TED Conversations

Drew B
  • Drew B
  • New York, NY
  • United States

This conversation is closed.

Why don't people believe in God?

if it were even the slightest possible chance that there is a hell and its a place of everlasting torment and hate wouldnt you want to make sure there isnt one by checking every possible source of information and proof that God does not exist or does?

And why do most people who ask themselves this question and go search for answers come back a christian?

yeah the whole idea can be denied with logical reasoning but you got to look at where this idea came from and how much we can trust this information. When you search for those facts they cant be denied and once you experience what God does in your life you will know its real. If you dont believe in it you should have proof andt the strongest possible evidence of everything that cant be denied.

I want to look at what you guys think and why you guys don't. Please dont attack other peoples ideas and thought and be open with every ounce of reasoning you can come up with.

Topics: religion
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Apr 6 2011: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist." "It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going." Stephen Hawking

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/sep/02/stephen-hawking-big-bang-creator
    • thumb
      Apr 6 2011: SH has been wrong before.
    • thumb
      Apr 6 2011: Am I correct in assuming that you are saying that gravity existed before the cosmos ?
      • thumb
        Apr 7 2011: Yes, you are! Actually, Stephen Hawking said that, but I believe he's right, he has studied a lot and he's a great scientist, just like Galileo and Newton. Thankfully scientists are not killed anymore for stating explanations and predictions about nature events that contradict religious explanations, right?
        • thumb
          Apr 8 2011: Hi Lucas.....I would love to see your description of this "god" that you don't believe in.Please oblige me and I will be very grateful. I am not a hostile person. Peace
      • thumb
        Apr 9 2011: Hi Helen!
        God, in my opinion, is a mechanism used by people to explain and justify events that can't be explained or jusitified. A long time ago God was the explanation for natural events such as rain and eclipses, for example, but now science can explain them by logical and ratinoal statements. There are still some events that science can't explain, like the origin of the Universe, but I think it will someday. God is also a mechanism for people to feel more confortable about death and, in some religions, to control people.
        I respect your point of view, Helen, and I'm also glad that we're having this conversation in such a good way, I'm not a hostile person too, I'm just trying to understand God, religions and etc.
        Now, what is your description of God?
        • thumb
          Apr 9 2011: Lucas...............Thank you so much for your reply. The God you describe is anthropomorphic and I could not believe in such a God either. My God, I see as a force
          that energizes whatever there is. My God is a creator but not a law-giver. To me the only "law" is that of love. The Golden Rule expresses it well. The capacity is built into every living, conscious creation. Because there is a food chain, the fact that we must eat to survive has nothing to do with the desire of the "heart" Man does not live by bread alone, I think. Along with the evolution of species there has been an evolution of the spirit. Both have brought us to this point in time.. I don't think we will ever be able to understand God and be able to have a scientific picture of God But we have come a long way from the single cell to the human brain/mind and I don't believe we are at the pinnacle of creation. Do you ? Peace.
    • Apr 8 2011: Then what created gravity? Was it always there?
      • thumb
        Apr 8 2011: Then what created God?
        • Apr 8 2011: That is the point...he is infinite. Don't try to pretend like you understand infinitety. No one does, although they might claim otherwise.

          Is it easier to believe that a force like grvaity just magically came about vice it being created by an all-powerful being?
        • thumb
          Apr 8 2011: Hi Lucas.....Is gravity another name for "God".? Why is SH so certain that gravity pre-existed the cosmos?
        • thumb
          Apr 8 2011: @ Colby

          Then why is God necessary? Why can't the universe be infinite instead of God?
        • Apr 8 2011: Hawking's theory, M-theory, proposes multiple dimensions. This is the theory that Hawking used to make the proclamation that there is no God. Also, M-theory is a composite of multiple theories. So, Hawking wants us to believe that multiple theories, which cannot be confirmed, and says that an infinite amount of universes exist. So, basically there is no physical proof for M-theory either. Which is incrediblly hypocritical on you part, because would that not make it a belief on your part that M-theory might be correct?

          Besides most scientists agree that there was a Big Bang and that it happened around 15 billion years ago.
        • thumb
          Apr 8 2011: Lets get something straight, we are not discussing what's hypothetical or factual here. Don't feel that you are in some way entitled of a less hypothetical explanation when you believe a iving thing which is infinite somewhere outside of time and space created everything. That my friend sounds not just hypothetical but utterly fictional because it breaks all observable laws of biology and physics.

          So lets drop fact for now and discuss a few hypothetical situations. Here are a few theories: The universe could've been created by a big crunch prior to the big bang or there could've been three dimensional sheets colliding in 4 d space. These are credible theories as well, so why should there be a God if these explanations are sufficient?
        • thumb

          Drew B

          • 0
          Apr 11 2011: In God's world there is no creation. He is the alpha and omega. the beginning and end
        • thumb
          Apr 12 2011: Hello Budimir..................Does space have boundaries ? Is space created or was it always there ? Maybe I am asking stupid questions but I would like somebody else's take on this subject ?

















          does space have boundaries
        • thumb
          Apr 13 2011: Helen, depends what space you are looking at. Does the space of your living room have boundaries ? I'd suppose so.
          Does the space in the universe have boundaries ? What kind of boundaries do you have in mind ? A wall ? Then, I'd say, the space of our universe has no boundaries.
          Space and time, based on what we know was not always here. If the big bang theory that everything came into existence from a singularity holds true, then space and time came into being with the birth of our universe.
          Does that answer all our questions ? No, it doesn't, because we still don't know where the content of the singularity came from, nor do we know where the singularity was contained in .....just to name a few issues.
          All this only shows us that we still have a lot of holes in the fabric of our knowledge. However, I'm optimistic that science eventually will figure out the answers to these questions. Most definitely, I wouldn't expect to get any answers from an fictitious entity such as a God.
      • thumb
        Apr 8 2011: Note that all these explanations are mathematically consistent with all observable scientific laws.
        • Apr 8 2011: I thought this whole discussion is about whats factual and whats not.

          M-theory is just that a theory...untestable nil proof. All I am doing is calling attention to the fact that you are placing faith in the fact that M-theory is correct. When it has not even been proven. Is that not correct?

          Which theory is it? Sounds like you are not even sure...since you said either one COULD be right.
      • thumb
        Apr 8 2011: If we are discussing fact then God has no place in this discussion, why are you even bringing Him in?
        • Apr 8 2011: Let me ask you this:

          Do you believe that there is a cause and an effect for everything? That is a main tenant of atheism, that there is a cause and an effect for everything, right?
      • thumb
        Apr 8 2011: Why are you placing faith in God if it has not been proven?
      • thumb
        Apr 8 2011: Yeah there is cause and effect for everything.
        • Apr 8 2011: Okay...so how can the universe be infinite if it had no cause? Is that not a direct violation of atheism?
        • thumb
          Apr 13 2011: Budimir.........Yes, I too believe that everything that we can prove is due to cause and effect. I am glad that you admit that causality is a BELIEF. I will never be able to prove the existence of God. I can experience love and so since it is my BELIEF that Love is God I believe that I can experience God. (:>) I think that Love is its own excuse for being.
          BTW since everthing is caused...how do we get to the first cause ?
      • thumb
        Apr 8 2011: Neither has God been proven. Are you gonna start using logic any time soon?
        • Apr 8 2011: Can you answer my question? At least I am not contradicting my beliefs. You are...blatantly.
      • thumb
        Apr 8 2011: No, because in order for me to start answering a question you need to have a consistent thesis yourself which you don't. Because you ultimately use the argument of causality to prove that there is a God and then you eventually contradict yourself by saying "well God didn't have a cause."

        You place the whole burden of proof on atheists when you don't have a rational thesis yourself.
        • Apr 8 2011: I never said I believe that everything has a cause and effect. I asked you, since that is a main tenant of atheism.
    • thumb
      Apr 8 2011: A giant organism that can create planets.....ever taken biology 101?
    • thumb
      Apr 8 2011: So wait you are using the utterly common sense and logical approach of cause and effect to prove your point even though you don't believe that method can be used as proof?

      So how are you using the tenant of cause and effect to prove anything if you think it's not valid yourself?

      I can easily describe an infinite universe with an infinite series of causes, that's what all these theories that I mentioned do.
      • Apr 8 2011: Okay, we have managed to keep it civil up to this point. Let us not resort to personal attacks. I respect your views. All I ask is that you respect mine. Otherwise, we cannot have this debate.

        Read my messages. I used it because you believe in it. I was showing you that you were contradicting your set of beliefs. It does not apply to me, because I do not believe in it and I was not applying it to my beliefs. I was applying it to yours.

        Time began at the Big Bang. God does not have a cause because "cause and effect" imply time. Since God created the universe, He is outside of time. It does not apply to Him. Also, you cannot arbitrarily assign infinitly to the universe, when there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that suggests that there was a an initial Big Bang and much less evidence of the universe being cyclic.
        • thumb
          Apr 8 2011: I wasn't sure what you were getting at before. I wasn't attempting to attack your views I was trying to see what your argument was.

          So here is what you are attempting to demonstrate with causality, you are saying the idea of absolute causality is absurd. You are not proving the existence of God with this however you are just refuting my belief. See there is a fine line with proving God and refuting causality and that's where you had me mixed up before.

          So here is why I think causality is a very necessary concept. Think of a world without causation. Things just arbitrarily spring into existence, would even be able to provide a reasonable explanation for the existence of objects and things. Why is the world this way and not any other way? Why can't I cut my head off and still walk around? Why am I mortal?Without causality there is no means by which you can begin to define the properties of the world, things become non-entities, and thus without causality you would not be able to define the properties of God. You would say God is all knowing and wise because........no causality no explanation. In fact our logical axioms and "self-evident" truths face similar problems. You are saying I am arbitrarily assigning infinity to the universe but you are doing the same thing and but you are calling it God. The only difference is that your brand of "infinity" is more complex and not evident, while what I am suggesting is simple and evident.

          Here is another problem with what you are suggesting you are suggeting God set the Big Bang and all the events in the universe in motion outside of time. But change cannot occur outside of time, you even said that yourself in the previous post "cause and effect" require time. So how did God cause all of this outside of time?
      • Apr 8 2011: Hi Budimir,
        I think you're misunderstanding Colby's stance on causality. When did he refute the idea of causality in our Universe? He simply stated that because God is not restricted by time and the nature of the Universe that He is not subjected to causality. Just because God doesn't have a cause doesn't mean that we must disregard the observable nature of the Universe.
        • thumb
          Apr 8 2011: Once again Austin, how is creation possible without time?

          How does something exist without being restricted by nature?

          Is God a being? Then he is restricted by the very nature of being which is subject to the three laws of thought. I don't know how you can even talk about God reasonably without restricting Him to the nature of language and logic. Which both of you have been doing this whole time. Just like you have been talking about his "creation" or "causation" of the universe with reference to time, since it's impossible to talk about these concepts without time.
        • Apr 9 2011: That is the thing time started at the moment of creation. God created nature. The creator cannot be restricted by his creation. The word "being" is restrictive. Words are restrictive, they have limts. But, it is the best we can do to describe a perfect infinite being.
      • Apr 8 2011: Yes, thank you Austin.
        • Apr 9 2011: "How does something exist without being restricted by nature?"

          No assumption can be made about what exists beyond the Universe and observable nature, so I cannot answer that.
    • thumb
      Apr 9 2011: So what I'm getting out of both of you is that something exists beyond human perception and understanding. Something we can't describe with words, logic or mathematics due to our natural limitations.

      I agree with that, but I don't think you can come to the conclusion that it is God or anything for that matte if you cannot comprehend it. Could be anything. Until you are able to grasp it, explain it with language and observe it with your own eyes it can't be fact, it can't be theory and it can't even enter the realm of epistemiology.
      • Apr 9 2011: What about Dark Energy?

        "More is unknown than is known. We know how much dark energy there is because we know how it affects the Universe's expansion. Other than that, it is a complete mystery."

        http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/
        • thumb
          Apr 9 2011: As Budimir said it, yes, it's unknown... it's a mystery... but that doesn't mean it's God.

          The sun was once mysterious and so you had Ra; Lighting was once mysterious, you had Zeus; etc.

          You don't think Ra and Zeus exist, do you? Nowadays, you know the things that once upon a time were mysterious. It's the same with Dark Energy today. It being mysterious doesn't mean it is God.
      • Apr 9 2011: Vasil,

        I have no idea where you see in my message that I said it was God. Scientists know Dark Energy is there. It has to be. But, it cannot be quantified, observed, mesaured, explained or whatever.

        How can science make the exception for dark energy and not God? Is that not contradictory?
        • thumb
          Apr 9 2011: God is an explanation, not a phenomenon. Dark Energy is a phenomenon, not an explanation.

          For a scientist (as well as for a critical thinker), for every one phenomenon, there could be multiple explanations. Each of those explanations has three possible values - True, False, Unknown. The default status for every explanation is Unknown. If there's evidence for an explanation, it becomes True. A new explanation, again with initial status of Unknown can arrive at any point, and if the evidence goes True for all explanations (including the new one), then all True explanations are reset to Unknown. When there's further evidence that only makes certain explanations True, the Unknown explanations turn into False, and if there is more than one explanation left that is True, all are reset to Unknown. Even after there's only one True explanation left, new Unknown explanations can still arrive, challenging the True explanation further. No explanation is infinitively infallible (unlike religious explanations), and to claim otherwise is considered arrogance.

          God is claimed to be True explanation to certain phenomenon. When there is no evidence, for a scientist (as well as for a critical thinker), the explanation is Unknown. There are other explanations, also with Unknown status. The reason scientists don't typically pursue God is because the explanation of God is not testable (yet... if you can think of a test, I'm sure someone will try to perform it), therefore, no evidence could be gathered for it. Therefore, it can't become True.
        • thumb
          Apr 9 2011: Hi Vasil
          The bible claims to be the evidence for the Christian God. It is stuffed with history, archeology, science, & prophecy. It can certainly be tested. It has been many times, & millions believe it has passed.

          :-)
        • thumb
          Apr 9 2011: If the bible is evidence for the bible (and inherently, God is evidence for God), then "The Origin of Species" is evidence for "The Origin of Species" (and inherently, evolution is evidence for evolution).
        • thumb
          Apr 9 2011: Vasil

          Compare the bible with other history books, real science, real archeology. Then compare it with itself; it is 66 separate books, by 40 authors, over 1500 years.
          Simple huh !

          :-)
      • Apr 9 2011: There are outside sources (non-religious sources) that verify the Bible's authenticity. That is why Peter cited history and archeology. So, you are right. Somethiing cannot be evidence for itself. History and archeology are not the Bible.

        Dark Energy is not a phenomenon. According to WIkipedia and doctionary.com a phenomenon is something that can be observed. Dark Energy cannot be observed. Since Dark Energy is neither an explanation or a phenomenon, answer my question as to how scientists can justify making an exception for Dark Energy and not God?
        • thumb
          Apr 9 2011: Yes, Dark Energy can't be observed currently, which is why it's currently a hypothetical form of energy and not a theoretical one.

          It's a hypothetical phenomenon. Something which if being observed (not necessarily in a visual way, ala radiation; not necessarily while it's happening ala evolution) will be evidence for this hypothesis (Unknown) to become a theory (True). The lack of evidence doesn't make it True or False. Dark Energy is qualified as a hypothesis because it is testable - if the energy exists, it's somewhere at the place where the hypothesis claims. We just need to find a way to check if the Dark Energy is at that place. God doesn't qualify as a hypothesis, because it is allegedly supernatural, therefore untestable.

          The "Earth is round" theory didn't became a fact until we were able to send men into outer space, but it was considered True because of the evidence, which didn't applied to the "Earth is flat" theory that was therefore proven False.

          If God is said to be in a certain place within the universe or unconditionally exercising his will at a certain point, it will become a hypothesis, along with all other hypothesis that science can come up with as alternative ones to God. If there's evidence supporting God and other hypothesis, both of them will turn into theories, but will retain their Unknown status since neither is proven over the other. As soon as there's evidence supporting only one theory, the other will become False.

          Neo definitions of God basically do just that - without making God testable, they put God as a hypothetical phenomenon around currently under explored stuff, making God equivalent to Dark Energy or something of the sort... that's not the God from the bible, the creator of all life and everything, even assuming he existed.

          As for historical evidence... that may prove the existence of the people (e.g. Jesus) but not necessarily their claims. Otherwise, Darwin's existence proves evolution is true.
        • thumb
          Apr 9 2011: Colby, as Vasil already tried to explain, comparing the God concept to dark energy is comparing apples to oranges.
          Scientists came up with the conclusion that, observing the universe the mass and energy they can measure out there doesn't coincide with what calculations predicted. Since this energy cannot be measured nor the mass be seen, the call it "dark". Can they be wrong with this concept ? Sure they can and eventually science can come up with a completely different explanation for this difference.
          However, the key difference between that and the God concept is, that science comes to conclusions based on observation and measurements of our surroundings, which lead to theories, which can eventually be proven right or wrong.
          In the case of God, there is no evidence at all, which is why science doesn't even involve itself with proving or disproving God. If there is no evidence for something, then we have to call it speculation.
    • thumb
      Apr 10 2011: Wow this went a long way. But yeah I am with Harald and Vasil.

      Dark energy is not like God, it is currently detectable but unexplainable. God is the opposite, he is fully explainable (by holy scriptures) but never detectable. If you wanna believe in God that's fine with me, but science has very precise standards. It can only accept a theory that can be tested with experiments. Archeology, may give lots of evidence of saints churches and writings, and even Jesus I am not saying these things never existed. What is disputed however is the existence of God and heaven, as well as the stories that took place in the Bible.

      We have many clever and moral myths from past civilization. Myths about Troy for instance or Hercules. These people and places might have existed but does that mean we can claim that the myths which are based on them are accurate. We can say these myths have left a legacy on cultural development and they are very meaningful to us. But we can still appreciate this meaning without concretely accepting the myth as a fact. This is how people grew to appreciate Greek myth which has inspired lots of significant philosophy and literature.
      • Apr 10 2011: Budimir, going back to what you stated concerning the concept of God being unable to even enter the realm of epistemiology. Why is that? Intelligent creation is as feasible as all other hypothetical phenomenon or explanation. And considering the widespread belief towards a creator, an open-minded individual should include it in the realm of epistemiology, in my opinion.

        Vasil, I would agree with you in regards to the contrast between dark energy and God.


        Personally, I choose to believe in the Christian God as an act of faith. I am a strong advocate of Pascal's wager, as Martin Chen pointed out earlier.
        • thumb
          Apr 10 2011: Austin, the way I see it, it comes down to probability. I would be very careful with any absolute statements, including a statement such as "there is no God". However, we have to ask, based on evidence, how high is the probability that there is a God.
          Pascal, in some sense was right if one looks at it from a pragmatic point of view. However, there is a little detail to it, which Pascal himself acknowledged as well: you can't just press a button and suddenly you have faith. Somehow, one would have to acquire faith. Personally, I find that difficult, considering that I have no evidence on which I could found this faith. For me it would be identical to faith in "the lord of the rings" being a true story.
        • Apr 10 2011: Harald,

          That was a terrible analogy. Tolkien was a devout Catholic. Lord of the RIngs have many symbolic references to Christianity.

          "The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like 'religion', to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism."
          -Tolkien

          Interesting enough Tolkien converted C.S. Lewis, who was an atheist, to Christianity.
        • thumb
          Apr 10 2011: I am not saying the concept of God is not subject to epistemiology, if you completely take God out of epistemiology then he is not part of it. That's what many Christians do when they say he is not restricted by nature or time. They are putting God at the center of existence but at the same time they are seperating him from existence. For instance Colby might say God is the creator of all being. But God is a being and at the same time he is the creation of all being. So see how the very eccentric elements of the structure begin to undermine their own "center."
        • thumb
          Apr 12 2011: Colby, so, are to trying to tell me that we should believe in "the lord of the rings" as a true story ? ;-)
          If not, then what was wrong with the analogy ?
        • thumb
          Apr 12 2011: Hi Richard......welcome back ! ;-)
          As far as I understand Pascal's wager, he was only talking about the afterlife. In which case if you wager on God you can win, but not lose.
          However, I agree with you, that having faith in a God also has implications in the real life. People usually, invest resources in their faith, whether they are material or time. So if we include real life in the consideration, then yes, losing is actually a more likely outcome than winning.
        • Apr 12 2011: @ Harald. Well, for starters the fact that it is fiction, because it was created by a Catholic. A Catholic who developed the story, with Christian symbology, to further the faith. Zero fact...no history or archeology to back it up.
        • thumb
          Apr 12 2011: Hey Richard, I'm around and actually quiet active here on TED.
          Feel free to start a discussion about global warming if that is what you like to discuss, but here, please stay with the topic at hand......just as a reminder: it's about God and not global warming.....unless you believe global warming was introduced by God.
      • Apr 10 2011: You make good points Harald, I admit I should be cautious when speaking in absolutes. I think I sort of understand where you're coming from. I agree that one needs a reason to have faith.

        In case you're interested, the primary reason that I have faith is because of causality. I believe that there cannot be an infinite regress of natural and finite causes nor spontaneous creation, which leaves a creator as the only remaining option.

        (I didn't like the analogy!)
        • thumb
          Apr 12 2011: Hey Austin, why should a creator be necessary to bring the universe into existence ?
          True, we don't have all the answers (yet) but that doesn't mean we have to despair and create deities as the source for our being.
          Lacking a scientific answer to a question only means we have to keep on looking.
          Coming up with artificial constructs such as God only prevents people from searching and researching further, hence strongly limiting them in their progress.
        • thumb
          Apr 12 2011: Hi Harald
          The theory goes something like this.
          Matter cannot create matter, so some immaterial entity is necessary to create the matter (universe).
          Time cannot create itself, so some entity outside of time is necessary to create time.
          The God of the bible has been around since well before we came to the above conclusions. He has always claimed to be outside of time, immaterial, & the creator of the universe. So where is the logical flaw in considering him a candidate. Have you a better one ?

          :-)
        • thumb
          Apr 12 2011: Hi Peter, you remember a few months ago, when I suggested to read up a bit on the history of the universe, physics and cosmology ?
          Well, I'm disappointed to see that we are still at the same point in this discussion.
          You are repeating doctrine without actually understanding the meaning.
          You say, the God of the bible is outside of time ? What does that mean ? Do you have any concept of being outside of time ? What is an "immaterial creator" ? He claimed all that ? Who is "he" ? If you call God a "he", you apparently believe God is a man. So, what is an immaterial man outside of time ? Wow, Peter, come on ! ;-)
          You say, God created matter and time. If you know that, then you should be able to explain the mechanism behind that.
        • Apr 12 2011: Harald,

          If God dwells within time, then He is subject to its restraints. You and I both know that a creator cannot be governed by what he has created. Therefore, he is not bound by time. So, we say God is "outside of time". Time as we know it is not constant, anyway. The truth is that time varies even within our own solar system. A "year" means something different on the sun then on earth. Black holes are areas of intense gravity in which time ceases or becomes completely frozen. If you could get inside one of the black holes, you would never be able to get out again (not only because of gravity but also because there would be no "time". This helps us to see that "timelessness" is not such an odd thing and even powerful telescopes can locate it.

          "It is impossible that matter should exist in God. First, because matter is in potentiality. Secondly, because everything composed of matter and form owes its perfection and goodness to its form; therefore its goodness is participated, inasmuch as matter participates the form. Thirdly, because every agent acts by its form; hence the manner in which it has its form is the manner in which it is an agent."- St. Thomas Aquinas

          As for the gender thing...as I told Nicholas, words are limiting. Jesus came into this world as a man. Other than that, it is just convention. It is like saying "man" or "mankind". Does that mean just men? No, it is convention.
        • thumb
          Apr 14 2011: Colby, all you say is pure speculation. There are no limits what one can make up. You could as well say there are 5 gods instead of just one. The good (or bad) thing of faith is that it is not bound by reason. Hence using reason against faith never will lead anywhere.
          Concluding the topic from my end, I think, as long as you don't come knocking on my door, trying to convince me of your beliefs, you are free to believe whatever you want. If it helps you going through life, then even better. It doesn't really matter whether it's an illusion or not, as long as it is useful for you.
        • thumb
          Apr 15 2011: Hi Harald
          I agree with `Colby. Big bang advocates speculate about a pinhead exploding; not a lot of science there. Or abiogenesis; the science says it's impossible. Fossilization is an extremely rare occurrence requiring special circumstances, but we assume that it was going on for millions of years. That's not reasonable either.

          The bible has always said that the universe had a beginning and an end, while for most of history we believed it was eternal. It also tells us that God is eternal; it's only a matter of science catching up.

          :-)
      • Apr 12 2011: I don't see why belief in God would necessarily prevent people from searching further. How do you come to this conclusion?
        • thumb
          Apr 12 2011: Because, if people for example believe that the universe was created by God, then there really isn't any reason for them to search for other explanations. If you have an (perceived) answer to a question, why would you keep searching for an answer ?
        • Apr 12 2011: That answers the who and the why...Who created the universe and why He create the universe. That does not answer the how (the universe works the way it does).
        • thumb
          Apr 15 2011: Hi Harald

          The earlier scientists nearly all believed in god. How did that limit their work ?

          I believe in god & it is no barrier to my interest in how things work. Knowing the fact that Harley made my bike doesn't quench my interest in how it works. If you could show me a solid scientific fact in favour of macro evolution I would be very interested.

          :-)

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.