NationStates Jolt Archive

Inspired by "Your reason for atheism?"

You started out not believing in a deity. But as a theist, at some point you must have switched from having no reason at all to even imagine a deity to believing firmly in the existance of one.

Why is that?

Originally posted by Myself
My reasons: I don't need a reason to believe or not to believe. I don't have to explain and neither does anyone else. Religion is best left to conversation where people do not insult or criticize the belief or lack thereof in deities/ a deity, but rather simply discuss in a purely impartial manner. This is the only way I have been able to reconcile my relationships with atheists, Mormons, Muslims, Jews, Catholics, and myself a Protestant - respect. (Same goes for political beliefs.)

How I came to my current conclusions is a difficult story. I was, as all children in a fairly conservative household, brought up with the belief in God and Christianity. As I came to my teenage years, I realized that many people reject this, are members of a different religion, or even just despise all religion. I was severely confused. (Now, I could say that 'I found God again' or 'God guided me through'. I believe both of these are true; however, neither are conducive to my argument. Let me say this: I believe that my thoughts and actions are known by God, and he influences me only through worldly belief and teachings. I believe that he works through us.) I share none of the same religions of my close friends. I came to the conclusion that Christianity is simply one path to God, and there are many, many others. Christianity, and through that, my practice of Presbyterianism, is simply my path. I refuse to believe that simply because he who does not believe in Christ doesn't mean he is damned to hell. Accepting Christ is just one way to repent and atone for one's sins. If that means I disagree with my church, then that's that.

True, I cannot prove or disprove God's existence. That makes me Agnostic. I do not know. But if I practice organized religion, does that mean I'm not Agnostic? Does labeling myself as Agnostic mean I'm not Christian? Neither. I'm quite simply just a person who observed the wonders of the natural world and refuse to believe it a work or random effects. I find Christianity to be one of the paths you can take to God, and like all paths, can be deviated from and misinterpreted on the map (map is metaphor for 'scripture, interpretation, and theology'). I choose to Believe this. Call me ignorant, call me naive, but that will not change my beliefs.
That's why.

*Copying Cat iz Copying ur thredz*

Because I do believe that there's a higher power(s).

Damn copycat threads duplicate faster than Gremlins at midnight! :p

Damn copycat threads duplicate faster than Gremlins at midnight! :pThat'll teach Jolt to pour water in the servers.

EDIT: On topicedness; nice to see an agnostic theist on here. It's shockingly rare.

You might as well ask the reason why people like peanut butter.

You might as well ask the reason why people like peanut butter.

No matter how many jars you open, there are never any dinosaurs in there.
Never. That must disprove evolution.

You might as well ask the reason why people like peanut butter.

is jesus delicious?

is jesus delicious?

He's good when you stir-fry him with curry. Yum! :)

No matter how many jars you open, there are never any dinosaurs in there.
Never. That must disprove evolution.

Unless you open up the crunchy peanut butter, there are dinosaur bones mixed in there, but there are human bones in there as well. They were both put in the jar at the same time, despite what carbon dating might say.

I was inspired by God's Grace and all the stuff He did for me, and all of humanity. I also liked the things that Christianity preached, such as to love one another, and to respect other people. I'm not a Christian because of fear from Hell, or wanting to be immortal. I am a Christian because God loves me, and I love Him too.

Unless you open up the crunchy peanut butter, there are dinosaur bones mixed in there, but there are human bones in there as well. They were both put in the jar at the same time, despite what carbon dating might say.

Nasty.. A Peanut Gristle and Jelly Sandwich.

Allegory time! This is to show the difference between figurative and literal interpretation; imagine the possibilities! the misinterpretations! The ASSUMPTIONS!

Literal:

Does the taste of human flesh please you? Then yes, Jesus is delicious!

Figurative:

Does the concept of God's word please you as peanut butter pleases you? Then yes, Jesus is delicious, in a less creepy way!

Once again... illustrative assumptions...

On topicedness; nice to see an agnostic theist on here. It's shockingly rare.
if that is directed towards me, then thank you. So difficult to determine sometimes.

is jesus delicious?

Sure, but not worth the risk of botulism.

You might as well ask the reason why people like peanut butter.

I never liked that comparison. There isn't a true answer for "Does peanut butter taste good," because taste is inherently tied to opinion. Peanut butter tasting good for a given person is proven by their opinion that it tastes good.

God (or gods, I suppose), however, either does exist, or does not exist. One of those positions is correct, and the other, incorrect, even if it is not immediately obvious which.

Does the concept of God's word please you as peanut butter pleases you? Then yes, Jesus is delicious, in a less creepy way!


and Jesus doesn't stick to the roof of your mouth!

and Jesus doesn't stick to the roof of your mouth!

Does he also melt in your mouth and not in your hand?

*slogan*
"Jesus. It's What's For Dinner."

and Jesus doesn't stick to the roof of your mouth!

Unless you ask for it in prayer.

Once he is there, you can't pray (what wordplay!) him off, because he doesn't respond to "Geebus".

I never liked that comparison. There isn't a true answer for "Does peanut butter taste good," because taste is inherently tied to opinion. Peanut butter tasting good for a given person is proven by their opinion that it tastes good.

That was the very point of it. Almost all of these come down to personal experience, revelation, and is such completely unassailable to argument.

Is this going to be all the theists reply first, and the atheists come in later? (Like the original thread, only reversed?)

Complex philosophy...

Is this going to be all the theists reply first, and the atheists come in later? (Like the original thread, only reversed?)

Complex philosophy...

Of course not; atheists are locusts. We show up where we're the least wanted. Kind of like a door-to-do religious saleman and the only way to get rid of us is... well, you can't. ;)

That was the very point of it. Almost all of these come down to personal experience, revelation, and is such completely unassailable to argument.

But it's still a flawed comparison. There either is or is not a God. There is an actual true answer to it. There is no actual true answer to whether or not peanut butter tastes good, because the taste of peanut butter is determined by the person's opinion. God's existence or non-existence is independent of individual belief.

Of course not; atheists are locusts. We show up where we're the least wanted. Kind of like a door-to-do religious saleman and the only way to get rid of us is... well, you can't. ;)

What do you mean? Eat lots of garlic, wear a cross, and stab the athiest through both hearts with a silver-tipped spear. Works like a charm.

But it's still a flawed comparison. There either is or is not a God. There is an actual true answer to it. There is no actual true answer to whether or not peanut butter tastes good, because the taste of peanut butter is determined by the person's opinion. God's existence or non-existence is independent of individual belief.

Analogies do not have to be a perfect comparison.

EDIT: You are right and I am right for different reasons. We can move on.

What do you mean? Eat lots of garlic, wear a cross, and stab the athiest through both hearts with a silver-tipped spear. Works like a charm.

Oh, I guess you didn't get the memo about our mandatory evolution upgrade? ;) You need to aim for a third heart... that's why your swarms aren't leaving. *nods*

What do you mean? Eat lots of garlic, wear a cross, and stab the athiest through both hearts with a silver-tipped spear. Works like a charm.

Wait, we have TWO hearts? This is news to me...would be nice...

Of course not; atheists are locusts. We show up where we're the least wanted. Kind of like a door-to-do religious saleman and the only way to get rid of us is... well, you can't. ;)

Tell me about it. You can get rid of mormons and jahova's witnesses by anwering the door in your underwear. Works even better if you smell like cheese, burp, fart, and scratch your ass.

Try doing that to a door-to-door atheist. Those that don't sue join in. Disturbing doesn't even begin to describe it.

Wait, we have TWO hearts? This is news to me...would be nice...

One completely twisted with vile jam, the other tainted, but not past the point of salvation. Repent! Cut out your jello-heart!

Tell me about it. You can get rid of mormons and jahova's witnesses by anwering the door in your underwear. Works even better if you smell like cheese, burp, fart, and scratch your ass.

Try doing that to a door-to-door atheist. Those that don't sue join in. Disturbing doesn't even begin to describe it.

I have never used this emoticon before, and I hope to never use it again:
:upyours:
One completely twisted with vile jam, the other tainted, but not past the point of salvation. Repent! Cut out your jello-heart!

:D

Analogies do not have to be a perfect comparison.

EDIT: You are right and I am right for different reasons. We can move on.

I suppose the difference between our thought processes on the matter is the amount of importance we attach to that difference. You, I suppose, consider it negligible, but I think it's major.

I find this mutual respect thing going on to be mildly disturbing. People are actually respecting other people's opinions! OMG!

And if you are an atheist, once again I have no problem with you.

Oh, I guess you didn't get the memo about our mandatory evolution upgrade? ;) You need to aim for a third heart... that's why your swarms aren't leaving. *nods*

Blast you pain-in-the-A-theists...and your Darwinian Schemes too!

*starts fashioning longer speartip from former-atheists silver tooth fillings*
eha...muahha..buaaha!

Inspired by "Your reason for atheism?"

You started out not believing in a deity. But as a theist, at some point you must have switched from having no reason at all to even imagine a deity to believing firmly in the existance of one.

Why is that?

I guess technically everyone starts out atheist, but for most people who still have some sort of religion from their teenage years onwards most of them would just have accepted what they were told be parents or priests or what have you so far in their short life. Not really a conscious decision.

Unless you open up the crunchy peanut butter, there are dinosaur bones mixed in there, but there are human bones in there as well.

That's why I eat only CREAMY peanut butter. lol :D

I was inspired by God's Grace and all the stuff He did for me, and all of humanity. I also liked the things that Christianity preached, such as to love one another, and to respect other people. I'm not a Christian because of fear from Hell, or wanting to be immortal. I am a Christian because God loves me, and I love Him too.

Correct. The Apostle John wrote "We love Him, because He first loved us." It is not so much fear of going to Hell (though THAT is a good reason to get saved), as it is an appreciation of God's demonstration of His love for us by dying as a human being, and dying in our place so that we would not have to suffer the eternal death of Hell, that causes us to love Him.

Not really a conscious decision.

Indeed. Fortunately, you have a choice (in my church-community) of confirmation or not. I developed my theology (if you can call it that) years ago when I was confirmed.

It's hard to actually really state. Growing up I was not taught religion per se. My mother felt that such a decision must be left to when a child is capable of understanding what he or she is choosing. I was, however, raised with Christain notions of behavor, or rather, what Christian behavore SHOULD be; being kind to your neighbors, love your enemy, giving to those less fortunate than you, and not being afraid to express your beliefs. Pretty much what Jesus taught.

When I was in junior high school, I my mother encouraged me to start looking around so I started to study (As best I could in a small town in Nevada) various religions and beliefs, including Atheism. I found that, as a philosophy, Christianity 'fit' me the best. Again, the commandment is to love your neighbor as you love yourself, or as Douglas Adams would have it, wouldn't it be great if everyone just got along?

As to why I believe in God (Following Christ doesn't always lead to such a belief after all, especially when you pick Christianity as more of a moral philosophy than a faith); well... All I can really say is that at night, when I look up at the stars and consider what I know of the universe around me, when I hold my newborn son, when I look at the shere varerity of the world, when I study a flower, when I camp in Yosemite, when I sit by the sea, it's hard not to experience a feeling of awe. THAT, to me, is God. That's not to say that creationism is right, becuse I don't think so, but that, even as we keep discovering how things have happened, we never know the why. And that feeling of awe has never disapeared, and I hope it never will.

That's why. My God is not the God of the Bible per se, but I believe that He does indeed love us all. I just have to look at the wonder of the universe to see it.

I believe that He does indeed love us all.

Okay, fair enough. But then why has he inflicted so much suffering on so many billions of people in the history of mankind?

Who says he inflicted it? The reason there is suffering is the same reason there is natural disasters or there are in general no miracles: God does not interfere with our universe directly. All suffering is determined by human action or random and unpreventable circumstance.

Another thing, suffering is a uniquely human notion. We have no idea whether our concept of suffering means anything to God's definition of suffering.

Okay, fair enough. But then why has he inflicted so much suffering on so many billions of people in the history of mankind?
You didn't read too closely did you? My God is the Why of the Universe, NOT the Christian notion thereof.

You didn't read too closely did you? My God is the Why of the Universe, NOT the Christian notion thereof.

You said he loves everybody, so I just asked you why he would hurt us if he loved us. It is a reasonable question given your absolute statement.

Does the concept of God's word please you as peanut butter pleases you? Then yes, Jesus is delicious, in a less creepy way!


That's definitely up for debate.

You said he loves everybody, so I just asked you why he would hurt us if he loved us. It is a reasonable question given your absolute statement.Only if you start making assumptions.

NERVUN's deity might not be a perfectly able universe designer & constructor. If the deity's less than perfectly capable of either, a vast, almost entirely lethal universe shouldn't be any great surprise. In fact, given the method such a deity appears to have used, odds are it had to make a hell of a lot of universes just to get one this "good".

It could also be that the creator deity hadn't actually planned on the kind of life we know, or even anything we can imagine, but accidentally got it & fell in love with it.

There's probably a million handy excuses for why a loving creator deity could churn out existence as we know it, none of which have anything to do with it being a hypocrite or a horrible bastard that gets its kicks from fooling people into thinking it likes us/them (I'm not a theist, so it might not like me).

That's basically the problem with imagining explanations, rather than trying to be objective. Not just anything, but everything goes. At the same time, even. No matter how absurd. Of course, if you're willing to be objective and only imagine answers for shit you can't be objective about, it's not really a problem. Sort of like masturbation. Perfectly healthy, unless you're doing it 18 hours a day.

Only if you start making assumptions.

NERVUN's deity might not be a perfectly able universe designer & constructor. If the deity's less than perfectly capable of either, a vast, almost entirely lethal universe shouldn't be any great surprise. In fact, given the method such a deity appears to have used, odds are it had to make a hell of a lot of universes just to get one this "good".

It could also be that the creator deity hadn't actually planned on the kind of life we know, or even anything we can imagine, but accidentally got it & fell in love with it.

There's probably a million handy excuses for why a loving creator deity could churn out existence as we know it, none of which have anything to do with it being a hypocrite or a horrible bastard that gets its kicks from fooling people into thinking it likes us/them (I'm not a theist, so it might not like me).

That's basically the problem with imagining explanations, rather than trying to be objective. Not just anything, but everything goes. At the same time, even. No matter how absurd. Of course, if you're willing to be objective and only imagine answers for shit you can't be objective about, it's not really a problem. Sort of like masturbation. Perfectly healthy, unless you're doing it 18 hours a day.

Good post, and I totally agree. I just wanted to ask him to see his answer and ask him how he came to this conclusion, which I think is vastly more interesting than the answer itself.

Also, it's funny, when I imagine an all-loving God looking down at humans I think of a little six-year-old kid holding a kitten affectionately.

Why do I believe in higher powers? Because it feels right. Call it gut instinct or intuition, it just feels right. Plus its the religion of my ancestors, which is a powerful motive.

In the hands of irrational people, isms always lead to violence.

In the hands of irrational people, isms always lead to violence.

even pacifism?

In the hands of irrational people, isms always lead to violence.

Good point, Ferris Bueller.

My theism, as vague and meandering as it is, exists mainly because it comforts me.

Good post, and I totally agree. I just wanted to ask him to see his answer and ask him how he came to this conclusion, which I think is vastly more interesting than the answer itself.
If that is where your question is going, then I do have an answer. As I said, the universe itself exists. And I find it full of wonders. It's a very remarkable gift then, one that I can only assume someoe would give out of love. But, you make an assumption that God loves ONLY humanity. I do not think so. When I said that He loves us, I mean us as in Life the Universe and Everything (Heh, I'm racking up the HHGTTG refrences today). If He gave us the universe, He gave the universe to itself and all of us in it. Only human arogance would assume that humanity is the only one to get the gift.

It's a very remarkable gift then, one that I can only assume someoe would give out of love.Ignoring the lack of basis for assuming divinity has anything to do with this, it still seems very far fetched that love had anything to do with it. At least love of anything we'll ever know of. Not that universe creation is terribly well understood, but a few things are and it seems insanely implausible that a universe creator could know the outcome of the rapid expansion with any degree of certainty. For example, it appears that the odds were more in favour of a universe almost immediately collapsing on itself than one that expands for some billion years.But, you make an assumption that God loves ONLY humanity. I do not think so. When I said that He loves us, I mean us as in Life the Universe and Everything (Heh, I'm racking up the HHGTTG refrences today). If He gave us the universe, He gave the universe to itself and all of us in it. Only human arogance would assume that humanity is the only one to get the gift.This, however, I quite agree with. After all, if your assumptions are correct, why'd the creator deity make a universe so perfectly adapted to rocks, if it didn't like rocks a whole lot? - all things considered, the universe is vastly better suited for rocks than for any kind of life we know of.

But what I wanted to point out was basically that bit about how coincidental it seems that a universe would turn out like this. To the best of our objective knowledge, it's really bloody unlikely the method of creating it would have this particular outcome.
To me, that raises some questions about how plausible the "gift" idea is. Even if the creator deity had its eyes (or whatever) set on a particular outcome, and went about creating universes until it got it, it just leaves me wondering why it's more than 99.9% lethal to our type of life. I'm in no way suggesting vacuum and mammal-melting gasses aren't cool, but there'd still be plenty of room for those if just 0.5% of the universe wasn't lethal to us, and we'd have a much, much better chance of surviving our technological progress if we weren't confined to one planet.
As far as imagined stuff goes, a deity that fell in love with its creation after the fact, sounds a lot more plausible to me. Especially if it can't interfere with the universe, for whatever reason. I mean, splitting the atom pretty much killed the idea of divine intervention in my book.

Ignoring the lack of basis for assuming divinity has anything to do with this, it still seems very far fetched that love had anything to do with it. At least love of anything we'll ever know of. Not that universe creation is terribly well understood, but a few things are and it seems insanely implausible that a universe creator could know the outcome of the rapid expansion with any degree of certainty. For example, it appears that the odds were more in favour of a universe almost immediately collapsing on itself than one that expands for some billion years.
Again, you're assuming that THIS means this as in right here, right now. I mean the whole thing as THE WHOLE BLOODY THING. Creation, if you'll pardon the term, is the gift itself, and the end in and of itself. To say otherwise would be akin to being a mote in the center of a bubble and complaining about how the child that blew the bubble couldn't possibly love the bubble and all inside it because of how fragile it is.

But what I wanted to point out was basically that bit about how coincidental it seems that a universe would turn out like this. To the best of our objective knowledge, it's really bloody unlikely the method of creating it would have this particular outcome.
Well, if you accept the idea of an infinite amount of universes out there, you'd run into this eventually.

To me, that raises some questions about how plausible the "gift" idea is. Even if the creator deity had its eyes (or whatever) set on a particular outcome, and went about creating universes until it got it, it just leaves me wondering why it's more than 99.9% lethal to our type of life.
Well, that assumes that 1, there's a particular outcome involved or implied. I see none, I see creation as the only outcome. Haven't you ever started creating something not knowing what the hell it was you were going to get, but loving it all the same? The second assumption is, again, that life as we know it happens to hold a particularly special place. Again, I think not.

I'm in no way suggesting vacuum and mammal-melting gasses aren't cool, but there'd still be plenty of room for those if just 0.5% of the universe wasn't lethal to us, and we'd have a much, much better chance of surviving our technological progress if we weren't confined to one planet.
Who is to say that there isn't other life out there anyway? Besides, again that assumes that we humans are somehow more special than anything else in the universe. The whole of the universe is special, everything in it is more or less equal.

Except natto and lettuce, them damn things are just evil and must be wiped out of existence. ;)

If that is where your question is going, then I do have an answer. As I said, the universe itself exists. And I find it full of wonders. It's a very remarkable gift then, one that I can only assume someoe would give out of love. But, you make an assumption that God loves ONLY humanity. I do not think so. When I said that He loves us, I mean us as in Life the Universe and Everything (Heh, I'm racking up the HHGTTG refrences today). If He gave us the universe, He gave the universe to itself and all of us in it. Only human arogance would assume that humanity is the only one to get the gift.

Fair enough. At the base of your beliefs is the assumption that this God consciously created the universe. So how did you come about believing this?

You started out not believing in a deity. But as a theist, at some point you must have switched from having no reason at all to even imagine a deity to believing firmly in the existance of one.
Ah... no. I started believing in a deity, because He gives me chocolates every day. ;)

Fair enough. At the base of your beliefs is the assumption that this God consciously created the universe. So how did you come about believing this?
Well, I'd be a little iffy in saying that God created the universe, how's about saying God created creation and from there universe(s) sprang?

As for how, please see the original post. Like I said, it's the feeling of awe and the answer to why questions. Science cannot answer whys, it's impossible for it to do so. So we're left with a why anything? God is a good of answer as any.

Again, you're assuming that THIS means this as in right here, right now. I mean the whole thing as THE WHOLE BLOODY THING. Creation, if you'll pardon the term, is the gift itself, and the end in and of itself. To say otherwise would be akin to being a mote in the center of a bubble and complaining about how the child that blew the bubble couldn't possibly love the bubble and all inside it because of how fragile it is.Ah, I misunderstood your gift idea. It's sounding exactly like the "creator fell in love with creation" I mentioned, and like I said, assuming there is a creator, I don't see any particular reason to think you're wrong. If nothing else, it's nice to think it likes what it wrought.Well, if you accept the idea of an infinite amount of universes out there, you'd run into this eventually.Very true.Well, that assumes that 1, there's a particular outcome involved or implied.Like I said, I misunderstood your gift idea. Who is to say that there isn't other life out there anyway? Besides, again that assumes that we humans are somehow more special than anything else in the universe. The whole of the universe is special, everything in it is more or less equal.

Except natto and lettuce, them damn things are just evil and must be wiped out of existence. ;):p
But my point was that all things aren't equal in this universe. Even assuming the place is crawling with life, and assuming the deity is at least as fond of the rocks as it is of every last lifeform, humanity & Earth-type stuff in general are still getting an incredibly miniscule piece of the piece of the piece of the piece of the crumbs of the crumbs left after the gnats were done eating the crumbs of the pie. I mean really, it's so little it very seriously impacts our prospect of not obliterating ourselves utterly, and.. There just doesn't seem any reason for why that should be. It's not like anything'd have to go for us to have all the space we could ever dream of, and I wasn't even suggesting that much. Just a nice, human friendly starsystem or 50. You know, ones where the planets aren't resource free and utterly lethal.

But again, I misunderstood you and accidentally made a strawman, so my critique isn't relevant. Sorry 'bout that.

*Note to self: more questions, less assumptions*

I believe that God (my definition) and Science don't contradict each other. I believe that there are some things which are easier explained (to me) by the existence of a God, so thus I believe. I believe it is everyone's choice whether to believe in God or not, and both beliefs are perfectly acceptable. Besides, I believe in intuition, and my intuition tells me there is a God. That in itself isn't very logical or scientific, but life is a lot more colourful if you ignore logic and science occasionally.

I like to believe I have something for after death. And I feel comfortable believing there's someone on the reign.

EDIT: On topicedness; nice to see an agnostic theist on here. It's shockingly rare.

Not all that rare. =)


I never liked that comparison. There isn't a true answer for "Does peanut butter taste good," because taste is inherently tied to opinion. Peanut butter tasting good for a given person is proven by their opinion that it tastes good.

God (or gods, I suppose), however, either does exist, or does not exist. One of those positions is correct, and the other, incorrect, even if it is not immediately obvious which.

Ah, but what if the only way to experience the divine is personal experience? While there may be an objective yes or no answer, the only way that an individual can seek it is by examining their own personal (and subjective) experience. In the end, we can only get subjective answers to that particular objective question.

It's a bit like morality. There may be (and I believe there is) an objective morality - an absolute right and wrong. However, human beings can really only deal in subjective morality. We are fallible and we will all come to varying moral conclusions - with no objective way to test one vs. the other. As such, what we have is subjective morality in a universe where objective morality may or may not exist.

So we're left with a why anything? God is a good of answer as any.

How so?

"It just happened like that" requires less assumptions, and doesn't actually invoke any (theoretically) non-testable assumptions.

'God' is actually a pretty bad answer, if you're going to arrive at it independently.

whenever i walk out in the woods by myself it gives me a big hug.

other then that, it don't think anyone knows most, if any, of what they like to con each other into imagining they do, about it.

=^^=
.../\...

Because I do believe that there's a higher power(s).
That's the characteristic that makes you a theist. But why do you believe there's a higher power?

Put another way, do you have justification for the belief, or are you wilfully holding an irrational position?

and Jesus doesn't stick to the roof of your mouth!

you are obviously not catholic. jesus (in the form of the consecrated host) does indeed stick to the roof of your mouth and its rather sacrilegious to try to scrape it off with your finger.

I do not believe that life can magically appear from some kind of chemical reaction. I believe that any atheist who thinks so is just as whacky as the tons of nutjobs that come from the theistic communities. Of course we have a much more diverse and colorful assortment of crazies than the atheists, but I still think that they are all pretty much equally goofy.

I do not believe that life can magically appear from some kind of chemical reaction.

i too prefer my chemical reactions to not operate on the basis of magic

How so?

"It just happened like that" requires less assumptions, and doesn't actually invoke any (theoretically) non-testable assumptions.

'God' is actually a pretty bad answer, if you're going to arrive at it independently.
What would be a better answer? "It just happened like that" is also very untestable given that we can't re-run the universe with a different set of variables and see what happens then; therefore answering why gravity as opposed to giant rubber bands.

Unless you open up the crunchy peanut butter, there are dinosaur bones mixed in there, but there are human bones in there as well. They were both put in the jar at the same time, despite what carbon dating might say.

That's BS everyone knows that crunchy peanut butter is made by aliens.

What would be a better answer? "It just happened like that" is also very untestable given that we can't re-run the universe with a different set of variables and see what happens then; therefore answering why gravity as opposed to giant rubber bands.

If you are being sarcastic then ok, if not then God makes as much sence as giant rubber bands. very little. There is no proof that everything stays where it is because of giant rubber bands. Just as there is no proof of god.

If you are being sarcastic then ok, if not then God makes as much sence as giant rubber bands. very little. There is no proof that everything stays where it is because of giant rubber bands. Just as there is no proof of god.
*sighs* Please re-read my various posts in this thread.

My reasons for believing in god are my own.

For the record, I believe in a god that is perfect morally, but not omnipotent physically, as I believe she lacks a physical form, sort of a supreme soul. I believe that she loves us but is not always capable of altering the course of events. I believe that she knows all that has ever happened and all that is happening at the moment, but not all that will happen, though perhaps she can make pretty good guesses due to knowledge of the past and present. The only ways I believe she can affect the physical world is through thoughts and emotions.

As for the inevitable question "why worship a god that is not omnipotent?"... Well, I think that love/goodness are more worthy of worship than power.

Good answer: It makes sense. I suppose a Universe without God is, in theory, possible, but then you have to deal with where it came from, what morality is, the purpose of life, etc., and all of these seem baseless. I know not all atheists agree, but if I were one I would see no basis for...anything, really, nuking the planet in an act of global suicide, for example, would not be wrong. I find it difficult to believe that there is no meaning, and God is the logical source of all purpose.

Real answer: My parents were theist.

What would be a better answer? "It just happened like that" is also very untestable given that we can't re-run the universe with a different set of variables and see what happens then; therefore answering why gravity as opposed to giant rubber bands.

We don't have to reboot the universe to test hypotheses that arise out of the data. If individual steps can be replicated, or can be observed to show characteristics expected, it can provide evidence for individual propositions. If at each stage, we can present evidence for our 'it just happens' idea, then each stage is 'testable' - in a way that a 'god-given' creation never can be.

Creationism - of whichever kind - will always have that extra assumption - a non-verifiable creator. Occam will always favour the vitual inevitability of eternity.