Why Do You Reject God?

[StickwithJesus]

"Oh, right. I forgot. Silly me. I thought all that 'thou shalt not kill' stuff was absolute. I mean, the Bible says it's fine to kill them if they're really really bad, right?"

If you read the Bible; that part came the flood; You know with moses and then perfected by Jesus.

 

[Girder of Loins]

Well, when you say that, you're solving the 'problem of complexity' by invoking an even more complex being. If you're saying human intelligent can't come from un-intelligence, where does God's intelligence come from?

God does not need to come from anything. He exists in the metaphysical universe, and it does not behave as the physical universe does. He does not need a creator for the same reason.

I reject God because of numerous things including
1. Evolution
2. The Big Bang
3. Lack of Evidence
4. Contradictions in the Bible
5. Occam's Razor (Why assume God exists when he doesn't have to?)

1. I won't debate that. There is a lot of evidence for it, but a lot of evidence against it. Has never been proven nor disproven. I debate evolution only against theistic evolutionists.

2. The Big Bang doesn't really have any evidence. I don't see it. Not to mention the contradiction to e=mc^2, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy. So yeah.

3. While there is no definitive proof of God's existence, one can see the reliability of the Scriptures and what it says. Thats a start. It by no means "proves" God exists, but it definitely gives evidence for it. I like using e=mc^2 to prove God.

4. Yes, there are scribal errors in the Bible. One author writes this many men went into battle at this date, and another could write something else. But that doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. It should be noted that from documents 25 years after the events recorded in the Bible, our current documents(in areas of theological importance) don't contradict with anything!

5. I don't see this as a proof God doesn't exist. I could just as well say deer don't exist because they don't have to. In the end, who really cares?

 

[Gath]

God does not need to come from anything. He exists in the metaphysical universe, and it does not behave as the physical universe does. He does not need a creator for the same reason.

That's completely circumventing the issue. Why does the universe need something to cause it if God doesn't?

1. I won't debate that. There is a lot of evidence for it, but a lot of evidence against it. Has never been proven nor disproven. I debate evolution only against theistic evolutionists.

Actually, it is one of the most proven theories in the history of science, but...whatever.

2. The Big Bang doesn't really have any evidence. I don't see it. Not to mention the contradiction to e=mc^2, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy. So yeah.

So redshift, the composition of galaxies, the abundance of light elements (Helium, specifically) and Cosmic Microwave Background radiation don't count as evidence? Why do you think people accepted the BB in the first place if it doesn't have any evidence?

Seems to me that you need to read more than just anti-science websites.

3. While there is no definitive proof of God's existence, one can see the reliability of the Scriptures and what it says. Thats a start. It by no means "proves" God exists, but it definitely gives evidence for it. I like using e=mc^2 to prove God.


4. Yes, there are scribal errors in the Bible. One author writes this many men went into battle at this date, and another could write something else. But that doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. It should be noted that from documents 25 years after the events recorded in the Bible, our current documents(in areas of theological importance) don't contradict with anything!

If there are contradictions, how can the Bible be the word of God? And that's without considering that man decided what books would go into the Bible, and that Protestants took some books out of the 'Holy Word of God' later on.

5. I don't see this as a proof God doesn't exist. I could just as well say deer don't exist because they don't have to. In the end, who really cares?

We know deer exist though. We don't know that God exists. If the universe can exist both with God or without God, there is no reason to assume God exists. It just adds unnecessary complexity by putting something in that's unproven. I don't believe in God for the same reason that I don't believe that fairies cause chemical reactions-there's no proof that they do and the chemical reactions work just fine without adding fairies in.

 

[Girder of Loins]

That's completely circumventing the issue. Why does the universe need something to cause it if God doesn't?

Well, I hope you know that the universe needs a beginning.

So redshift, the composition of galaxies, the abundance of light elements (Helium, specifically) and Cosmic Microwave Background radiation don't count as evidence? Why do you think people accepted the BB in the first place if it doesn't have any evidence?

Seems to me that you need to read more than just anti-science websites.

Redshift is caused by stars moving away from each other. Abundance of light elements? Really? And Cosmic Microwave Background radiation. All these fit just fine in a worldview where God created the universe. What you have given is evidence that can go either way, you are just choosing to put it in one way, when the evidence doesn't necessarily lead you to that conclusion.

If there are contradictions, how can the Bible be the word of God?

There is a difference between contradictions, and scribal errors. A scribal error may include a name misspelling or name switch, a date wrong, etc... Little things in the big picture. A contradiction has to do with(in Biblical terms) theological things. Stuff Christians base their worldview on. Examples include the Resurrection, any miracles, the Genesis account, etc... Thankfully, about 1% of all manuscripts we have, include a contradiction. The other 99% are either all the same, or may have scribal errors in them.

And that's without considering that man decided what books would go into the Bible, and that Protestants took some books out of the 'Holy Word of God' later on.

Man did decide what books would go in, but the books went through precise and harsh judgements. They had to be by a disciple, apostle, or a helper to one(Luke, for example). It could not contain any contradiction to any currently accepted theological doctrine, or a doctrine prescribed in the OT(the Laws of Leviticus do not count as they were made defunct by Christ's death). There were other prerequisites, but I can't think of them, and this post would be too long.

We know deer exist though. We don't know that God exists. If the universe can exist both with God or without God, there is no reason to assume God exists. It just adds unnecessary complexity by putting something in that's unproven. I don't believe in God for the same reason that I don't believe that fairies cause chemical reactions-there's no proof that they do and the chemical reactions work just fine without adding fairies in.

Okay, sure. Its a great little philosophical statement. Cake is just fine without ice cream, so ice cream doesn't need to exist for cake to be good. I get it. But it doesn't prove anything.

 

[Gath]

Well, I hope you know that the universe needs a beginning.

Well, obviously. However, the laws of physics are able to describe the beginning of the universe without the need for a God. I won't get into it all here, but you should either check out The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking or this lecture, both of which describe how the universe can come from nothing.

Redshift is caused by stars moving away from each other.

Consistent with the idea of an expanding universe as described by the Big Bang Theory.

Abundance of light elements? Really?

Well, I don't wish to offend, by your response seems to indicate that you don't really understand why that's significant. So, to explain:

We only know of one process capable of creating Helium. That process is Nuclear Fusion, which combines two hydrogen atoms in order to create Helium. This process is at work in all stars. However, we know that about 30% of all matter is Helium, which poses a problem. Why is it a problem? Well, there are not enough stars and there hasn't been enough time for nuclear fusion in stars to make all that Helium. The only other time this could have happened would be during a time of intense heat-a few minutes after the Big Bang. The Big Bang theory is able to account for the amount of Helium in the universe. But that's not all...

We can observe the existence of Deuterium in the universe as well. Deuterium is an isotope of hydrogen, specifically, Hydrogen-2. In other words, it has a proton and a neutron, instead of just a proton. (Like the most common isotope.) Deuterium is also an element that is formed by nuclear fusion; there are no other known ways to produce a large enough quantity of Deuterium to explain the amount that exists. However, there's another problem. Fusion in stars can produce Deuterium-but because of the heat, the Deuterium soon combines with other Deuterium to form Helium. So stars can't account for the existence of Deuterium. The Big Bang, on the other hand, does. The theory states that the universe was hot enough to produce Deuterium in the beginning, but the temperature soon fell to below the level at which Deuterium combines to form Helium. Therefore, according to the Big Bang theory, some Deuterium would not combine with other Deuterium, thus explaining the Deuterium in the universe today.

And Cosmic Microwave Background radiation. All these fit just fine in a worldview where God created the universe.

However, they directly point to the idea of the Big Bang. You can say 'oh, light elements exist because God made them' or whatever you want, but that's nothing more than a cop-out. They fit in fine with the idea that God created the universe, but they fit better with the idea of the Big Bang.

Okay, sure. Its a great little philosophical statement. Cake is just fine without ice cream, so ice cream doesn't need to exist for cake to be good. I get it. But it doesn't prove anything.

It doesn't disprove them-it just says that it is pointless and unnecessary to believe in them.

 

[Girder of Loins]

I don't have time to watch the video now, but will definitely try to this weekend when i have time. I still don't see why you don't believe in God. You have only given me reasons why God doesn't need to exist, which I can totally see. But you don't have any proof that clearly shows God did or did not create the world. And the evidence you gave(microwave radiation, deuterium, helium, and redshift) all fit just as well into a Creationist model. As I said, its evidence that goes either way.

 

[mentalkitty789]

I don't have time to watch the video now, but will definitely try to this weekend when i have time. I still don't see why you don't believe in God. You have only given me reasons why God doesn't need to exist, which I can totally see. But you don't have any proof that clearly shows God did or did not create the world. And the evidence you gave(microwave radiation, deuterium, helium, and redshift) all fit just as well into a Creationist model. As I said, its evidence that goes either way.

Not all claims are created equal. God is an incredibly extraordinary claim and can do things that by all reasoning should be impossible.
Is it really too much to ask your god to broadcast the true religion to everyone in the world at once so there are no more misunderstandings about which faith is the correct one? Or if any are correct at all?

The point is though, God is no necessary to the process, so why assume something that is excessive and has no evidence for that specific step in the process. Even then. How does that prove YOUR god? There are many other gods out there who could take equal grip to the claim and have more sound reasoning than the Christian God.

 

[Girder of Loins]

For this reason only. Einstein's E=mc^2 formula. Now, in this, I'm not talking about matter. I'm talking about the universe, space-time. We know space is finite, and we know time is finite, as infinity is a limit, and not a specified point. Since time is finite, then it had a beginning. Once again, I'm talking about time and space, not matter(which makes up space). Now, how could time and space come out of nowhere? This is why I believe in God.

 

[Gath]

I still don't see why you don't believe in God. You have only given me reasons why God doesn't need to exist, which I can totally see. But you don't have any proof that clearly shows God did or did not create the world.

Well, that represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue. I don't need to prove that God didn't create the world in order to not believe, anymore than I need to prove that Zeus didn't create the world to not believe in the Greek Gods. If there's no evidence for it I won't believe in it. It doesn't matter whether there's evidence against it or not.

And the evidence you gave(microwave radiation, deuterium, helium, and redshift) all fit just as well into a Creationist model. As I said, its evidence that goes either way.

How do they possibly support the idea of a Creationist model without using some form of a cop-out? (e.g. there is Helium because God felt like it)

 

[Girder of Loins]

Well, that represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue. I don't need to prove that God didn't create the world in order to not believe, anymore than I need to prove that Zeus didn't create the world to not believe in the Greek Gods. If there's no evidence for it I won't believe in it. It doesn't matter whether there's evidence against it or not.

Okay, I understand that part.

How do they possibly support the idea of a Creationist model without using some form of a cop-out? (e.g. there is Helium because God felt like it)

No "cop-out" is needed. Helium exists due to the reaction inside stars. Stars exist as a source of heat and beauty in the universe. Redshift exists because of expanding space(necessary for "uniform" frames of reference throughout the universe). I honestly don't know enough of deep-space microwave radiation to tell you why its there, but it poses no threat to a belief in a Creator. Deuterium exists due to stars, most likely. It still poses no threat to a belief in a Creator.

 

[Gath]

Ok, I understand that part.

So do you understand why I reject God?

No "cop-out" is needed. Helium exists due to the reaction inside stars.

As I said before, the reactions inside of stars do not account for the amount of Helium in the universe. That cannot be the only reason.

I honestly don't know enough of deep-space microwave radiation to tell you why its there, but it poses no threat to a belief in a Creator.

It poses no threat, but it doesn't fit in as well with the belief of a creator. It supports the Big Bang; it does not support a creator.

Deuterium exists due to stars, most likely. It still poses no threat to a belief in a Creator.

Again, the amount of Deuterium in the universe is not possible if it comes only from the stars.

 

[Girder of Loins]

So do you understand why I reject God?

Yes, I do understand why. I'm a very rational person, and believe something only if I have evidence for it, or don't believe it if there is evidence against it. So your reasoning is not the same as mine. But I get it now.

As I said before, the reactions inside of stars do not account for the amount of Helium in the universe. That cannot be the only reason.

I feel like I may be using a cop-out, but couldn't have God made some helium when He created everything? That makes sense, since He did create everything, and helium is part of that, so He would have had to make some, if you want to take that line to its literal conclusion.

It poses no threat, but it doesn't fit in as well with the belief of a creator. It supports the Big Bang; it does not support a creator.

However, it still does fit. I understand that it gives credit to the Big Bang theory, but it doesn't prove it, or disprove the Creationist theory.

Again, the amount of Deuterium in the universe is not possible if it comes only from the stars.

As said before, He may have made some in the beginning.

 

[mentalkitty789]

Yes, I do understand why. I'm a very rational person, and believe something only if I have evidence for it, or don't believe it if there is evidence against it. So your reasoning is not the same as mine. But I get it now.

And when there isn't strong evidence one way or another? Shouldn't a ration person be able to hold something in any degree of certainty or probability not just 'this is right' and 'this is wrong'. When the evidence pointing in one direction or the other isn't so strong?

 

[explodingboy]

ignore

 

[Girder of Loins]

And when there isn't strong evidence one way or another? Shouldn't a ration person be able to hold something in any degree of certainty or probability not just 'this is right' and 'this is wrong'. When the evidence pointing in one direction or the other isn't so strong?

The problem is, the evidence points stronger towards a Creationist model. Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity is the tipping weight. Through it, one can see the necessity of a Creator. I care not about mass coming into existence spontaneously, I care not for evolution, as those are trite and debatable. But the creation of the universe itself is something no scientist can answer through science, and can only be explained(currently) through a Creationist model. Not to mention the reliability of the New Testament writings, and the Old Testament prophecies coming true. And while my next point is entirely subjective, the experiences I have had with God. I have seen healings no medical examiner can explain(lupus being healed within one week, my asthma gone, eye muscles regrowing, knee problems and back problems being fixed, legs growing an entire inch, etc...) Care to explain those? From an objective view, there is enough evidence to convince me of a Creationist model. From a subjective viewpoint, there is overwhelming evidence to where I will never lose my faith.

 

[mentalkitty789]

It being the only explanation doesn't make it correct. There is still the possibility that we simply don't know, it is why we have science, to try and figure out reality and how it works.
How do you know a prophecy is really coming true? If it is an event that can be cause by people well there is such a thing as a self fulfilling prophecy because someone wants it to be true they may be willing to make it reality. Do you mean they've already happened? Well claiming to have predicted something will happen after it has happened doesn't have any solid backing to it either. Everything is 20-20 in hind sight. How specific is the text? If it is vague enough you can make anything mean anything.
Just because something isn't explained doesn't mean divine intervention of some or any sort. It means there is no explanation! Show me someone magically regrowing an arm, something blatantly impossible with how our bodies work.
Shockingly enough we aren't required to know everything about reality, if we did wouldn't science be pointless?
Should we listen to the bible about illnesses and believe that they are really just demons possessing people? Should we stone our unruly children, burn witches, see homosexuality as an abomination, and should slaves serve their earthly masters while we're at it?

 

[Girder of Loins]

It being the only explanation doesn't make it correct. There is still the possibility that we simply don't know, it is why we have science, to try and figure out reality and how it works.

Which is why I said "currently". Do you not believe in gravity simply because we don't actually know what causes it, only that it exists? No, you believe in gravity out of its effects, not the scientific backing of its existence.

How do you know a prophecy is really coming true? If it is an event that can be cause by people well there is such a thing as a self fulfilling prophecy because someone wants it to be true they may be willing to make it reality. Do you mean they've already happened? Well claiming to have predicted something will happen after it has happened doesn't have any solid backing to it either. Everything is 20-20 in hind sight. How specific is the text? If it is vague enough you can make anything mean anything.
Just because something isn't explained doesn't mean divine intervention of some or any sort. It means there is no explanation!

Of the approx. 2500 prophecies in the Bible, about 2000 have come true. One, being David's prediction in Psalms of Christ's death. Psalm 22 explicitly explains crucifixion, eight hundred years before it was invented. Ezekiel tells of the great city of Tyre's destruction. Which came true. So many prophecies, so little time. Look at the text if you doubt me. They are usually very clear and plain.

Show me someone magically regrowing an arm, something blatantly impossible with how our bodies work.

Well, I would, but I am a great distance from you, so I can't.

Shockingly enough we aren't required to know everything about reality, if we did wouldn't science be pointless?

Quite right, science would be useless if we knew everything. Good thing we don't, or I wouldn't be getting a job in nuclear engineering!

Should we listen to the bible about illnesses and believe that they are really just demons possessing people? Should we stone our unruly children, burn witches, see homosexuality as an abomination, and should slaves serve their earthly masters while we're at it?

Well, I could go into Social Darwinism, but that would be rude. Instead, there are some holes in your argument. So many atheists believe Christians are called to be strict, overbearing, and law-following people. Unfortunately, it isn't true. Instead, we celebrate our freedom in Christ. Galatians explains it amazingly. The Old Testament Law(the stuff you referred to) was the old gaurdian against Death. Christ stepped in, fulfilled the Law, and replaced it with Himself. He is now our gaurdian.

To combat your points, stoning of children was practiced back in the day(way back in the day). Thankfully(because I was a very unruly child), we are not under Levitical Law, or the laws of the OT. Witch burning was never practiced, except in the Witch Hunts(Salem Witch Trials), which were immoral and unjust. Homosexuality, is an abomination, but, homosexuals are not. I love the sinner, hate the sin. To sound more gangster, I don't hate the player, I hate the game. And slaves? Oh, you are referring to the old-type slave. More of a servant by today's standards. You see, when a man(Bob) went into debt to another man(Paul), Bob could pay off his debt by working for him. Bob would be given a denariius, a day's wage back then, and eventually would be set free once his debt was paid(usually about a year or less). However, God didn't want to make slave-owning a problem, so He set up the Year of Jubilee(done every seven years), where every slave had to be set free. And slaves back then weren't rounded up and shipped in hell-like boats across an ocean, where most would die from disease and sickness, and then wind up on a plantation where they would most likely be abused by some master, and then killed. Instead, most slaves became friends with their masters. Some even enjoyed it so much, they would still work for their master. It actually wasn't that bad of a life. So you have no grounds for your accusations, sir.