Why Do You Reject God?

Gath said:

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?

Click to expand...

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?)

Click to expand...

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 said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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)

Click to expand...

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 said:

So do you understand why I reject God?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

mentalkitty789 said:

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?

Click to expand...

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 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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!

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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.