Is There Any Reason to Believe the Biblical Story of Creation?

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Quote:
My only problem with the God hypothesis is that it requires an explanation for the existence of God. Where does God come from? The question about the origins of the universe has just been displaced... not solved.

Except that his very supernatural nature allows for this, and, in a sense, eliminates the need to ponder the imponderable. There is logic to the notion that a truly all powerful being requires no origin. What Brandon calls reason requires the question "what came before?" and always will unless and until it comes across God.

Or it might just be a natural phenomenon that we don't understand.

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

Olivier5 wrote:
Human condition requires that we make decisions based on insufficient information. And sometimes we need to take a leap of faith.
Worth repeating.

This can hardly be used to claim that anything you feel like believing is true. It can't be used that way for the simple reason that anything you feel like believing is not necessarily true. No, you are not rationally justified in believing that a supernatural being created the universe with no evidence that it's true.

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Rationality implies logic, and logic cannot be proven. Either you believe in it or you don't.

Beside, how can one say that believing in gods "doesn't work"? The whole darn western civilization was built by people who believed in God. The best art and architecture was historically devoted to God... seemed to work for them. It inspired people to do great things. And also some bad things but let's not forgot the good things either.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

If you can accept the possibility of a natural phenomenon that we can't understand, I don't know why you have a problem with accepting the possibility of a supreme creator that we can't understand.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

Brandon9000 wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

Maybe everyone just believes what makes them feel good. You just happen to feel good about accurate scientific knowledge.

In other words, maybe it has nothing to do with being right or wrong, but just whichever path feels good.

I am asserting that believing things without evidence that they're true is likely to lead to wrong conclusions. You think this is in question?

No. I was not questioning that.

I was just pointing out that "feeling good" may be the core motivation behind what people believe (as opposed to "being correct").

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Rationality implies logic, and logic cannot be proven. Either you believe in it or you don't.

Beside, how can one say that believing in gods "doesn't work"? The whole darn western civilization was built by people who believed in God. The best art and architecture was historically devoted to God... seemed to work for them. It inspired people to do great things. And also some bad things but let's not forgot the good things either.

I never said that believing in Gods doesn't work. I said that experience shows that believing factual propositions with no indication they're true doesn't work.

I also said experience shows that believing in facts based on evidence works.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

If you can accept the possibility of a natural phenomenon that we can't understand, I don't know why you have a problem with accepting the possibility of a supreme creator that we can't understand.

I said that a natural phenomenon we don't understand was one possible answer to your cosmological question. I also accept God as one possible answer. I was talking, however, about finding the actual, true answer.

I do not believe that there is enough evidence to indicate that God is the correct answer to where the universe comes from. In fact, I have seen little or no evidence of it. On the other hand, there is some evidence to suspect that the world operates by natural laws. There are numerous examples of phenomena that were once not understood and that are now explained as natural phenomena. There are no examples of phenomena that have been shown to be magical phenomena.

Your desire to accept God's existence without any evidence that he does exist is illogical. This is simply not a reliable way of finding correct answers.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

Maybe everyone just believes what makes them feel good. You just happen to feel good about accurate scientific knowledge.

In other words, maybe it has nothing to do with being right or wrong, but just whichever path feels good.

I am asserting that believing things without evidence that they're true is likely to lead to wrong conclusions. You think this is in question?

No. I was not questioning that.

I was just pointing out that "feeling good" may be the core motivation behind what people believe (as opposed to "being correct").

I believe that in matters of deciding facts, people should work with logic and evidence if they want the actual correct answer.

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Quote:

experience shows that believing in facts based on evidence works.

Like Bush did when he rightly invaded Iraq, based on solid evidence, right? :-) That worked out so well...

The easiest way to become a slave to your unsubstantiated beliefs is to be naively certain you don't harbor any... While people who are aware of their beliefs can at times reassess them, you cannot.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

That's confusing politics with science. Not in the same ballpark.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

It is not your way of finding an answer you believe to be correct.

The existence of God and the universe operating by "natural" laws are not mutually exclusive. A belief in God doesn't require a belief that each and every object and action in the universe is directly caused by God. God the Creator doesn't have to mean that a being floating in space pointed his finger in various directions and a blue beam was emanated which instantly created individual stars and planets; while a green beam caused all life in the universe to instantly spring into existence.

As I previously wrote, In trying to find the origins of a universe operating by natural laws one will always be faced with the question "what came before?"

What came before the Big Bang, and whatever it was, what came before that?. The question extends infinitely. One way to look at this is to say we are not capable of understanding a process of creation that has no beginning or end, but that does not mean it is supernatural. Another is to say we are not capable of understanding such a process but consider it be sentient and call it God.

From there each individual determines to what degree they believe God is existence and them individually. Clearly a great many believe that involvement includes activities past present and future which are consistent with how a human given that unfathomable power might act, and come to believe in ancient accounts of such activities despite the vast amount of physical evidence that is before them.

Olivier is correct, your life is woven through with beliefs you cannot prove. They obviously work for you. Are you going to discard them because they can't be correct because they can't be proven?

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

Olivier is correct, your life is woven through with beliefs you cannot prove. They obviously work for you

Theyre really not "beliefs" they are variables that, for research, are removed from the playing field. Otherwise, why does science search for answers to how life began?
Or what is the path and ependent conditions tht spur evolution?

Merely defaulting to a supernatural explanation would be a scientific cop-out.

As scientists, we don't insert a GOD into the recipe, for that way wed never come up with any reasonably understandable answers.

But Im sure you knew this, and were just involved in a circle jerk here, all waiting for the weekend.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

That's confusing politics with science. Not in the same ballpark.

1. Brandon is confusing science and religion, and I didn't see you object to that.
2. Science is political. If can easily be manipulated by politics like in the case of the denial of climate change by american conservatives. Another of these hubris-laden 'no-believer', guijohn, has totally fallen for that. He lectures believers to no end that they should be fact-base and rational, only to tell you in the next breath that man-made climate change is a hoax... :-)
3. Brandon claims that his entire life is free of unsupported belief, not only in the realm of science.

3 Replies

@Olivier5,

I can't speak for those guys. Was just making the obvious point in passing.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Your point is off-topic.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Then why did you bring it up?

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

To explain to you that it was off topic.

Brandon believes that we should never believe anything that's not based on facts, yet he thinks the Iraq war was the right thing to do given the evidence available at the time.... an obvious contradiction, highlighting the naivety of the no-belief crowd.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

I'm a non believer, and I believe the opposite of Brandon's beliefs in politics. There is no equating politics with the scientific method.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

I agree, and the same applies to religion and science. These are or should be on different planes. In short, science has its domain of relevance, but let's not make it the ultimate arbitrator of everything. Some domainls and issues require more than pure rationality. Let's avoid what I call scientific hubris.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Religion is of the imagination. Science is founded in research. No conflict from me.

1 Reply

Is There Any Reason to Believe the Biblical Story of Creation?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know