I DO NOT believe the LDS church is true. But I do believe in god. I really don't think one has anything to do with the other.

Here is a great video I found on YouTube, which better explains what I think:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dwq4BtjVG7U&feature=channel_video_title

I know a lot of people don't believe in God, simply because he doesn't jump in and "save" everyone and everything, every time something bad happens. But I don't consider that a very good reason. And I just want to know why everyone assumes that only the belief in God is totally impossible? Atheism can be equally impossible, which I will explain below.

As for why "God" doesn't interfere, you have to understand something called "free will" and "fairness". Every human being has to have free will in order to be accountable for their actions. Unfortunately, free will also includes the freedom to do bad things. If there were no free will, there would be no way to distinguish between good people and bad people. Murder wouldn't be such a horrible sin, such a profound sign of an evil heart, if it didn't have devastating effects on a person and their family.

Then there is the "fairness" I mentioned. True, murder, theft, kidnapping, sexual assault-- those are all the result of an evil person's free will, which again, everyone must have.

But what about things that are not a result of free will? Things like cancer, or other random deadly illnesses? Or natural disasters?

Well... Again, he has to be fair. And it wouldn't be fair to save someone from cancer, but not save a child from being kidnapped through someone's free will. So in order to be completely fair, its best to just not interfere at all.

That doesn't mean there is no god, or that he hates us all. It just means that everything will be straightened out in the afterlife. Death is only a horrible, awful, unfair thing to people who don't believe in an afterlife. To religious people, its like taking you kid to get a shot-- they will hate you, and think you don't care about their feelings. But YOU know its necessary, and why.

And as for atheism being equally impossible-- its true. The belief that an entire universe can suddenly "burst" into being, with all its mass-- from absolute nothingness... Its just as supernatural and far-fetched as the idea of a God. Nothingness cannot produce something. It can only produce more nothingness. So where did all this "something" come from?

And actually, according to science and the law that "something cannot come from nothing", and "there can be no effect without a cause"-- what the scientists/atheists believe should by all means be completely impossible! Yet they believe it, just like religious people believe in God.

Sure, some of them have plenty of theories and explanations... But when you really examine them, they are just as fantastic, miraculous, and far-fetched as the idea of a God too!

Point: Both sides believe in something we cannot prove, and which could by all means be impossible. So what's the difference?

Personally, I think its nothing more than a matter of preference, because its certainly NOT a matter of "provable facts".



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/25/2011 03:58PM by melissa3839.

And if god can create the whole universe out of nothing, isn't that the same argument you gave that "something cannot come from nothing"?

:o)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/25/2011 03:28PM by wine country girl.

And what's even MORE fascinating that she can't believe something came from nothing is that she believes GOD came from nothing!

Who created this god and if "it" is eternal, why couldn't spontaneous Universe-creation be eternal, too?

Well, the argument that "something cannot come from nothing".... That's not my argument. That's what scientists believe.

I don't believe that, I think there are many things we cannot explain.

Science is the pursuit of knowledge. Of course there are things we can't explain. But the process of science is the best way we have to find the explanations. Anything else is just guesswork.

Oops, I meant to be one level up on my reply.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/25/2011 03:49PM by zygar.

Last I checked scientists say the Universe as we know it came from a singularity, which is something.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/25/2011 04:16PM by MJ.

In this other thread: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,146171,146654#msg-146654 people attempt to point out how similar a belief in god is to a belief that god created Mormondumb.

They're *very* similar, in fact.

You could educate yourself about the facts of religion and it would likely make you rethink your belief that YOUR god is fair.

The universe and everything in it can exist without a god, but the people still cling to something that has no proof associated with it: faith.

Where did god come from in the first place? Religion doesn't answer that.

Atheism and science don't have all the answers. Otherwise we'd have no research going on. Science is always coming up with new answers to old questions.

I don't think a lot of people believe there is no god simply because we don't see him/her interfering in people's lives. However, there's the Problem of Evil, which you don't seem to have grasped very well. Check here for a good takedown of your arguments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil

As for me, I don't believe in god because there's no evidence for god. Period. None whatsoever. And there's not a lot of reason to believe something without evidence.

What makes you think athiests are afraid of death because there's no afterlife? That's a pretty misinformed generalization of us.

I have some small sympathy with those who believe in a god, although I believe all religions are constructs used to control people.

Your religious feelings are 'a belief'.... and I have no problem with anyone believing what they like....
However, please do not try and equate 'religion' and 'science' until you can reply to this post by praying to your chosen deity

True, not all atheists are afraid to die.

But still, the "big bang" suddenly exploding out of nothing, and some of the other far-fetched theories... They are just as impossible as God creating it all. People seem to skip over that fact.

People say there is "no proof" of God. Well, there is no proof of any other way the universe could have been created either. Thus far, all we have are "theories" thought up by people with a dizzying enough intellect to confuse others. But aside from that, we have nothing. Because none of us were alive to witness it all happening. All we can do is guess, and try to calculate things mathematically. But even scientists have no answer for what cause "the big bang". At least not one that is less far-fetched than God.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/25/2011 03:47PM by melissa3839.

You seem to have some odd ideas about the big bang theory and science.
While I don't profess to comprehend math beyond the basics, I understand that math can explain all the ins and outs of the universe and its origins.

One explanation I've heard regarding the big bang isn't about "something coming from nothing," but rather from a mass of matter so incredibly dense that when it exploded it created the universe. Stars collapsing are a pretty good example of this theory. (I saw this on the Science channel a few weeks ago right before I fell asleep so my apologies to the science peeps here for any glaring inaccuracies.)

from wikipedia:

"While theories in the arts and philosophy may address ideas and empirical phenomena which are not easily observable, in modern science the term "theory", or "scientific theory" is generally understood to refer to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with scientific method. Such theories are preferably described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand, verify, and challenge (or "falsify") it. In this modern scientific context the distinction between theory and practice corresponds roughly to the distinction between theoretical science and technology or applied science. A distinction is sometimes made in science between theories and hypotheses, which are theories that are not considered to have been satisfactorily tested or proven."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

Melissa, your last sentence was most revealing. You said:

"Personally, I think its nothing more than a matter of preference, because its certainly NOT a matter of "provable facts"."


What you really mean, I think, is that it is a matter of "faith" and in that you are exactly right. It takes faith to believe in God and free will and fairness as you have described.

From my atheist perspective there really is no cosmic fairness, no divine hand guiding events to make everything work out right in the end, no settling of accounts in the afterlife. Life is unfair. Children are swept out to sea in a mindless tsunami. Old people suffer for years with some debilitating disease. All sorts of horrible scenarios can be conjured up.

But all sorts of good things happen, too. An 80 year-old women is found alive, buried in rubble for more than a week. People walk away from terrible auto accidents. Good things happen and bad things happen. There is no balance scale to level the playing field.

As for free will, yes, I do believe we have free will but that must be tempered with morality that existed long before God was ever imagined and even longer before religion existed. Everyone the world over understand The Golden Rule. We are born with the capacity for empathy and compassion - we learn to be cruel and violent.

My point is, it is up to us to live the best way we can, do right by our families and our fellow human beings, think critically but justly and let nature take its course. Maybe I've oversimplified the issue here but, in a nutshell, that's what I believe. That's how I live.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/25/2011 03:51PM by nebularry.

I like your answer.

And melissa3839, you're a nice person.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/25/2011 03:58PM by wine country girl.

True, it is a matter of faith. But I believe it takes just as much faith to believe that everything simply exist all by itself.

And again, even if it was a matter of "something so dense that it created the universe when it exploded", you are still left with the question "what made that something? Where did it come from?" Because again, scientists believe that "Something cannot come from nothing".

Also, that too is only a theory. Not something that has been proven.

I'm not left with that question because scientists are always looking for the answers...Science doesn't pretend know everything because there is always something newly discovered to add to the equation. Maybe someday science will be able to explain it, maybe not. That doesn't prove that "godidit."

I disagree it takes faith to see the world as I do...I can easily pick up a book, call my science minded friends, and really research the hell out of something to point at the VERY least, support it. I don't see where you can do that with god. It's an intangible idea.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/25/2011 04:20PM by itzpapalotl.

I know this because I can see and touch the earth...

Now, I can believe one of two things:

1: The earth exists for no other reason than the earth exists.

2: The earth exists because some supper duper all powerful all knowing thing popped up out of nowhere and created everything from nothing.

Now, we apply Acoms Razor, the idea that the simplest explanation is most likely the right one. In both cases, 1 and 2, the earth exists, but number two is much more complicated because it requires some all powerful unexplained thing in order to make everything work. So, the simplest answer is that Earth just exists.

Or we can believe that some super duper nothing popped up and created the universe out of nothing.

Of course we will always have the religious misrepresenting science, but current theory is that the universe came from SOMETHING, that SOMETHING was a SINGULARITY.

And POOF your point goes away.

No one really believes that do they? You really need a better understanding of science.

But melessa is insisting that deal with a claim that NOBODY BUT HER is making.

...and so that's what she conflates with atheism and science.

Both of which she apparently knows only a very little about and about which she is wrong in most of her facts.

Why doesn't she respond to those who point out her misconceptions about science and atheism? Because then her faith seems even more specious.

Presbyterians, Catholic, Luteran, etc. all worship the father,son and holy ghost.

You only have freewill if there is a deity to give freewill. Who said he gave you freewill? Site sources for your proof. How good are your sources? Can you 'prove' your sources are true? How old are your sources? Can others using they same methodology prove them?

Do monkeys have freewill? They care for each other, they can kill one another, they get cancer, and they will defend one another. Why do they do that? Was there a monkey god, or monkey Jesus who died for them too? Is there a monkey bible that tells them how to behave?

There is a difference between trusting science and having faith in a god. No one can show any empirical evidence of a creator. No empirical proof that a Geesus lived or was a god. Faith is belief in things that cannot be proven.

Do you believe in the theory of gravity or the theory of electromagnetism? Do you know what a scientific theory means? The theory of evolution is a fairly new branch of science. The evidence of its proof is growing, not shrinking. It will continue to grow and will become more widely accepted because you can study it and see the evidence. It does not require faith if you understand the logic, reasoning and the science behind the evidence. But YOU must take time to understand it. You can't wait for a warm fuzzy to tell you that it is true.

What medical advances has a religious book provided in the past 1000 years? What new scientific breakthroughs has the bible presented? What problems has god solved for mankind? Has he provided antibiotics? Immunizations? Chemo, radiation, x-rays, vitamins, new seeds to promote agriculture to feed the starving?

Pretty much have to give credit to the hardworking, studious, scientist who have devoted years of their lives to research to make the world a better place. It would be nice if god would do a bit of the same... if he exists that is.

I don't really compare humans to animals. Humans are held to higher standards of behavior, because we are more intelligent. Even if there was no God, this would still be true, by our own human laws. Lions don't go to prison for killing another lion. But a human will go to prison for killing another human.

Our country sends young men overseas to kill humans. They don't go to prison. They are hero's. Police kill humans, part of their job when required. Many would call abortion a method of killing humans. They don't go to prison. (not trying to start a new debate here...) Evidently we're not that intelligent.

You should compare people to animals. You would gain a lot of insight into our behavior when you realize we share many of the same characteristics of behavior, Not to mention our DNA.

Assuming we all (humans and animals) evolved on this same planet, then we should share many of the same characteristics that allowed us to flourish and not vanish.

To see these facts you have to look at things in a new way - Like getting prescription glasses for the first time. You don't know what your missing because your use to limited sight.

to compare humans to animals.

Humans ARE animals.

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Genus: Homo
Species: H. sapiens
Subspecies: H. s. sapiens

melissa3839 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> As for why "God" doesn't interfere, you have to
> understand something called "free will" and
> "fairness". Every human being has to have free
> will in order to be accountable for their actions.
> Unfortunately, free will also includes the freedom
> to do bad things. If there were no free will,
> there would be no way to distinguish between good
> people and bad people. Murder wouldn't be such a
> horrible sin, such a profound sign of an evil
> heart, if it didn't have devastating effects on a
> person and their family.
>

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God? -- Epicurus

> Point: Both sides believe in something we cannot prove, and which could by all means be impossible. So what's the difference?

The difference is, it is not up to to both sides to prove their point. It is up to those that claim their is a God to show proof of God, otherwise it is a "Burden of Proof" logical fallacy.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

The reason for the burden of proof logical fallacy is to prevent people from making absurd claims like "There is a Pepsi machine on Pluto, prove me wrong". Without the assumptions of the burden of proof logical fallacy, everyone would be chasing their tails trying to disprove all sorts of made up nonsense. So, the difference is, without proof evidence that a claim is true, the assumption is that the claim is false. Without proof that there is a Pepsi machine on Pluto, the assumption is that there is not Pepsi machine on Pluto. Same with God.

Religion suggests that we're not here to be prevented from doing things, we are here to be tested. So if this is a test, in which we are given free will, then the person who gave it to us is none of the above.

Wouldn't an all knowing God know the results? So, what's the point of the test? Oh, that's right, to test to see if this all knowing supposedly perfect God actually got his creation right!

Here's the difference between the science and the theology of the matter - at least, as I see it.

Science has a verifiable chain of events backward from this moment, through history, past history all the way back to the beginning. We can see it, measure it, test it and analyze it. It is material and natural. Do we know EXACTLY how it all began? No. But based on the evidence we have, we're pretty sure. The big picture is in view, the details are a bit fuzzy.

What does theology have? Nothing but a long string of "God-did-it's" and no real explanations for anything. It's all faith and fantasy, smoke and mirrors, myth and magic.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it!

melissa3839 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I know a lot of people don't believe in God,
> simply because he doesn't jump in and "save"
> everyone and everything, every time something bad
> happens.

Actually, I don't know anybody who is an athiest because of this. They may bring it up to make certain points, but this isn't the primary reason.

> And as for atheism being equally impossible-- its
> true. The belief that an entire universe can
> suddenly "burst" into being, with all its mass--
> from absolute nothingness...

I don't know anybody who believes this either. There are many hypothesis about what existed prior to the big bang, but it hasn't existed for several billion years, so it's a bit hard to figure out. Particularly since the big bang, was, well a big bang. It probably obliterated anything that existed before it.

>Yet they believe it, just like religious people believe in >God.

Uh, no. See above.

Well the reason its assumed that they believe the universe came from nothing, is because there is no answer for where it came from, and when they calculate far back enough, the closest thing they can come up with is a void.

Science believes that the Universe came from a SINGULARITY, and a SINGULARITY is SOMETHING.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/25/2011 05:29PM by MJ.

melissa3839 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well the reason its assumed that they believe the
> universe came from nothing,

How about if instead of assuming what they believe, you actually study what they believe. Or, maybe ask them. Actually, MJ has explained this to you already.

I think that the real problem is that you have no desire to understand the science, and prefer to make assumptions that support your paradigm. Facts be damned.

A theory is not just a guess. Believing a scientific theory and having faith in god is no where near the same thing. Not even close. In order for an idea to be classified as a theory it has to be observed tested and then observed and tested again and again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

I don't want to change your mind about believing in god. If you want to explain the universe that way that is understandable, but do it only on faith. I think it is dangerous to compare science with faith though. I believe the "theory" of the big bang because scientists have made observations and with todays knowledge the big bang is the best way to explain those observations.

side note with no meaning;

it was a priest who proposed the idea of the "big bang" - just seems so ironic...

And the pope promotes that god was behind it... http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20027781-501465.html


Really? Where will it all end?

So you believe in a god who doesn't do anything?

Or this god simply created the universe and THEN didn't do anything?

The point of my post was not to debate weather or not God exists.. But more to state that neither side has 100% proof of what they believe. There is a lot of "guessing" going on. I know we don't have absolute proof against God, because if we did, that would be the biggest event on the news of all time! "Somebody finally answered the question as old as time!"

So I'm just asking everyone to remember that nobody has proof. Yes, we have proof that our surroundings exist. But that's not the same as having proof of where it all came from.

Otherwise the assumption is there is no god. To try to claim that the people that assume there is no god because there is no evidence of God need to prove anything is a LOGICAL FALLACY.


http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

Here's another nice link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

The big bang is a theory because it has quite a bit of proof behind it.

You may still prefer to think that god created the universe, but I wouldn't dump all over the big bang because evidence of the big bang can be seen in your television set, your microwave, and when you dust your house.

Just out of curiosity, is your belief in god independent of the bible/religion, or do you leave room for the possibility that the bible is fiction and the god of abrahamic faiths is a character in that fiction? In other words, are you defending the belief in A god or THE god?

I realize this is a generalization but it seems like believers in the Judeo-Christian god/bible believe in an absolute. It is THAT god, THOSE rules, etc, and nothing can change it. I have yet to meet a person making the case for a creator who was simply making the case of a creator unknown. It's always a case made for the god of the bible.

I would be interested in hearing from anyone who does not believe in the bible but believes that there is a higher being out there, unrelated to religion, just a higher being who created earth and man for reasons unknown (no rules, heaven, hell, demands, etc), and who is satisfied with the notion of this unknown creator. Is it possible to believe in a higher being/creator without believing in religion? I've honestly never heard an argument made for this scenario, it's always either atheism or belief in the judeo-christian god. Is there an argument for a god that is not rooted in biblical foundations? (in this case, I'm not looking for a discussion about deities in non-abrahamic faiths)

This is just out of curiosity. If it matters, I am an atheist and believe in the big bang theory.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/25/2011 06:11PM by wittyname.

I admit that I like the idea of a creator. I think most people are afraid to not believe in God because they believe they are saved just because they believe, or they are afraid of social critisism.

The idea of a creator makes sense to me. But to be honest I conform no rules. I have decided to believe in God as much as he reveals himself to me.... which admittedly is not much. I pray because it is a nice way for me to think things through.

So is the concept of God that you believe in independent of Judaism/Christianity, the bible/scriptures? Do you lean toward any faith? Do any standard religious holidays have any significance to you? Or is it simply a personal relationship with your own personal concept of a creator? I don't mean to interrogate you, I'm legitimately curious about this.

I think religious systems are ways to control people and their money. Both my husband and I have Christian/Mormon backgrounds but believe the teachings are myth. We celebrate the holidays because it is fun to get together and eat with our families. We don't feel it necessary to push are beliefs on others because that is what is wrong with religion. But we are not afraid to say we do not believe the same way others do.

Interesting! Thanks for sharing your views!

OOPS! I didn't mean to reply to myself.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/25/2011 06:50PM by wittyname.

are those damn tides.

Oh and magnets.

How do those things work? You can't trust science. I heard Science was so stupid that it saw a fat guy in a red shirt and was like "look it's the kool-aid man."

And don't even get me started on Science's momma. His momma is so dumb that...