Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why do you believe what you believe?
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 91 of 108 (227160)
07-28-2005 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by robinrohan
07-28-2005 12:44 PM


Re: What is the Big Bang?
It is not that difficult. A event occured call it what ever the hell you wish to call it:
a. singularity
b. quantum event
c. quantum fluctuation
d. Big Bang
e. Genesis for all I care.
Ok.. you with me on that?
Now once this event occured space/time and the universe began to exist.
My only point is that once this event occured the universe came into existance. So we can attribute the universes beginning to the : a ..b...c..d..or e..
This says nothing of if it was caused by God, the Devil or super intelligent aliens. Or if it was even caused at all, for all we know it just just happened all by itself. My point is there is as of this date any one in the scientific community that can say for sure that the universe is "uncaused". It is postulated and theorized that it may be uncaused. But it is still possible that it could of had a cause.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by robinrohan, posted 07-28-2005 12:44 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by robinrohan, posted 07-28-2005 5:59 PM 1.61803 has replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 108 (227169)
07-28-2005 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by 1.61803
07-28-2005 5:10 PM


Back to the OP
My original point on this thread
One might say that there is no reason why one should not believe in God--also, no reason why one should. Pixies and other such entities are not on the same level as the creator of the universe.
An earlier view was that it was not rational to believe in God. But we can see from the choices of what we have to beleive is that it is just as rational as that the universe came into existence, but was uncaused. Both options are spooky.
But to get back to the OP, am I the only one on this forum who was not brought up in a "Christian household"? I lived with my father and I don't think he ever said one single word to me about religion--not one word. He couldn't care less about it. I don't think he had any particular beliefs about these matters. I feel deprived.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by 1.61803, posted 07-28-2005 5:10 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by 1.61803, posted 07-28-2005 6:09 PM robinrohan has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 93 of 108 (227171)
07-28-2005 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by robinrohan
07-28-2005 5:59 PM


Re: Back to the OP
It is merely a matter of opinion as to whether it is rational or irrational to believe in something or not.
Personally if evidence points to some fact and one chooses to ignore those facts in order to perserve they're beliefs, then they are IMO operating in a state of willful ignorance.
But on the same token, If a militant atheist wants to cram Occam's razor down someones throat who believes in the possiblitie of a creator then fine.
I feel that all that matters is that as long as there are possiblities there is room for beliefs. edit typo.
This message has been edited by 1.61803, 07-28-2005 06:10 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by robinrohan, posted 07-28-2005 5:59 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by robinrohan, posted 07-28-2005 6:15 PM 1.61803 has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 108 (227173)
07-28-2005 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by 1.61803
07-28-2005 6:09 PM


Rationality of Beliefs
It is merely a matter of opinion as to whether it is rational or irrational to believe in something or not
If you mean by "a matter of opinion" that it is purely subjective, I don't agree. Some beliefs are more rational than others. For example, it is more rational to believe in TOE than not to believe in it because there is a tremendous amount of evidence that supports it.
In regard to the creation of the universe, whether one believes in a self-caused universe or whether one believes in a 'god' beyond time that caused it seems to me equal in terms of rationality. Both beliefs involve a great oddity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by 1.61803, posted 07-28-2005 6:09 PM 1.61803 has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 95 of 108 (227243)
07-29-2005 3:03 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by robinrohan
07-28-2005 12:18 PM


Re: Options given a finite universe
robinrohan writes:
The choices are:
1. the universe came into being "on its own" somehow.
2. a "god" (eternal something or other--"eternal" meaning outside of space-time) caused the universe to come into existence.
Both of these possibilities strike me as equally strange and magical.
Therefore we can say that it is just as rational to believe in either option. Both are on the same level of strangeness.
Your option 1 has one entity: the universe. Option 2 has two entities: a god, and a universe.
We have evidence a universe exists, but we have no evidence for the existence of a god. Occam's Razor demands that we do not introduce unnecessary entities. Since you find both options equally strange and magical, the introduction of a god has not improved your understanding. It is only logical that you abandon the idea of a god until such time as it becomes a real improvement of your understanding.

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by robinrohan, posted 07-28-2005 12:18 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
Dubious Drewski
Member (Idle past 2530 days)
Posts: 73
From: Alberta
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 96 of 108 (299413)
03-29-2006 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by GDR
07-26-2005 2:34 AM


I was born to a deeply religious Russian-Mennonite family. My mother broke away from the family when I was 7 (Women's rights issue) and took us, her children, with her. As I began to go to secular, english-speaking schools, questions began to be answered about my world that were previously sidestepped.
Fast forward to today. I'm a utilitarian, agnostic hard-determinist. And it all makes perfect sense to me.
In response to GDR, and as a belief I want to state anyway: There is no such thing as "random"
It doesn't exist. Every physical thing has a physical cause. There is no evidence to show otherwise. (I believe we will eventually find the cause of radioactive decay) Evolution, genetic mutation, etc are not products of randomness, but of subtle pushes over a long time and often at the microscopic scale. It's obvious to me, at least.
Everything I believe in has come from learning about it from my schooling or on my own. When I then go out in the world and apply the knowledge, it fits. The entire mountain of human knowledge just fits so nicely together.
[edited for clarity]
This message has been edited by Drewsky, 03-29-2006 05:16 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by GDR, posted 07-26-2005 2:34 AM GDR has not replied

  
veiledvirtue
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 108 (299699)
03-30-2006 9:17 PM


it seems gdr is on the most convincing track here
the mere idea of chance in origin is soo unbelievably poor that even if the billions of variables fell in a row, once you start getting to so many thousands of variables having to line up.. the next variable compounds the odds... i dont think there are any odds for it.. even if we had the perfect environment to exist, that is only the very beginning of the story of connecting our trillions of cells in harmony over time.. the complexity of our various bodily systems is beyond complex even to the brightest physicians .. we still scratch our heads.. we are ants to something more. Even on the quantum level physicists scratch their heads and chase their tails
This message has been edited by veiledvirtue, 03-30-2006 08:20 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by ReverendDG, posted 03-31-2006 12:59 AM veiledvirtue has not replied

  
veiledvirtue
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 108 (299701)
03-30-2006 9:28 PM


i found this unbiased article pretty interesting
Does God Play Dice With
The Universe?
By Richard Stone and Rixon Stewart
4-24-2
"Physics has had to accept the indignity of the Principles of Uncertainty instead of billiard ball particles like electrons, there are probability waves, instead of matter composed of particles and energy composed of waves there is light made of particles and objects made of matter waves. In this surreal sub-atomic world matter has ceased to have any solid form and has no more than a tendency to exist." >From 'The Facts Of Life' by Richard Milton
England's churches are empty, their tiny congregations consist mainly of the elderly whilst the buildings themselves are looked upon as monuments - memorials to a tradition that some would say had outlived its usefulness. In its place there is a new God, an almighty God whose word is accepted virtually without question and whose name is Science.
Most of us have been brought up to believe that there is no system of thought more dependable than modern science. This belief originated in the brilliant scientific discoveries of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries; Newton's explanation of the fundamental laws of physics made the Old Testament's description of creation seem rather quaint and obscure. Scientific medicine has beaten back the traditional killer diseases such as cholera, TB, Bubonic Plague and Typhus; whilst even the endemic tropical diseases such as malaria, Yellow Fever and the Tsetse fly have fallen under the control of modern science. Add to that the fact that modern conveniences such as electric power, effective plumbing systems and motorcars have transformed the lives of millions and it's easy to see why science has achieved such authority.
Science has probed into the mechanics of matter as deeply as it can, achieving stunning results in every field. It is therefore not surprising that it has become the paramount belief system; in effect it has become a modern day religion.
But science has reached a sticking point and unbeknown to many this sticking point was reached a long time ago. In the earlier part of the last century scientists explained the mechanics of the atom, which was once considered the irreducible unit of matter. We were all taught about the proton, the neutron, and the electron but even in Einstein's time, as early as the 1930's, scientists were discovering the more convoluted world of the sub-atomic particle: particles even smaller than the atom such as the quark, the photon, the neutrino. Ever since then scientists have been engaged in with this challenging research: called 'Quantum Physics,'' Sub-Atomic Physics' or 'Particle Physics,' it has largely been ignored by the general public in favour of the more spectacular scientific endeavours like space shots.
Yet research into particle physics is revealing a world far stranger than that yet encountered by space research. In this strange and elusive world there are particles with energy but zero mass (photons); there are also uncharged, unreactive particles with so little mass that they can fly through the earth as easily as a machine gun bullet passes through a bank of fog (neutrino).
In one notable experiment a particle was shot through a screen with a hole in it, the particle would go through the hole but scientists found it very difficult to say how often - but if two holes were made it actually seemed to pass through less often. One researcher remarked that 'it is though it knew what we were up to'; indeed the researchers concluded that they could not conduct the experiment without becoming part of the experiment themselves.
Pinpointing the location of sub-atomic particles is also notoriously difficult. Some of them cannot be precisely located even though they are known to be present, but this is not for lack of method - it is the nature of the particles themselves. It is even thought that some particles have the ability to appear, and then disappear.
These almost magical qualities seem to defy logic, turning the laws that govern sub atomic physics into something that wouldn't be out of place in Tolkien's 'Lord of the Rings'. The Chaos Theory, which is a way of explaining the behaviour of sub atomic particles, is a case in point; essentially it states that even very small occurrences can cause massive changes later on in a chain of interlinked events. Thus, say proponents of the Chaos Theory, the flapping of a Butterfly's wings can ultimately lead to a tornado.
At this point the man in the street probably parts company with the scientists, who are after all supposed to be the high priests of our earth bound logic. Yet many of these scientists have separately come to one similar and rather disconcerting conclusion: namely that the neat mechanical logic of Newtonian physics breaks down completely when science is confronted with the world of sub-atomic physics.
Could it be that this mysterious, puzzling world is in fact the world of the spirit - the spiritual world that saints and mystics throughout history have sought to explore and reveal?
Einstein's famous remark 'God does not play dice with the universe is a clue,' because maybe God does play dice with the universe - but according to his own bewildering set of rules. The gambling analogy is quite appropriate. Have you ever been gambling with a friend and felt miserably certain that your friend would win and you would lose? The winner usually possesses a healthy joie de vivre while the loser often harbours a sombre pessimism. In a sense this is an experiment with sub atomic particles because the dice, like everything else, contain sub atomic particles and it is impossible to experiment with them without affecting the experiment oneself. Perhaps the winner 'pleases' the particles whilst the pessimist 'displeases' them.
Nor are these the only examples of scientific research that lead us back toward a more spiritual perspective on reality. Dr. Hugh Ross in his book 'Creator and the Cosmos' describes how scientists can set up a computerised model of the cosmos as it relates to the creation of life on earth. But one factor makes life on this planet seem so improbable as to be virtually impossible. Life on earth needs certain amounts of heavy elements such as iron to exist. Scientists are agreed that the explosion of a supernova creates heavy elements, but if the supernova were too close when it exploded it would have damaged the earth too badly for it to support life. On the other hand if it were too far away there would not have been enough of the required heavy elements on earth to support life. The odds against getting the balance right were enormous, so poor in fact that it should have never have happened. And that was only one of at least eight different factors essential for life with similarly phenomenal odds against a favourable outcome.
There is a similar puzzle in the field of Biology. Science theorises that lightening striking a pond full of protein molecules created life on earth. It is possible to put this scenario into a computer model, bringing together all the complex protein molecules to form still more complex molecules, ultimately building a computer model of primitive life. Something like building a Lego model of vast complexity with various components swimming into precisely the right position quite by chance. But once again, according to the mathematical laws this should never have happened, and moreover, even if it did there is no proof whatsoever that lightening would make the end product live.
So why did it happen, if indeed it did? As Astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle put it, "A Super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology."
Another point of contention between the scientists and the creationists is evolution, but both camps have ignored the obvious fact that their ideas do not necessarily contradict each other. For example, it could argued that man was created by a spiritual power and then evolved to his present state; on the other hand it could also be contended that man evolved and was then 'chosen' by higher powers to develop still further. Both ideas encompass the two viewpoints, but the real sticking point is the Darwinists insistence that mankind evolved from Apes. This theory has always infuriated Christian fundamentalists but the idea is an understandable one for scientists, given the obvious similarities between apes and men. Crucially however, no 'missing link' has never been found, and every time a new candidate is discovered, human remains older than the 'missing link' are unearthed.
Far more problematic for the Darwinists is the total lack of evidence for an evolutionary link between reptiles and mammals. Mammals have a single lower jaw, reptiles have six; mammals have six ear bones while reptiles have one; so it should be a simple matter to come up with a few fossils of a 'missing link' between these two huge families in the animal kingdom, but not a single such fossil has ever been found. Even more problematic is the question of the history of the universe, its beginning and its end. One cannot be but stunned when one reads of the depth and brilliance of scientific researches into this question: 'from Einstein's work on general relativity came the recognition that there must be an origin for matter and energy and from Penrose, Hawking and Ellis's work came the acknowledgment that there must be an origin for space and time too.' (1)
It seems that just before the Big Bang there was a state called 'Singularity', a state of infinite density and unlimited temperature; which begins to sound uncomfortably like a super-natural state and once again science has tried to get out of this but could not. The universe, say scientists, is expanding after the Big Bang and can be contracted in a scientific model back to 10 -34 seconds after the event. Speculation abounds about this tiny interval of time, but the model has not been disproved and probably never will be.
So science has no explanation for the beginning, nor it seems, the end. What we are left with is Stephen Hawking's conclusion that the universe begins and ends in 'singularities' where the laws of physics and materialistic science simply do not work. Which calls to mind the words, 'I am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end,' because the scientific evidence is beginning to point to an absolute power, an almighty creative force that is beyond the realm of human understanding, a God if you like.
However this article is not intended to direct the reader to any one particular form of spiritual belief but rather toward spiritual investigation as a whole. Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam and Christianity are all good starting points, particularly if one looks at the original source material -- because religions tend to become distorted over time due to misinterpretation and the machinations of those in power. So start at the beginning and enjoy the journey, because like the story, it's a never-ending one. (1) Fingerprints Of The Gods.

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by NosyNed, posted 03-30-2006 10:40 PM veiledvirtue has not replied
 Message 105 by Dubious Drewski, posted 04-01-2006 10:41 PM veiledvirtue has not replied
 Message 107 by randman, posted 04-01-2006 11:05 PM veiledvirtue has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 99 of 108 (299710)
03-30-2006 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by veiledvirtue
03-30-2006 9:28 PM


Off topic and Wrong
That isn't on topic in this thread and is riddled with errors of fact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by veiledvirtue, posted 03-30-2006 9:28 PM veiledvirtue has not replied

  
veiledvirtue
Inactive Member


Message 100 of 108 (299711)
03-30-2006 10:49 PM


nosyned
i feel it is on topic with why i believe what i believe
although i somehow ruffled your logical feathers... i think you should be judging yourself instead of me.. youll get better milage

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by NosyNed, posted 03-30-2006 11:37 PM veiledvirtue has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 101 of 108 (299714)
03-30-2006 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by veiledvirtue
03-30-2006 10:49 PM


Judging the content
Who's judging you or me?
My statement was concerning the material you posted. You didn't write it so you are not responsible for the fact that it is error ridden.
That your belief is based on a factually incorrect collection of assertions should worry you.
It isn't on topic because you didn't suggest what it would lead you to believe or why it would lead to a belief in anything.
The details of the errors belong in a number of different threads in the science forums so they aren't on topic here either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by veiledvirtue, posted 03-30-2006 10:49 PM veiledvirtue has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 102 of 108 (299715)
03-30-2006 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Rahvin
07-25-2005 4:15 PM


It's all about believing Christ, just believing
I don't know why I wasn't interested in this thread when it was active, but after reading through most of it I have a thought or two about why I believe what I believe that's maybe from a little different angle, or with a somewhat different emphasis, than what I've said before.
I came to believe in Jesus Christ as God, as Lord and Savior, in my mid-forties, after having been an atheist since I was a teenager, and a barely nominal Christian before that, who really couldn't have told you what the gospel was, or much more than a few things about some Bible characters.
I would never have come to belief if I'd had to reason my way to it. So all the discussion about how the universe came into existence, while very interesting to read now, would never have led me to a belief in God. Just as nothing about the physical universe itself would have. The Bible says that nature is full of evidence of God and I now believe that, but I never would have seen it before.
I believed originally because I believed the people who said they believed. I believed because so many others believed, I believed what they said about their belief and about their experiences. I found them to be sincere credible people. At first I believed almost everything people said about their experiences of God. Then after doing a lot of reading I was able to sort it out logically and realize that there were many contradictions between various beliefs so that they couldn't all be true. In the end I was simply persuaded by the Christians. They convinced me that only Biblical Christianity can account for all the other beliefs.
And by then I was having personal experiences of God myself which confirmed it all, and the more I believed the more I came to believe.
I didn't start thinking about the scientific questions for quite some time after that. I started out believing that God is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent and I'd read enough to know what those things meant so I didn't get snared in some of the logic traps people here fall into -- such as insisting that omnipotence means God has to be capable of evil.
I was completely convinced that the Bible was God-inspired from beginning to end, basically because of what I was convinced was true about the character of God Himself, and not because of anything I found in the Bible. If I didn't grasp something in the Bible, and I often didn't, I had the faith that nevertheless it was true because God inspired it, and over the years I gradually came to understand most of the parts I hadn't understood at first. That is how faith works. If you have some faith, and hold to it firmly, God gives you more, gives you enlightenment, improves your knowledge, and grows your faith.
You may, of course, not be able to convey much of it to anyone else, at least not someone who is not a believer. But then that's not how I became a believer either, as I started out saying. I didn't start out KNOWING anything at all, or even asking questions about things that could be learned. I simply believed some people who said they knew God, eventually some people who wrote that they'd met Jesus Christ. And according to the Bible, believing is the key to it all, how we come to faith. Believing the witnesses to Christ. Believing Christ Himself. Believing the word of God.
But there are many different ways people come to believe. Although I'm sure I could never have become a believer by reasoning through scientific questions that challenge the Bible, it is always possible that God would use this kind of debate to persuade someone else to belief. The right word, phrase, angle on a question -- something no one can predict but God himself, who often uses things we inadvertently say and do, in order to show it is all His doing -- and belief may suddenly happen for someone. You never know.
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-31-2006 02:00 AM
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-01-2006 11:41 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Rahvin, posted 07-25-2005 4:15 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by randman, posted 04-01-2006 10:58 PM Faith has replied

  
veiledvirtue
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 108 (299716)
03-30-2006 11:52 PM


NN
the fact is youre saying my input is unacceptable in this thread.
i posted that article.. because it has a couple tid bits on why i believe what i believe. I do believe there are errors in it.. ex. exploring religions other than christianity, but i was being as unbiased as possible.
its good to just sit back and humble yourself once in awhile..even when you want to put on your blue suit
the topic is a personal question and i gave a personal answer
This message has been edited by veiledvirtue, 03-30-2006 10:53 PM

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 104 of 108 (299719)
03-31-2006 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by veiledvirtue
03-30-2006 9:17 PM


So.. the very fact that you can't concieive of this means its totally wrong?
the fact that everything exists means it only has to happen once.
the very point you try to claim is complex beyond our understanding is truthfully understood, we have seen unicellular life change into multicellar in labs
all of your post seems to speak only one thing "i don't believe it so it's not true,because i don't believe it is"
this is off-topic anyway, if you want to discuss it take it to the ID forum

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by veiledvirtue, posted 03-30-2006 9:17 PM veiledvirtue has not replied

  
Dubious Drewski
Member (Idle past 2530 days)
Posts: 73
From: Alberta
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 105 of 108 (300178)
04-01-2006 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by veiledvirtue
03-30-2006 9:28 PM


"The winner usually possesses a healthy joie de vivre while the loser often harbours a sombre pessimism .... Perhaps the winner 'pleases' the particles (of the dice) whilst the pessimist 'displeases' them."
...and that was precisely where I stopped taking the article seriously.
There are yet some things about our world we do not know, but that's all they are. Things we do not know yet. We will figure them out in good time. Will we find truth in a "spirit world"? Possibly, but it would be unwise to hold your breath.
[edit]
Oops, I guess this is indeed off topic.
This message has been edited by Drewsky, 04-01-2006 10:46 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by veiledvirtue, posted 03-30-2006 9:28 PM veiledvirtue has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024