclusion that the universe has an explanation for its existence. So I know you can't say for sure that you know or not, but would you venture to tell me what is more believable to you:

a) something inside the universe provides the explanation for the existence of the universe, or
b) something outside the universe provides the explanation for the existence of the universe?

If an explanation for the existence of the universe could be provided, it would have to come from within the universe. To the best of my understanding, scientists (they are a something inside the universe) have attempted to provide an explanation for the existence of the universe. If an explanation for the existence of the universe came from outside the universe, then if detectable to anyone within the universe, it would have to be observable and/or visible - and thus would not fulfill the aforementioned requirements of "supernatural".

That's probably because Atheists don't insert a god into everything they don't know. They are humble enough to admit they don't know. There are other people - many of whom are Christians - who insist they do know. (now which sounds more arrogant?) But not a single one can explain how he/she knows.

This was in response to my question of why the typical atheists makes an exception to the argument. If you notice, I did not go so far as to suggest that God was the explanation for the universe, only that the explanation seems to be a supernatural (uh-oh...I mean something outside the universe) and eternal one. As for your characterization of arrogant people...1) it's not relevant and 2) I won't address that.

All you've really done is effectively point out that the cause of object X cannot be a product of object X. And I don't disagree. However, this does absolutely nothing to show that anything of the supernatural exists.

What argument do you think atheists typically make an exception to?

Atheists don't hold beliefs based on faith. Atheists - just like all other people - hold beliefs based on evidence.

Wow. Great. Do you have any idea then why atheists typically make the exception to the argument I made without any evidence to support their contrariness?

Again, what argument do you contend atheists typically make an exception to?

Then you should be able to tell me if God has been observed/seen/identified/revealed, then what is the explanation for the existence of a god?

That's a different discussion.

Christians don't have a defense for this. If everything that exists has a cause, then either God has a cause or God doesn't exist.

Or do you wish to retract your assertion that everything that exists has a cause?

The definition you provided didn't say outside of space-time. It merely said not observable or visible. We can work with this if you are able to find a definition of 'supernatural' which means to be outside of space-time.

Fine. Forget "supernatural" altogether. Let me rephrase it like this: Do you believe it is reasonable to believe that something within this universe caused the universe to come into existence?

I already said the cause of object X cannot also be a product of object X.

1) There is no evidence that anything which exists and is outside the universe is beyond space and time
2) There is no evidence that anything exists outside the universe
3) If there was evidence that anything existed outside the universe, then it would by definition become part of the universe.

All I can say is "wow". You must be really getting desperate here. Let's start over.

1. Everything that exist has an explanation for it's existence.
2. The universe exists.
3. The universe has an explanation for its existence.

So, you seem to sound from above that you tend to agree with premise #1 and I don't see anywhere where you've been able to provide even one example of an exception. I think you agree with premise #2. So I would have to think that you must agree with the conclusion in #3. So all that's left is for you to answer what I asked above:

Which do you think is more believable?
a) something inside the universe provides the explanation for the existence of the universe, or
b) something outside the universe provides the explanation for the existence of the universe?

Again: If an explanation for the existence of the universe could be provided, it would have to come from within the universe. To the best of my understanding, scientists (they are a something inside the universe) have attempted to provide an explanation for the existence of the universe. If an explanation for the existence of the universe came from outside the universe, then if detectable to anyone within the universe, it would have to be observable and/or visible - and thus would not fulfill the aforementioned requirements of "supernatural".

If you want to know if I think the cause of the universe is within the universe, look earlier in this post where I provide the example of object X.

And once again, how can you be sure the explanation for the universe isn't that it has always existed?

 

[Akureyri]

No, it does not make sense. 1) How do you know that time (or the perception of it) changes drastically as you dive deeper into space? Have you ever experienced this first hand? 2) Please explain how something (the Big Bang) can be conducted, happen or occur if there is no time. How can something occur or happen if there is no time for it to occur in?

1. I haven't experienced it first hand, for someone who who seems to love science, you don't know your stuff. Do some research on Einstein's work and answer that yourself.

OK, so you know that time (or the perception of it) changes drastically as you dive deeper into space because of Einstein's work.

Still, that doesn't explain how you or anyone else could know that a god exists.

2. Exactly. Are you making a point or destroying your own "argument"? It's hard to tell. Or you don't believe in the Big Bang theory, but that means you also don't trust science's best explanation of the universe? Do you believe in the gravity of theory even though it's still considered a theory?

I don't know much about the Big Bang theory. But I do know if something occurs, then it must have a starting to its occurrence and an ending to its occurrence. It then follows that time must have elapsed between the beginning and the ending of such occurrence.

 

[Akureyri]

There are no conditions that could change my faith.

What exactly is your definition of faith? Is it your belief? Is it hope? Is it trust? Is it confidence? I'd really appreciate it if you could share that with me. If you are correct, then the billions of people who are of other religions are incorrect. Yet a good portion of them are just as sure their religion is right as you are that your religion is right. Are you saying those millions of people who believe in a different god than you do have been deluded? And how can you be sure your certainty is not a delusion?

Firstly, if I have to define faith for you, I might as well hold your hand and spell it out. Do you not know the definition or know how to use a dictionary? I could show you how... But that's as far as I'm willing to go.

And that is faith.

Please note that I did not ask what is the definition of faith. I asked what your definition of faith is.

The original question in this thread is What conditions would have to be in place for you to not believe a god exists?

Since you responded by saying

There are no conditions that could change my faith.

I can only conclude that to you, faith means believe to exist.

How did you arrive at your belief that a god exists?
Given the vast amounts of people who believe in a god other than the Christian God, do you believe those people are delusional? Do you even believe they're wrong? If so, then how can you know you aren't being delusional with respect to your belief that a god exists?

Also, using deductions you can conclude that indeed, there is one religion. I've done all of this but I'm not willing to type it out on my iphone.

Please share with me how you came to the conclusion that there is only one religion. Or do you actually mean at least one religion. (e.g. if I'm holding five grapes in my hand, to say I'm holding one grape in my hand might be misleading, but it wouldn't be inaccurate)

As far as I'll go is telling you how I began. I started with the two most popular, Christianity and Islam, just the core, not denominations because those are man made. The reason I chose to start out with these two, is because their holy books (at the end times) conflict. And I worked my way backwards. Please refrain from asking me the definition of backwards. Slowly I worked my way through other religions that are least well known, some primarily based in Africa. Suddenly I began to notice how Christianity is entirely different from every religion, I'll recommend you research it, because there's a lot of information. And I'll admit, initially doing more research on Christianity because of how much it stands how is indeed bias. Then I began to notice truths in archeology, geology, the most accurate account of creation (not just the poem of genesis in the beginning, yes it's a poem, do more research, also there is more than one creation account in the bible that goes more in detail, didn't know that did you?) and so on and so fourth.

Thanks for sharing this with me.
- How can a creation account in a book be relied upon if the authors of the book weren't around to witness the creation?
- What are the truths you noticed in archaeology and geology?
- Did you adopt Christianity more because of the historical accounts of the Bible or more because of the guidelines taught in the Bible?

 

[Emmyc]

I was raised atheist, so my “default setting” is believer God doesn’t exist. I spent a lot of time and energy going to various churches and listening to online apologetics and debates and such… I went to everything from a 6000 year old creationist church to the Unitarian Universalist church, to a friend’s wican church. I often find myself equally sympathetic to both sides on a “There is a God” vs “There is no God” debate (Assuming both debaters are intelligent). In the end I CHOSE to believe in God because it makes ME a better person. I am learning to forgive people, to not be as defensive… Sometimes when I pray I feel God’s love and it supports me through the day or lifts my spirits or gives me perspectives or insights. Sometimes I feel God’s love and it makes the world seem like a nicer, more magical place.

So what would it take to convince me there was no God? Probably for me to not FEEL God for a significant period of time, despite repeatedly reaching out… After a certain amount of time I might start to think that I had imagined God’s answering my prayers and love based on wishful thinking.

 

[food4thought]

So you arrived at your beliefs through some written words in a book. I'm very curious - can you please explain how you come to the conclusion that mere written words in a book provide extraordinary evidence that is on a par with the claims made by many Christians.

I came to believe that the existence of the cosmos, life, and my consciousness provided extraordinary evidence for the truthfulness of those mere written words. Beyond that, I found that some of the extraordinary claims of that book were validated by my experiences after placing my faith in Jesus Christ. This has increased my tendency to believe other extraordinary claims made by the book that I cannot validate with certainty.

It seems we are having a failure to communicate. I think this conversation will be more profitable if we deal with our presuppositions. I have answered one of your questions, and would appreciate it if you would help me improve my answers to your future questions by answering one of mine.

How does one know anything?

 

[Zanting]

A lack of intelligent design.

 

[Joshua260]

To make my point clearer, can you answer the following?

Do you believe that the earth is millions of years old?
Do you believe that man and ape descended from a common ancestor?

If you say "yes" to either, then I have to wonder why you do not accept that the universe had a definite beginning when it is supported by the majority of scientists?

I will be happy to answer your questions. But to keep a little bit of order here, I'd like to propose that you answer my questions first. When the questions I have asked have been answered, then we can address your questions (save for questions you have about clarifying what I'm asking).

Once again, how can you be sure the universe hasn't existed forever?

Wow. Awesome. Ok, well scientists usually cite the big bang as evidence that the universe had a definite beginning. But, since I wasn't there to actually witness the big bang, I really can't be sure that it actually happened. So now that I've answered your question, can you now please explain how you can be sure that the earth and man were not created only a few thousand years ago in a matter of just a few days?

 

[Akureyri]

To make my point clearer, can you answer the following?

Do you believe that the earth is millions of years old?
Do you believe that man and ape descended from a common ancestor?

If you say "yes" to either, then I have to wonder why you do not accept that the universe had a definite beginning when it is supported by the majority of scientists?

Wow. Awesome. Ok, well scientists usually cite the big bang as evidence that the universe had a definite beginning. But, since I wasn't there to actually witness the big bang, I really can't be sure that it actually happened. So now that I've answered your question, can you now please explain how you can be sure that the earth and man were not created only a few thousand years ago in a matter of just a few days?

How do I know? Because I was there. Since you've admitted you weren't there, you can't possibly know that I wasn't there.