Whether God Exists I guess

[Discussion]

Any person's ability to believe depends on a multitude of epistemic factors. Sometimes, it takes time to see the plausibility in the historicity of the Christian faith, however minimal it may seem.

No no I think the historicity would definitly be plausible if I did believe.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No no I think the historicity would definitly be plausible if I did believe.

Or even before you believe..........................

 

[CoreyD]

Hope you're having a good day,

Thank you. You as well.

I am at present an agnostic who is seeking Christ, yet I am lacking reason to, and I was hoping this might help me in my search.

Jesus said seek and you will find, so if you are taking his advice, you shall have success.

Firstly, the reason I say I lack reason and do not mention faith in this message is that I have received no personal experiences that would allow me to believe in faith (if you believe I am missing something here, feel free to challenge me on this).

Although I have had personal experience, those experiences did not precede having faith, but rather, followed faith.
Hebrews 11:6 says... But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.

Anyway, back to reasons to believe. I am going to try to be as charitable as possible and not point out any perceived contradictions I have with any Christian teachings, as I would not want to attack your faith. I will try to purely be trying to establish God through reason (if I find this not to be possible, as I have no personal experiences of God, this would warrant my lack of belief).

Being opened to reason is an important first step.

To be rather boring, I am going to talk about 4 of the most popular arguments for God that I am aware of, these being the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, the moral argument and the fine-tuning argument.

1. Cosmological Argument:

Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Premise 2: The universe began to exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, the universe has a cause (which is the Christian God).

This is the classic cosmological argument, but to me it fails due to the fact that neither premise can be established.

Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
To me this does not hold up, as no one has any evidence of anything having begun existing (in the sense of something out of nothing; even if it can be proved, it must have happened at some point due to the impossibility of infinities), and so the first premise cannot be established.

There is nothing that begun to exist out of nothing.
Everything that begun to exist came out of something existing, including consciousness, intelligence, emotions, senses, etc.
So, Premise 1 would be correct.

Premise 2: The universe began to exist.
This too cannot be established as the big bang. While it is the start of the expansion of the universe, the singularity that "exploded" was there before the big bang, and we have no idea of anything that happened before the big bang, so this premise cannot be justified.

While some suggest that the Universe May Have Had No Beginning, the concept of an eternal universe, which suggests that the universe has no beginning or end and is in a steady state, has faced significant challenges and is considered obsolete by many in the scientific community.

The singularity is not the universe, and therefore it cannot be said the universe did not begin to exist.
Also, the cosmological singularity hypothesis, which posits the existence of a singularity at the beginning of the universe, faces challenges from various perspectives.

Therefore, Premise 2 is correct.

Due to my inability to establish either premise, I cannot accept this argument.

Perhaps take a second look, because both are established.

2. Teleological Argument

Premise 1: Where design exists, a designer is needed.
Premise 2: The universe exhibits complex design.
Conclusion: Therefore, the universe must have had a designer.

This is the classic teleological argument, but to me it too fails due to the fact premise 2 can't be established.

Premise 1: Where design exists, a designer is needed.
Premise 2: The universe exhibits complex design.

This argument fails, as to me we can't establish that the universe exhibits complex design (design meaning "purpose or planning that exists behind an action, fact, or object"). And as such, we can't draw the conclusion. The reason I don't reject premise 1 is that, by definition, design entails a designer (at least by my definition above).

You mentioned using reason.
So let's do that.
Would you say you cannot establish that ancient artifacts were designed for a purpose?
Can you tell that this device was designed for a purpose? If so, can you please explain how you are able to do so.

3. Moral Argument

Premise 1: If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
Premise 2: Objective moral values exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.

Short answer here: objective moral values don't exist without God, so you can't just say they exist to establish him, and you can't prove objective moral values without God, making the argument cyclical without some other proof that objective moral values exist.

How are you able to say "objective moral values don't exist without God"?
How would you know that is true, considering you just said...

• no one has any evidence of anything having begun existing
• we can't establish that the universe exhibits complex design

5. Fine-Tuning Argument

Premise 1: If the universe's physical constants and conditions are fine-tuned for life, then it is highly unlikely this occurred by chance.
Premise 2: The universe's physical constants and conditions are fine-tuned for life.
Conclusion: Therefore, it is highly unlikely the universe's life-permitting conditions occurred by chance.

For me this fails due to the fact that premise 1 cannot be justified, basically just for the reason that there is no possible way (that I have heard) you can establish that "it is highly unlikely this occurred by chance", as that implies that they could have been different, which we could not possibly know.

Why do you say we cannot establish a, b, and d, but you can establish c?
It's not only "highly unlikely", it is outside of reason, and if what you said is true... "I will try to purely be trying to establish God through reason", then you cannot dismiss reason for improbabilities, that aren't far from impossibilities.

Staying within reason,

• the earth is in just the right location, in the Milky Way Galaxy - the so called "habitable zone", where the chemical elements necessary for life are in "perfect" distribution.
• the earth orbits the sun at a distance that does not create either extremely dangerous heat, or extreme cold.
• the earth's tilt allows for "perfect" seasons.

...and we can go on, for quite a long time, to mention the various cycles, which are essential not just to all life on earth, but the earth benefits as well.
We can mention the animals, and how they are designed.
However, I don't want to write a book here.

When we stick with reason, we must agree with Romans 1:19-23

Anyway, thank you so much if you've tolerated all this. I hope that I can learn something from people's responses to this.

Thanks,
Luca

Thank you.

 

[AbbaLove]

Or even before you believe..........................

One reason to Believe is because all living creations were created by Almighty GOD
(it takes more faith to believe in evolution than believe in the Word of GOD)
​

John 1:1-14 - 1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God." - 14 "The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us. We have seen His glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."​

The following article provides a list of 70 noted scientists and their belief in Almighty GOD as the greatest scientist ever, being a supernatural intelligent force that physicists can't explain, but are coming around to accept. An abiding presence that Christians know as Almighty GOD. ... Psalm 24:1, Ephesians 1:18, 1 John 4:4, Romans 1:20, Romans 8:38-39

Noted Ph.D’s And Scientists Who Believe God Created The Universe

Frequently, I have been asked by Atheists, skeptics of the Bible and those who dispute the existence of God, if I have any sources other than Theologians. It is a common error of assumption that in…

robertcliftonrobinson.com

true Faith comes by hearing the Word of GOD ... not by hearing the word of an atheist​

 

[CoreyD]

Well to answer your first question earth is less than 0.00000000000000001% of the matter in the universe so in a space with so much matter its not at all surprising for planets to form especially given the laws of physics (most namely gravity seeing as it pulls things together), and on one of those planets the conditions were right for life to form (astrophysicists thave observed many others through telescopes) this is really not very hard to believe that it would happen once in the universe given its huge size. Once life has come about on a planet humans already have a perfectly functional theory that does not posit the supernatural to explain how it develops to have intelligence and becomes better at surviving via mutations and natural selection.
As for your proof based on experiences of God, I would argue this even points against his existence as if God is willing to give experiences to some people (especially those who already believe in him) and believing in God saves you from hell it seems if he was all loving and he is willing to give visions to people he should give all who don't believe in him visions of him in order to save them from hell. Also, people of other religions also have religious experiences, would you just say they are lying but yours are the true experiences? If so the exact same can be said about yours.

Have a beautiful day.

Approximately 20,000 unique protein-encoding genes are responsible for more than 100,000 unique proteins in the human body. Although hundreds of amino acids are found in nature, only about 20 are necessary to synthesize all the proteins in the human body and most other life forms. These 20 amino acids are all L-isomer, α-amino acids [- left-handed].

How would it happen that of the hundreds of amino acids found in nature, 20 of those unique amino acids incorporated into proteins, which are essential for various biological functions in the human body, would come together to make life possible?

I'd be surprised if you can explain that, because a physicist known for his pioneering work in X-ray crystallography and his contributions to molecular biology, could not explain it.
How such genetic polymer first evolved is a central issue in origin-of-life studies.

​

Spoiler: Extracted

During a memorable 1939 lecture at the Royal Institution in London, wrote Max Perutz, the famous John D. Bernal stated that “all protein that we know now have been made by other proteins, and these in turn by others”. How did such process got started? When Bernal repeated the same argument in a later discussion, Perutz [67] adds, “the physicist W. H. Bragg asked him where the first protein had come form. Instead of replying ‘I do not know’, Bernal skillfully sidestepped Bragg's awkward question”.​

​

Perutz does not writes how Bernal avoided the issue raised by Bragg, but the story reveals the strong scientific appeal that issues related to the nature of life and the origin of biological systems that has been brewing among physicists since the pre-DNA double helix times. Such trend, which was highlighted by Schrödinger's 1945 seminal book What is Life?, continues to this day, as shown by the manifold attempts to describe the emergence of life in terms of non-linear interactions and non-equilibrium constraints, the thermodynamics of irreversible processes, pattern formation, chaos, attractors, fractals and, more recently, complexity theory.​

​

The understanding of the origin of life requires, wrote John D. Bernal several decades ago, requires a scientist with a deep knowledge in geology, chemistry, biology, astrophysics, theoretical physics, paleontology and philosophy​

​

​

James was right then.

"if anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me, because I make molecules for a living"​

 

[Lukaris]

For me belief in God relates mostly to the moral argument of right and wrong. An individual needs their conscience and a “higher authority” to give understanding to the conscience.

While the conscience can acknowledge secular or divine higher authority, the individual resonates to truth to live by. Outside of Jesus Christ, I.only find uncertainty, I believe there are many non Christians of a disposition that God will take into account as He sees fit ( Romans 2:1-29 etc.).

Pilate had Truth testified personally to him but he couldn’t grasp it but yet found “no fault” in Him who testified the truth ( John 18:38-39). The truth must convict our conscience for our intellect to comprehend it. Passages like Romans 1:18-32 must show us that our existence is corrupted but we must take care to love our neighbor but hate the evil that affects all of us ( Amos 5:10-15, 1 John 2:1-17). We must know there is an absolute truth found in love ( 1 Corinthians 13:1-13) and try to live by it but are usually not capable of it.

There had to be someone Who is God and sent by God to save us ( Isaiah 48:12-16, John 1:1-3). Who would bear all of our sins ( Isaiah 53:1-12). Because God so loved us ( John 3:16-21). That He gave us commandments to live by ( Romans 13:8-10) and that He guides our conscience in living by them ( John 14:15-18, 1 Timothy 1:5).

 

[Discussion]

Or even before you believe..........................

Well the reason it's not plausible before you believe is it requires God existing in order for Jesus to rise.

 

[trophy33]

Well the reason it's not plausible before you believe is it requires God existing in order for Jesus to rise.

Does it? You can imagine some super advanced technology, for example.

I think you can start with "Jesus rose again", without any other context. And you can then come to the conclusion which explanation/context fits the event the best.

 

[Discussion]

There is nothing that begun to exist out of nothing.
Everything that begun to exist came out of something existing, including consciousness, intelligence, emotions, senses, etc.
So, Premise 1 would be correct.

We have never observed anything come into existence, the whole point of the big bang theory is that all energy and mass in the universe was at one point before expanding from there. As such we cannot say that we have ever seen something come into existance and as such can't make claims about how it happens. Therefore I cannot establish Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause. as I have never seen anything come into existance so its just a claim with no evidence.

While some suggest that the Universe May Have Had No Beginning, the concept of an eternal universe, which suggests that the universe has no beginning or end and is in a steady state, has faced significant challenges and is considered obsolete by many in the scientific community.

The singularity is not the universe, and therefore it cannot be said the universe did not begin to exist.
Also, the cosmological singularity hypothesis, which posits the existence of a singularity at the beginning of the universe, faces challenges from various perspectives.

Therefore, Premise 2 is correct.

Apologies I agree the singularity is not the universe but as we know the singularity was there before the universe and we know nothing about the singularity (other than that it contained all mass and energy in the current universe) and don't know where the singularity came from. Premise 2 is not correct as if we are defining "came into existance" as there was nothing then there was a thing as I pointed out above we've never ever seen this occur and most scientists do believe that the big bang came from a singularity (but I'm open to where the science leads but as of now it seems to tell us a singularity was there before the universe).

You mentioned using reason.
So let's do that.
Would you say you cannot establish that ancient artifacts were designed for a purpose?
Can you tell that this device was designed for a purpose? If so, can you please explain how you are able to do so.

I can tell/infer that object was designed as I have seen many like it designed and made before but never seen anything like it occur from non-design. I hope you see my point here that we have no reason to think the universe is designed as we have none to compare it too that we know were designed.

How are you able to say "objective moral values don't exist without God"?
How would you know that is true, considering you just said...

• no one has any evidence of anything having begun existing
• we can't establish that the universe exhibits complex design

Are you saying that they might exist without God we just don't know? I mean isn't the way they are instanciated is that they are laws given by the paradigm of goodness, so therefore they don't exist without God/other being who is the paradigm of goodness.

Why do you say we cannot establish a, b, and d, but you can establish c?
It's not only "highly unlikely", it is outside of reason, and if what you said is true... "I will try to purely be trying to establish God through reason", then you cannot dismiss reason for improbabilities, that aren't far from impossibilities.

Staying within reason,

• the earth is in just the right location, in the Milky Way Galaxy - the so called "habitable zone", where the chemical elements necessary for life are in "perfect" distribution.
• the earth orbits the sun at a distance that does not create either extremely dangerous heat, or extreme cold.
• the earth's tilt allows for "perfect" seasons.

...and we can go on, for quite a long time, to mention the various cycles, which are essential not just to all life on earth, but the earth benefits as well.
We can mention the animals, and how they are designed.
However, I don't want to write a book here.

When we stick with reason, we must agree with Romans 1:19-23

If I can't establish a, b, or d - such as the idea that these constants could have been different (a), or that chance is improbable (b), or that design is more reasonable (d) - then the most honest conclusion (c) is simply that we don't have grounds to infer fine-tuning as evidence of design.

And further, in a universe so vast that it defies comprehension, it's entirely expected and in fact likely that some regions will, by chance, happen to have the right conditions for life. Life doesn't require the universe to be designed for it - life adapts to the conditions where it arises.

Thank you

 

[Discussion]

Does it? You can imagine some super advanced technology, for example.

I think you can start with "Jesus rose again", without any other context. And you can then come to the conclusion which explanation/context fits the event the best.

I mean, I could but why would I want to assume that "Jesus rose again" when it requires multiplying entities far beyond necessity (such as God or super advanced technology probably including time travel).

 

[Discussion]

One reason to Believe is because all living creations were created by Almighty GOD
(it takes more faith to believe in evolution than believe in the Word of GOD)
​

John 1:1-14 - 1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God." - 14 "The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us. We have seen His glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."​

The following article provides a list of 70 noted scientists and their belief in Almighty GOD as the greatest scientist ever, being a supernatural intelligent force that physicists can't explain, but are coming around to accept. An abiding presence that Christians know as Almighty GOD. ... Psalm 24:1, Ephesians 1:18, 1 John 4:4, Romans 1:20, Romans 8:38-39

Noted Ph.D’s And Scientists Who Believe God Created The Universe

Frequently, I have been asked by Atheists, skeptics of the Bible and those who dispute the existence of God, if I have any sources other than Theologians. It is a common error of assumption that in…

robertcliftonrobinson.com

View attachment 364764

true Faith comes by hearing the Word of GOD ... not by hearing the word of an atheist​

Um I mean sure, cool.

 

[trophy33]

I mean, I could but why would I want to assume that "Jesus rose again" when it requires multiplying entities far beyond necessity (such as God or super advanced technology probably including time travel).

You can focus on the historical event as such, without trying to solve the cause at the same time.

Like for example police first determines if something is a crime and then looks for who, when, why...

 

[Discussion]

Approximately 20,000 unique protein-encoding genes are responsible for more than 100,000 unique proteins in the human body. Although hundreds of amino acids are found in nature, only about 20 are necessary to synthesize all the proteins in the human body and most other life forms. These 20 amino acids are all L-isomer, α-amino acids [- left-handed].

How would it happen that of the hundreds of amino acids found in nature, 20 of those unique amino acids incorporated into proteins, which are essential for various biological functions in the human body, would come together to make life possible?

I'd be surprised if you can explain that, because a physicist known for his pioneering work in X-ray crystallography and his contributions to molecular biology, could not explain it.
How such genetic polymer first evolved is a central issue in origin-of-life studies.

​

Spoiler: Extracted

During a memorable 1939 lecture at the Royal Institution in London, wrote Max Perutz, the famous John D. Bernal stated that “all protein that we know now have been made by other proteins, and these in turn by others”. How did such process got started? When Bernal repeated the same argument in a later discussion, Perutz [67] adds, “the physicist W. H. Bragg asked him where the first protein had come form. Instead of replying ‘I do not know’, Bernal skillfully sidestepped Bragg's awkward question”.​

​

Perutz does not writes how Bernal avoided the issue raised by Bragg, but the story reveals the strong scientific appeal that issues related to the nature of life and the origin of biological systems that has been brewing among physicists since the pre-DNA double helix times. Such trend, which was highlighted by Schrödinger's 1945 seminal book What is Life?, continues to this day, as shown by the manifold attempts to describe the emergence of life in terms of non-linear interactions and non-equilibrium constraints, the thermodynamics of irreversible processes, pattern formation, chaos, attractors, fractals and, more recently, complexity theory.​

​

The understanding of the origin of life requires, wrote John D. Bernal several decades ago, requires a scientist with a deep knowledge in geology, chemistry, biology, astrophysics, theoretical physics, paleontology and philosophy​

​

​

James was right then.

"if anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me, because I make molecules for a living"​

I mean God of the gaps no? I am not detered in the slightest from my position that science will keep on discovering things and Christians will keep on saying that this new thing we don't understand needs God to have designed it.

 

[Discussion]

You can focus on the historical event as such, without trying to solve the cause at the same time.

Like for example police first determines if something is a crime and then looks for who, when, why...

I have reasearched the ressurection and believe it is explainable without invoking God. But even if I couldn't give an exact explanation I wouldn't necessarily have to believe like if the police have a hard case they shouldn't just invoke Satan doing it if they can't solve it.

 

[Discussion]

For me belief in God relates mostly to the moral argument of right and wrong. An individual needs their conscience and a “higher authority” to give understanding to the conscience.

While the conscience can acknowledge secular or divine higher authority, the individual resonates to truth to live by. Outside of Jesus Christ, I.only find uncertainty, I believe there are many non Christians of a disposition that God will take into account as He sees fit ( Romans 2:1-29 etc.).

Pilate had Truth testified personally to him but he couldn’t grasp it but yet found “no fault” in Him who testified the truth ( John 18:38-39). The truth must convict our conscience for our intellect to comprehend it. Passages like Romans 1:18-32 must show us that our existence is corrupted but we must take care to love our neighbor but hate the evil that affects all of us ( Amos 5:10-15, 1 John 2:1-17). We must know there is an absolute truth found in love ( 1 Corinthians 13:1-13) and try to live by it but are usually not capable of it.

There had to be someone Who is God and sent by God to save us ( Isaiah 48:12-16, John 1:1-3). Who would bear all of our sins ( Isaiah 53:1-12). Because God so loved us ( John 3:16-21). That He gave us commandments to live by ( Romans 13:8-10) and that He guides our conscience in living by them ( John 14:15-18, 1 Timothy 1:5).

I'd be happy to talk to you about morality, I assume you believe the bible is the best guide to it as well as maybe the conscience? I'd be interested to know how people who had the bible and were devout Christians in Europe for example committed such immoral acts such as slavery and genocide while being able to use the bible as justification?

 

[trophy33]

I have reasearched the ressurection and believe it is explainable without invoking God. But even if I couldn't give an exact explanation I wouldn't necessarily have to believe like if the police have a hard case they shouldn't just invoke Satan doing it if they can't solve it.

What I meant is that you can focus on the historical event as such, if it happened or not. And only after that you can focus on what caused it. I.e. you can separate these two things to make the research more controllable.

1. Did Jesus die and was he alive again after three days?
- yes/no

2. If yes, what caused it?

In other words, it is simpler to focus on just "does God exist" or "did Jesus rise again" separately. Both at once, trying to prove the whole Christianity in one sitting, is too complex - if you are trying to do it purely rationally, without any inner enlightenment from God.

 

[Discussion]

What I meant is that you can focus on the historical event as such, if it happened or not. And only after that you can focus on what caused it. I.e. you can separate these two things to make the research more controllable.

1. Did Jesus die and was he alive again after three days?
- yes/no

2. If yes, what caused it?

In other words, it is simpler to focus on just "does God exist" or "did Jesus rise again" separately. Both at once, trying to prove the whole Christianity in one sitting, is too complex - if you are trying to do it purely rationally, without any inner enlightenment from God.

Oh well yes of course, my answer to the first question would be yes he died no he wasn't ressurected. I agree that you need to build up different parts individually rather than all at onse.

 

[trophy33]

Oh well yes of course, my answer to the first question would be yes he died no he wasn't ressurected. I agree that you need to build up different parts individually rather than all at onse.

If your answer is "no" to the resurrection part already, then I am not sure where you want to go from there. Even if you then said "yes" to the existence of God, it would not be Christianity, i.e. it would be a bit irrelevant for "Exploring Christianity" forum.

 

[Discussion]

Well I think it would be plausible that he was ressurected if I was already persuaded that God existed (specifically the Christian one I suppose).

 

[trophy33]

Well I think it would be plausible that he was ressurected if I was already persuaded that God existed (specifically the Christian one I suppose).

This contradicts the "no" answer to the resurrection. If it would be plausible in some context, then your answer should be "I do not know".

That is why I said you should explore the resurrection as a historical event, isolated - if it happened or not, without trying to attach it to any system.