Why believe in god? The theist perspective.

Hi, I am atheist but I see nothing wrong in being a theist, to evaluate a person I would like to have a debate, see what's his reason for believe and I would espose mine for not believing, then and according to his/her idea I may evaluate the person

“We did not set out to build a humanoid robot. We set out to solve mobility."
—Agility CTO Jonathan Hurst

If we can provisionally grant this to Darwin, we cannot grant it to Hawking. His hypothesis distinguishes itself from Darwin’s on precisely this point. Having said that the universe was created from “nothing,” Hawking clearly intends (again) by “nothing” the absence of matter (or is it matter and energy?), and, conversely, by “something,” material (or quantifiable) being. Prior to the actual existence of material being must actually exist that set of laws described in posterior fashion by quantum theory. That is, a non-material cause—a formal principle or law—must necessarily pre -exist matter.

Hawking’s poor phrasing tries to conceal this conclusion, which nonetheless seems a necessary predicate of his claims. He does not give us leave to parallel Darwin’s distinction between prior “design” and posterior “law” with his own use of “law” and “theory.” For, according to Hawking, law and theory are actual causes of material beings. Once again, though his language crumbles in the effort to establish this point, he is arguing that law and theory must therefore precede the existence of the “something” he calls, with us, the sensible created material universe.

I think there's a difference between believing in God and trusting God.

It is actually rather easy to believe in God (that is to accept that there is proof for God), despite atheists repeatedly saying there is no evidence. We have a veritable host of created things, which demands a creator.
"But we really don't need a creator..." but you're wrong, because there is nothing in this world that doesn't come from somewhere.
So yes, everything that exists is created, and evolution isn't some magical easy out for that. Because everything that evolves comes from created proto-life. We can see a limitless number of living and nonliving created objects. Yes, you can believe in God's existence.

Believing in God is easy. Even atheists can assert that "Maybe something did create everything, but I cannot believe in a God, because the world is entirely too cruel for there to be a loving and caring God."

This is where trusting God comes into the picture. On a fundamental level, even if an atheist considers something created everything, they usually depersonalize that as some sort of force or theory rather than an entity, because an entity strikes them like a bad father or a tyrant. They want no part of such a notion. Stephen Hawking said it was not necessary to invoke God, but in fact claims that "nothing" created the universe.

Quote:

If we can provisionally grant this to Darwin, we cannot grant it to Hawking. His hypothesis distinguishes itself from Darwin’s on precisely this point. Having said that the universe was created from “nothing,” Hawking clearly intends (again) by “nothing” the absence of matter (or is it matter and energy?), and, conversely, by “something,” material (or quantifiable) being. Prior to the actual existence of material being must actually exist that set of laws described in posterior fashion by quantum theory. That is, a non-material cause—a formal principle or law—must necessarily pre -exist matter.

Hawking’s poor phrasing tries to conceal this conclusion, which nonetheless seems a necessary predicate of his claims. He does not give us leave to parallel Darwin’s distinction between prior “design” and posterior “law” with his own use of “law” and “theory.” For, according to Hawking, law and theory are actual causes of material beings. Once again, though his language crumbles in the effort to establish this point, he is arguing that law and theory must therefore precede the existence of the “something” he calls, with us, the sensible created material universe.

But even a theist has serious grief over the fact that despite being sure God exists, they are troubled by what seems to be capricious behavior. Why does God give us no answers to questions of meaning? Why does God appear to kill people from accident or sickness? Why does life seem absurd?

You see, until we can trust God, we are in as much insecurity as an agnostic, perhaps more.

No it's not.

I just didn't have any time or energy to commit to it. I just got back yesterday.



We have a ridiculously large (I deliberately made it "over 9000" ) universe filled with all sorts of things to explore, if the round Earthers are right and it isn't all just a parallax. We have all sorts of plants,animals, fungi, protists, monera, archae, and there's things that don't fit properly like some practical joke (gingko and platypus). Anyone who can see has no reason not to believe in God.


What about blind people? Well it's actually a miracle that someone completely bkind can manage in this world. They can go to a library and find something to read to them, there are braille (personally, I think Braille is a suck system, it doesn't seem to relate to the real shape of letters, meaning it's something people have to learn artificially) books and signs and resources to give them a fairly full life. There are doggos to guide them across streets.
But there are plenty of things in this world for them even if they stubbornly refuse help. Things to hear, feel, and smell. And increasingly there are actual cures for blindness. Will you also be cured of your spiritual blindness?

So yes, the proof exists all around us. The created universe is vast, and our world brims with life.

On the other hand, God's an even lazier bum than Sora. If I were to jump off a bridge into a highway below, I would end up dead or crippled. God doesn't necessarily protect us from our own decisions. I just prayed for Anne Heche, but God may or may not help her recover. So you see, it's not really about whether you believe God exists. Do we trust in God, and that he will do the right thing? Or do we figure he's got better things to do than to help a poor sad woman find peace and happiness?

We can tell from the creation that God most definitely exists, but we have a pretty strong case for deism, that God checked out or became dspressed himself somewhere after creating everything, or maybe doesn't want to interfere with human free will.

We can't really command God to help this woman, she either lives or dies. But this is exactly the point.

Believing in God is fairly easy, but trust in God, especially if you pray and your prayers aren't answered, is extremely difficult. Sometimes God comes across as a giant dick.

I corrected this a post later.

I don't follow the latest news. We watched Anne Heche movies, and shows, but ultimately I didn't know of her death until days later.

I would say you're wrong anyway. Anne Heche lives on in three distinct ways:
1. She is immortalized in her movies and shows. Shs will always be as old as she was then in each of those, until the records break down.
2. She just donated her organs, meaning part of her lives on long after she died.
3. I believe in an afterlife, where her troubled soul will finally find piece. But even if you disbelieve this, she has cheated death in the above two ways.

Waitress 2007. The gal was a piemaker, and someone donated her the deed to the shop, at the beginning and the end of the movie, they have moms singing, "Baby don't'cha cry, gonna bake a pie, gonna bake a pie with a heart in the middle." The second time, it's her to her own daughter. The context was that the boyfriend wanted her to hate the child, and this is analogous to the minset of abortion boyfriends . That they she want to **** and run, and often force a choice on a woman that traumatizes them.

I notice you couldn't actually dispute that the stars and numerous animals exist, you could only call me a moron because I didn't know Anne Heche was dead.

So, do studies really show that Bulma is a moron?

That's called a weasel word expression.

You lack conviction to outright make a claim and stand by it, so you're like...
Some feel that Bulma is a moron.
Many suspect Bulma is a moron.
Studies show Bulma is a moron.
Bulma comes across as a moron.

Well they may, but I respect people more who come out and directly air their issues, even though I mat be mad.

I had a boss who probably personally saw me as a rival. I'd work hard to please her, and she thought I wanted to compete with her (no, I wanted to help), but I did have issues with inexperience (which she exploited against me). At one point, she was actually verbally abusive. "You've been here two years, you should know about this." Uhhh actually , several senior workers usually dealt with this, now you've sent them off on personal tasks, on a Uriah gambit. But it's not my job to also do their job, not if I'm not paid more. So she rewrites the job expectation and sends it out, basically communicating that she wants me to do more. But in many cases, I don't know their job, so I wouldn't be able to help with that anyway. And my hours are being cut even though I'm trying to cooperate. I eventually get myself fired because I communicate this exact point to her boss, and he kinda sorta takes her side. I didn't really expect him to do anything about her, but I wanted out.

The point of this long story? Well I like to tell stories. But also sometimes she'd say "Some people have complained about..." In some cases it was actual customers, as I admit that I was stressed and probably being blunt to people as a result. In other cases, it was "(I'm complaining to you about this, but I'm masking it behind 'some people')." I would have liked her alot more if she'd distinguished between "Customers have told me..." ( and actually I'd like to have been able to connect her words with a specific customer, so I'm like "Oh that was when..." and try to do better. ) and "Uhhhh I kinda think you're a little bit risque in your dress code/abrupt sometimes/you don't pay attention."

So, do studies really show that Bulma is a moron?

Not really, just someone who disagrees with you and likes telling long yarns.

Yeah. Mainly about not having the guts to call me a moron directly.

But I'll drop it to instead talk about my original point, the difference between trust in God and belief in God. The Jews knew God existed, but completely rejected him. They wanted to build a kingdom even though God was already ruling them (they had a theistic anarchy), because they wanted to be like other nations. Even earlier, the explanation for why the Tower of Babel was built. You see, the crime wasn't to build too high, though your very avatar shows what happens when you try to do that. It was the oppressive system that created back-breaking labor in order that the vision of the architects was carried out.

"Head and hands need a mediator. The mediator between head and hands must be the heart!" (Metropolis)

Not sure why you are guessing that the Jews "knew" got existed and rejected him, but I think that is the kind of guess a moron would make.