Do you believe in God?

[Touring Mars]

Check out this video on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogrSdkG2WsQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Please don't get me wrong, this is not valued as a point to hold against atheists, but rather to those who like and support Richard Dawkins work.

Seriously? What a bloody awful video that is.

Even Dawkins suggests that there may possibly well be intelligent design in the video I have provided

Given that the context is unclear, I wouldn't take that sentence to bolster the argument for the existence of God if I were you.

There is a gulf of difference between merely mooting the possibility of intelligent design, and claiming that you have evidence of it. Also, even if there was as much evidence supporting intelligent design as there is for evolution (which, of course, there most certainly is not), then you'd still need to establish who the designers were before you could make any claims about a God being responsible.

Even in that misleadingly brief and out-of-context quote, Dawkins does infact get his wording correct. He doesn't rule out the possibility of there being an intelligent agency behind the first life on Earth, but (and I'm sure if he were quoted more fully this would be clear) that is not the same as saying that there is evidence, let alone compelling evidence, of an intelligent agency responsible for life on Earth. In any case, the evidence that evolution occurs and has occured here on Earth is overwhelmingly compelling, in stark contrast to the intelligent design hypothesis - let alone the hypothesis that a God or Gods are the intelligent designers in question.

Proponents of intelligent design in the US have always been coy about who the designer is supposed to be, and with good reason... their entire raison d'être is to get religion and creationism back on the agenda in US public life (notably in schools), but they are compelled to leave God out of it for legal (and moral) reasons. So, rather than be upfront about their true intentions, they use euphamisms like 'intelligent designer' when infact they really mean God. The irony is that creationists may be inadvertently correct to leave God out of it, since it's possible that if there is intelligent design after all, it may turn out to be an alien civilisation that lived millions of years ago on a distant planet, and not a God at all. Of course, I suspect that this evidence would simply be treated the same way as actual evidence that shows that humans evolved i.e. it would simply be ignored. So, it is possible that intelligent design is verified by evidence (however unlikely that may be), but it's also possible that one day intelligent design theory may be as much of a hate topic for theists as evolution is today, because it undermines their central assumption - that we are the products of God's own fair hand.

 

[Tic Tach]

I think the fact that we, as humans, have moral stances (or we are moral beings) is questionable evidence in itself for the existence of God.

You clearly haven't spent one moment researching the origins of morality.

I can give you a list of books if you like.

So God created human beings in His own image. In the image of God He created them; male and female He created them.
-Genesis 1:27

If we were created in his image, why aren't we invisible too?

 

[hampus_dh]

👍

I think the fact that we, as humans, have moral stances (or we are moral beings) is questionable evidence in itself for the existence of God.

You need to get out of that little bubble you live in.

Humans have moral stances? LMAO give me a break.

 

[TheCracker]

If we were created in his image, why aren't we invisible too?

Not to mention the long white beards.

 

[HP]

Check out this video on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogrSdkG2WsQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Please don't get me wrong, this is not valued as a point to hold against atheists, but rather to those who like and support Richard Dawkins work.

That just proves that anti Dawkins folk can edit film footage, there is zero context in it for us to draw our own conclusion from. Do you know where to find the original footage in entirety? I would like to see it all and not a few snippets put together by those with a clear agenda to discredit him.

 

[Strittan]

Check out this video on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogrSdkG2WsQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Please don't get me wrong, this is not valued as a point to hold against atheists, but rather to those who like and support Richard Dawkins work.

Wow, you're getting desperate, aren't you? Firstly, the clip looks to be edited by a 12 year old, and secondly, what's your point?

 

[Azuremen]

If we were created in his image, why aren't we invisible too?

Or all male...

Or female...

Or both?

And might as well ask about that omnipotent bit as well. Of course, the Mormons have their own answers for that.

 

[TankAss95]

Seriously? What a bloody awful video that is.

Given that the context is unclear, I wouldn't take that sentence to bolster the argument for the existence of God if I were you.

There is a gulf of difference between merely mooting the possibility of intelligent design, and claiming that you have evidence of it. Also, even if there was as much evidence supporting intelligent design as there is for evolution (which, of course, there most certainly is not), then you'd still need to establish who the designers were before you could make any claims about a God being responsible.

Even in that misleadingly brief and out-of-context quote, Dawkins does infact get his wording correct. He doesn't rule out the possibility of there being an intelligent agency behind the first life on Earth, but (and I'm sure if he were quoted more fully this would be clear) that is not the same as saying that there is evidence, let alone compelling evidence, of an intelligent agency responsible for life on Earth. In any case, the evidence that evolution occurs and has occured here on Earth is overwhelmingly compelling, in stark contrast to the intelligent design hypothesis - let alone the hypothesis that a God or Gods are the intelligent designers in question.

Proponents of intelligent design in the US have always been coy about who the designer is supposed to be, and with good reason... their entire raison d'être is to get religion and creationism back on the agenda in US public life (notably in schools), but they are compelled to leave God out of it for legal (and moral) reasons. So, rather than be upfront about their true intentions, they use euphamisms like 'intelligent designer' when infact they really mean God. The irony is that creationists may be inadvertently correct to leave God out of it, since it's possible that if there is intelligent design after all, it may turn out to be an alien civilisation that lived millions of years ago on a distant planet, and not a God at all. Of course, I suspect that this evidence would simply be treated the same way as actual evidence that shows that humans evolved i.e. it would simply be ignored. So, it is possible that intelligent design is verified by evidence (however unlikely that may be), but it's also possible that one day intelligent design theory may be as much of a hate topic for theists as evolution is today, because it undermines their central assumption - that we are the products of God's own fair hand.

I sincerely apologise to anyone whom I have upset due to the forwarding of the video I displayed. It seems that, through multiple viewings and reading the comments on YouTube towards the video, that the video was highly edited to the editors own convenience.
I brought forward the video not because I wanted to mock Dawkins, or any atheist for that matter, but because I thought that it was evidence that Dawkins thought that intelligent design by an all powerful being was more plausible than he had previously mentioned. It seems that Dawkins was actually referring to the plausibility of the existence aliens rather than than the plausibility if the existence of God. I apologise for unknowingly posting misleading information.

You clearly haven't spent one moment researching the origins of morality.

I can give you a list of books if you like.

If we were created in his image, why aren't we invisible too?

As I have previously mentioned I have little knowledge about science in general. In fact, comparing knowledge between myself and most of the other people contributing to this thread is laughable, clearly I am no match to some of the intelligent minds in this discussion. Saying that though I am confident that my religion is in fact correct, and I accept anyone to challenge it.
I am reading a lot at the moment, I would prefer videos instead.
Oh, and to your question: http://www.gotquestions.org/image-of-God.html

You need to get out of that little bubble you live in.

Humans have moral stances? LMAO give me a break.

I think humans have moral stances or instincts. If someone could confirm this then I would be grateful.

Not to mention the long white beards.

You are using your own interpretation of God to, as it seems, to ridicule my opinion.

That just proves that anti Dawkins folk can edit film footage, there is zero context in it for us to draw our own conclusion from. Do you know where to find the original footage in entirety? I would like to see it all and not a few snippets put together by those with a clear agenda to discredit him.

Again I apologise. I am not specifically anti-Dawkins, but I have little respect for the man. He ridicules religion and the followers of religion and wants to 'kill' and 'get rid of religion'. I do not agree that his ambitions are acceptable.

Wow, you're getting desperate, aren't you? Firstly, the clip looks to be edited by a 12 year old, and secondly, what's your point?

Nope. You are making false assumptions about myself. As I said I apologise, and I explained my point as to why I thought the video was worthy of attention, only to be wrong.

Or all male...

Or female...

Or both?

And might as well ask about that omnipotent bit as well. Of course, the Mormons have their own answers for that.

See my response to Tic Tach's post above.

 

[Tic Tach]

Saying that though I am confident that my religion is in fact correct

That is because you refuse to place said beliefs under scrutiny. I know you will say that you have and do, but you don't, you really don't.

 

[TankAss95]

That is because you refuse to place said beliefs under scrutiny. I know you will say that you have and do, but you don't, you really don't.

What do you mean? My belief in Christianity, or my belief in the existence of a God?
There is questionable evidence for both. I would encourage you to view this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbAtCb9K_zs&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Throughout the video it highlights passages from the Bible which suggests accurate explanations of the universe that we live in, which was not understood or widely accepted by men at that time. Also there is questionable historical evidence, along with questionable evidence from personal experiences from individuals, such as myself.

 

[HP]

Again I apologise. I am not specifically anti-Dawkins, but I have little respect for the man. He ridicules religion and the followers of religion and wants to 'kill' and 'get rid of religion'. I do not agree that his ambitions are acceptable.

No need to apologies mate I genuinely want to see the footage so I can form my own opinion

I don't agree with killing folk because of what they believe in but I do think the world has far too many people & that we are killing this great rock we live on with our rampant consumerism so I wouldn't complain if I woke up tomorrow to find the global population halved!!

Edit: Sorry just noticed you said "kill religion" but I will leave my post up as it is valid for me as there are plenty who would happily kill people for their beliefs.

 

[Exorcet]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbAtCb9K_zs&feature=youtube_gdata_player

"He stretches out the heavens"
"Can you like him stretch out the skies?"

The first quote, if it does refer to universal expansion is exceedingly vague. It also doesn't have context in the video.

The second quote mentions skies, so it might not even be referring to universal expansion at all.

"he suspends the Earth over nothing"

Does that mean that there is nothing "under" the Earth (space does not have an under, Earth can't be over anything). If so, what about stars and galaxies, which can be found in every direction? How is the Earth being suspended if it's in space?

"so that what is seen is not made out of things that are visible"

Atoms are visible, just not in the sense that large objects are. There are other types of matter that don't react to light very much, and even stranger stuff like dark matter and dark energy. But if that is what the Bible was referring to, then why not have the verse tell us that?

"He sits enthroned above the circle of the Earth"

Circles are flat.

etc

This is a case of fixing a meaning to a statement not because that's what the statement says, but because someone wants the statement to mean something. All the lines given are horribly vague, and can be said to mean anything you want them to basically.

Lennox's arguments weren't very interesting either. His answer to "who created God" especially. He didn't answer it, he just said, "no God has no beginning" and then ignores the real issue, which was discussed in this thread.

 

[TankAss95]

No need to apologies mate I genuinely want to see the footage so I can form my own opinion

I don't agree with killing folk because of what they believe in but I do think the world has far too many people & that we are killing this great rock we live on with our rampant consumerism so I wouldn't complain if I woke up tomorrow to find the global population halved!!

Edit: Sorry just noticed you said "kill religion" but I will leave my post up as it is valid for me as there are plenty who would happily kill people for their beliefs.

+1
I think science and religion can actually fit together. I can feel absolute dismissal of that statement spawning through angry responses from both atheists and theists, but just think about it.
The problem with scientific theories is that they fail when questions of origins are introduced. Until the 60's, most scientists agreed that the idea of an eternal universe was not as plausible as the big bang theory, as the stars and the galaxies seem to be travelling apart from each other (correct me if I am wrong). When scientists reversed the paths of moving mass in the universe they discovered that it met up at one point (which they say happened in the past), thus creating the big bang theory.
I'm not sure what the actual theory states what was the starting material for the big bang, but I've heard that it was probably a Hydrogen atom.
Many think that the argument about the origin of the material which created the bug bang can also be applied to destroy God. Who created the creator? The funny thing is though, that God (well, at least the Christian God) is described as the "Alpha and Omega". God defies the law of time as we know it. He is eternal. He was and always will be there. That is the point of God - the very definition. Any argument over this is a delusion of the Christian description of God.
Yet you could say that the material of the big bang could be the same, that it has no beginning, but then you have to ask yourselves the same question (well, slightly different), where did the material come from? Science says no matter can be created or destroyed, but the very theory defies science itself, as there is no explanation as of yet how the material got there. God is a solution to the problem of the theory, yet there is no consistent proof that God exists. I believe there is obvious limits to science, yet most scientists disagree. Anyway it's just something I thought up. Just stating the obvious .
Unless quantum physics could explain it, yer I don't understand anything about that.

 

[Clytius]

I do, always have and always will.

 

[TankAss95]

I do, always have and always will.

Welcome to the club. 👍

 

[dylansan]

I do, always have and always will.

Ok, let's talk. Why do you believe in God?

 

[Akira AC]

+1
I think science and religion can actually fit together. I can feel absolute dismissal of that statement spawning through angry responses from both atheists and theists, but just think about it.

One is contradictory to the other, it cant be done.

The problem with scientific theories is that they fail when questions of origins are introduced. Until the 60's, most scientists agreed that the idea of an eternal universe was not as plausible as the big bang theory, as the stars and the galaxies seem to be travelling apart from each other (correct me if I am wrong). When scientists reversed the paths of moving mass in the universe they discovered that it met up at one point (which they say happened in the past), thus creating the big bang theory.

Because unlike religion science basis itself on facts and logic, unlike religion which basis are doctrines(which are based on very questionable facts).

Many think that the argument about the origin of the material which created the big bang can also be applied to destroy God. Who created the creator?

Because science doesn't consider a creator in the first place, just forces that react to each other.

The funny thing is though, that God (well, at least the Christian God) is described as the "Alpha and Omega". God defies the law of time as we know it. He is eternal. He was and always will be there. That is the point of God - the very definition. Any argument over this is a delusion of the Christian description of God.

The same was said about several cosmic forces, and now we know that they are just forces (besides is yet to be known if dark matter pre dates the big bang).

I wont argue about the "Alpha and Omega" thing, but let it be known that is mere concept is rather ludicrous and ridiculous, under the basis that such thing cant be proved by any probable way.

Yet you could say that the material of the big bang could be the same, that it has no beginning, but then you have to ask yourselves the same question (well, slightly different), where did the material come from? Science says no matter can be created or destroyed, but the very theory defies science itself, as there is no explanation as of yet how the material got there.

People thousands of years ago defined the sun as a god, science prove this believe as false. If this is taken in consideration then for the material that created the big bang will be tagged as something different.

The universe is infinite, the things that can discovered out of it are unlimited.

God is a solution to the problem of the theory, yet there is no consistent proof that God exists. I believe there is obvious limits to science, yet most scientists disagree. Anyway it's just something I thought up. Just stating the obvious .
Unless quantum physics could explain it, yer I don't understand anything about that.

God cant be a solution since everything that has defined as "god" has been proven to be a reacting force (moon/sun/stars), if such force or element that provoke that reaction is to be named it wont be defined as god, just another reacting force(like the sun/moon/stars).

 

[Tic Tach]

I do, always have and always will.

And this is where you wind up looking like a mental midget. For there should be absolutely nothing that we say will always believe, no matter what.

For example, as much as I accept the fact of evolution, I would never say that I will always believe that no matter what, for if evidence arose which displayed that the theory of evolution is false, I would simply accept the new information and/or evidence.

So if your position is "there's nothing you can say that will make me change my mind", you have just committed intellectual suicide. Good luck with that.

 

[TankAss95]

One is contradictory to the other, it cant be done.

Because unlike religion science basis itself on facts and logic, unlike religion which basis are doctrines(which are based on very questionable facts).

Because science doesn't consider a creator in the first place, just forces that react to each other.

The same was said about several cosmic forces, and now we know that they are just forces (besides is yet to be known if dark matter pre dates the big bang).

I wont argue about the "Alpha and Omega" thing, but let it be known that is mere concept is rather ludicrous and ridiculous, under the basis that such thing cant be proved by any probable way.

People thousands of years ago defined the sun as a god, science prove this believe as false. If this is taken in consideration then for the material that created the big bang will be tagged as something different.

The universe is infinite, the things that can discovered out of it are unlimited.

God cant be a solution since everything that has defined as "god" has been proven to be a reacting force (moon/sun/stars), if such force or element that provoke that reaction is to be named it wont be defined as god, just another reacting force(like the sun/moon/stars).

The exact thing you are saying is what I can't understand. Is it true that no matter can be created or destroyed? Should that they destroy the big bang theory all together? It needs material so start it off, it needs this (correct me if I am wrong) atom of hydrogen.
If you are suggesting that another force created the material for the big bang, then does that not disprove everything you know about science?
Science really needs to explain origins.
You said God is contradictory to science, yet the origins of your theories cannot be explained?

 

[Villain]

I do, always have and always will.

What is the basis for your belief in God?

 

[Tic Tach]

Science really needs to explain origins.

You fail to appreciate that they're working on it, as opposed to just pulling a supernatural guess out of their arse.

Why do you not feel the same obligation to explain the origins of your deity?

 

[Akira AC]

The exact thing you are saying is what I can't understand. Is it true that no matter can be created or destroyed? Should that they destroy the big bang theory all together? It needs material so start it off, it needs this (correct me if I am wrong) atom of hydrogen.

No, it doesn't destroy the theory of the big bang because the existence of dark matter is yet to be defined(and dated), science work differently than religion, because it corrects itself and evolves, religion follow the exact same theologies and basis for its existence(very plausible and flawed basis).

If you are suggesting that another force created the material for the big bang, then does that not disprove everything you know about science?

Science corrects itself because its fundamental basis need to be proven, unlike religion which claims without any basis the existence of a supreme being that created everything, ironically many of the things established by religion has been taken down repeatedly(the origin of man for example, which has been prove as a fact with evidence).

Science really needs to explain origins.

Which are based on logical and factual information, unlike religion.

You said God is contradictory to science, yet the origins of your theories cannot be explained?

Hasn't been discover yet, which is very different from an absolute being that created everything. During thousands of years religion has claim the creation of many things, the very same things that science has now given an explanation and even reproduce them(like the atomic bomb, or electricity).

 

[Clytius]

And this is where you wind up looking like a mental midget. For there should be absolutely nothing that we say will always believe, no matter what.

For example, as much as I accept the fact of evolution, I would never say that I will always believe that no matter what, for if evidence arose which displayed that the theory of evolution is false, I would simply accept the new information and/or evidence.

So if your position is "there's nothing you can say that will make me change my mind", you have just committed intellectual suicide. Good luck with that.

No, that was not what I ment to say. I guess I didn't do a good job wording that. I personally believe in God. But that is not to say i'm not an open minded person. Simply my personal beliefs.

Ok, let's talk. Why do you believe in God?

I believe that everything has a creator, and so I believe that God is the creator of the universe, the earth, nature, DNA, and so on. I mean how did animals come about? Was everything just naturally made? I'm sorry, I don't have the most knowledge on this topic as I find it very confusing. However i'm an open minded person and I would like too know what Atheists think about this.

What is the basis for your belief in God?

Please read my response to dylansan

 

[Tic Tach]

No, that was not what I ment to say. I guess I didn't do a good job wording that. I personally believe in God. But that is not to say i'm not an open minded person. Simply my personal beliefs.

But you said that you "always will". What am I to take that to mean?

I believe that everything has a creator...

And it's been asked a million times before; then what created your God? Are you equally as perplexed on the origins of your God?

...and so I believe that God is the creator of the universe

a) Why?

b) What do you mean when you say god?

c) Why do you not believe that a purple cloud of glitter created the universe?

..the earth, nature, DNA, and so on. I mean how did animals come about?

Please watch this.

Was everything just naturally made?

Yes, all of the evidence points in this direction.

 

[Villain]

Please read my response to dylansan

You're response to dylansan was what you believe. I want to know what you base that belief upon.

 

[TankAss95]

But you said that you "always will". What am I to take that to mean?

And it's been asked a million times before; then what created your God? Are you equally as perplexed on the origins of your God?

a) Why?

b) What do you mean when you say god?

c) Why do you not believe that a purple cloud of glitter created the universe?

Please watch this.

Yes, all of the evidence points in this direction.

The Christian Belief in God is that he has no origin. If he was, he would not be the Alpha and Omega.

 

[Villain]

The Christian Belief in God is that he has no origin. If he was, he would not be the Alpha and Omega.

Wrong. It means He is the origin. Alpha = beginning or origin. Omega = end.

 

[Touring Mars]

I apologise for unknowingly posting misleading information.

There's no need to apologise 👍 I was having a go at the content, so I'm sorry if I also appeared to shoot the messenger too. Of course, the part where Dawkins is talking about ID is an excerpt from the film 'Expelled' by creationist hack Ben Stein, which is itself a highly biased documentary-style film. To be fair, posting the video raised a good point, so fair play to you for pointing it out - although, as I said in my previous response, I think Dawkins' view on the matter is considerably more intelligent and nuanced than his detractors (e.g. Ben Stein) give him credit for.

 

[dylansan]

For the record, here's what Dawkins had to say after that interview (skip to 3:42 for his response):

 

[topolino]

yes Sir i do....
shame on this "No way! 344 49.64%"