Why do/don't you believe in a higher power? (Any HP)

[Aellex]

Oh so you have no real evidence huh? If that is the case don’t make giant nonsense claims about atheist.

"WhErE aRe YoUr PrOoFs!!!?!!?"
Pls don't try that hard to fit the stereotype of the atheist, you're making me feel bad for you now.

[Neutraligon]

Oh so you have no real evidence huh? If that is the case don’t make giant nonsense claims about atheist.

"WhErE aRe YoUr PrOoFs!!!?!!?"
Pls don't try that hard to fit the stereotype of the atheist, you're making me feel bad for you now.

Given that many people are atheists do to the lack of evidence for a god, how is it a stereotype to be asking for evidence. Oh and...you provided no evidence for your claim beyond anecdotes.

[Menassa]

The Bible as it exists now is still accurate. Also, creationism is supported by science.

[1:5] God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
[1:12] The earth brought forth vegetation: plants yielding seed of every kind, and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the seed in it. And God saw that it was good.
[1:16] God made the two great lights - the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night - and the stars.

No, it's not. I don't know where you got that from, because no scientist believes that night, day, and plants were created before the sun, no scientist believes that the moon is luminescent, and no scientist believes that every star was created simultaneously. If this is supposed to be some metaphor, I'd really like to know what says that it is, because personal interpretation isn't going to cut it. And that still wouldn't explain the order of events.

If creationism is supported by science, why do around 97% of scientists believe in evolution? There is actually a list that was compiled of scientists who have variations of the name Steve that accept evolution that is longer than Answers in Genesis' list of scientists who dissent from evolution.

"Light"

[New Legland]

[1:5] God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
[1:12] The earth brought forth vegetation: plants yielding seed of every kind, and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the seed in it. And God saw that it was good.
[1:16] God made the two great lights - the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night - and the stars.

No, it's not. I don't know where you got that from, because no scientist believes that night, day, and plants were created before the sun, no scientist believes that the moon is luminescent, and no scientist believes that every star was created simultaneously. If this is supposed to be some metaphor, I'd really like to know what says that it is, because personal interpretation isn't going to cut it. And that still wouldn't explain the order of events.

If creationism is supported by science, why do around 97% of scientists believe in evolution? There is actually a list that was compiled of scientists who have variations of the name Steve that accept evolution that is longer than Answers in Genesis' list of scientists who dissent from evolution.

"Light"

Sorry, I don't understand, you'll have to be more specific.

[Frievolk]

Oh so you have no real evidence huh? If that is the case don’t make giant nonsense claims about atheist.

"WhErE aRe YoUr PrOoFs!!!?!!?"
Pls don't try that hard to fit the stereotype of the atheist, you're making me feel bad for you now.

It's less a matter of "fit the stereotype" and more a very good question tho. If you can't prove it exists, why should anyone believe it? Take your word for it that they have to "reach deep into their heart"?

[Menassa]

"Light"

Sorry, I don't understand, you'll have to be more specific.

https://thetorah.com/before-the-beginning/

[United New England]

What’s more important that whether there is a god is which of the hundreds of deities that have existed throughout human history is/are the true god/s.

Until someone/something can prove to me that their god is, without question, the only god that could ever exist, there are simply too many possibilities, including those imperceptible to the human mind, to attempt to worship a deity/deities with any conviction.

What if all of those many deities are flawed interpretations of different aspects, facets, or roles of an infinite god that is not fully comprehensible to the human mind? We can’t even fully understand ourselves, so I highly doubt that anyone has ever fully comprehended any deity that may exist.

[Olthar]

Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation. Accept Christ and trust Him as your savior, and you'll be saved forever!

I tried that once, but then I got a nasty rash.

[Kowani]

What’s more important that whether there is a god is which of the hundreds of deities that have existed throughout human history is/are the true god/s.

Until someone/something can prove to me that their god is, without question, the only god that could ever exist, there are simply too many possibilities, including those imperceptible to the human mind, to attempt to worship a deity/deities with any conviction.

What if all of those many deities are flawed interpretations of different aspects, facets, or roles of an infinite god that is not fully comprehensible to the human mind? We can’t even fully understand ourselves, so I highly doubt that anyone has ever fully comprehended any deity that may exist.

In that case, if all our interpretations are flawed, then there’s no point in believing because you’d be wrong all the time.

(Also, incomprehensible to the human mind is a cheap cop-out.

[New Legland]

Sorry, I don't understand, you'll have to be more specific.

https://thetorah.com/before-the-beginning/

I skimmed through the article to find the most relevant information, so forgive me if I missed something, but I believe you were referring to this paragraph:

"All this began to change in v. 3, “Let there be light” (verse 3). This light, a new element in the primeval soup, began to exist. It apparently mixed into the dark stuff immediately. That is why God’s second activity during the first day consisted of separating out the light from the dark stuff to establish daytime, nighttime, and thereby, a measurable day (verse 4).

God later improved on the light of the first day by creating the heavenly luminaries on the fourth day and designating their functions. The author’s unlikely conclusion that disembodied light must have been created before anything else appears to partake in the common ancient Near Eastern conception that light was associated with comprehensible order and structure, darkness with disorder and anti-structure.^[11]"

Sure, this could be acceptable if the disembodied light was only referred to as "the light" and kept that vague title (I wouldn't know much about debating that), but "God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night" before he "made the two great lights." This is saying that day and night were established before the Sun was, which is factually incorrect. The article does say that "There would need to be the regular cycle of day and night, complete with sun, moon and stars that governed longer and shorter days and dry and wet seasons (day 4)," but unless this is a matter of semantics, the problem still stands.

[Menassa]

https://thetorah.com/before-the-beginning/

I skimmed through the article to find the most relevant information, so forgive me if I missed something, but I believe you were referring to this paragraph:

All this began to change in v. 3, “Let there be light” (verse 3). This light, a new element in the primeval soup, began to exist. It apparently mixed into the dark stuff immediately. That is why God’s second activity during the first day consisted of separating out the light from the dark stuff to establish daytime, nighttime, and thereby, a measurable day (verse 4).

God later improved on the light of the first day by creating the heavenly luminaries on the fourth day and designating their functions. The author’s unlikely conclusion that disembodied light must have been created before anything else appears to partake in the common ancient Near Eastern conception that light was associated with comprehensible order and structure, darkness with disorder and anti-structure.^[11]

Sure, this could be acceptable if the disembodied light was only referred to as "the light" and kept that vague title (I wouldn't know much about debating that), but "God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night" before he "made the two great lights." This is saying that day and night were established before the Sun was, which is factually incorrect.

You've a very limited understanding of the verses contained within Genesis, which is totally understandable, most people do. The simple translations of the words 'light' 'dark' 'night' 'day' have never sufficed as proper explanations for an accurate cosmogony. Nor they have they ever been seen that way.

[New Legland]

Oh so you have no real evidence huh? If that is the case don’t make giant nonsense claims about atheist.

"WhErE aRe YoUr PrOoFs!!!?!!?"
Pls don't try that hard to fit the stereotype of the atheist, you're making me feel bad for you now.

Do you really think that asking for evidence isn't acceptable and is only an atheist stereotype? I mean, I could say that all Christians are ignorant bigots, citing nothing but "personal experience," but we all know that's not true. People would be right to ask for actual evidence and thinking otherwise makes it sound like you don't care about the verifiability of your claims and only believe what you want to.

[New Legland]

I skimmed through the article to find the most relevant information, so forgive me if I missed something, but I believe you were referring to this paragraph:

All this began to change in v. 3, “Let there be light” (verse 3). This light, a new element in the primeval soup, began to exist. It apparently mixed into the dark stuff immediately. That is why God’s second activity during the first day consisted of separating out the light from the dark stuff to establish daytime, nighttime, and thereby, a measurable day (verse 4).

God later improved on the light of the first day by creating the heavenly luminaries on the fourth day and designating their functions. The author’s unlikely conclusion that disembodied light must have been created before anything else appears to partake in the common ancient Near Eastern conception that light was associated with comprehensible order and structure, darkness with disorder and anti-structure.^[11]

Sure, this could be acceptable if the disembodied light was only referred to as "the light" and kept that vague title (I wouldn't know much about debating that), but "God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night" before he "made the two great lights." This is saying that day and night were established before the Sun was, which is factually incorrect.

You've a very limited understanding of the verses contained within Genesis, which is totally understandable, most people do. The simple translations of the words 'light' 'dark' 'night' 'day' have never sufficed as proper explanations for an accurate cosmogony. Nor they have they ever been seen that way.

Okay, I think I addressed this in my post, it's just that it came to my mind after I posted it and I edited it too late: 'The article does say that "There would need to be the regular cycle of day and night, complete with sun, moon and stars that governed longer and shorter days and dry and wet seasons (day 4)," but unless this is a matter of semantics, the problem still stands.'

If that's the explanation, I completely understand.

[Menassa]

You've a very limited understanding of the verses contained within Genesis, which is totally understandable, most people do. The simple translations of the words 'light' 'dark' 'night' 'day' have never sufficed as proper explanations for an accurate cosmogony. Nor they have they ever been seen that way.

Okay, I think I addressed this in my post, it's just that it came to my mind after I posted it and I edited it too late: 'The article does say that "There would need to be the regular cycle of day and night, complete with sun, moon and stars that governed longer and shorter days and dry and wet seasons (day 4)," but unless this is a matter of semantics, the problem still stands.'

If that's the explanation, I completely understand.

Light may mean energy Dark may mean primeval matter, not enough information is given in the 11 or so verses of an English translation of Genesis to make normative claims about the 'facts' of the matter, from either side of the aisle.

[New Legland]

Okay, I think I addressed this in my post, it's just that it came to my mind after I posted it and I edited it too late: 'The article does say that "There would need to be the regular cycle of day and night, complete with sun, moon and stars that governed longer and shorter days and dry and wet seasons (day 4)," but unless this is a matter of semantics, the problem still stands.'

If that's the explanation, I completely understand.

Light may mean energy Dark may mean primeval matter, not enough information is given in the 11 or so verses of an English translation of Genesis to make normative claims about the 'facts' of the matter, from either side of the aisle.

Soooo... it's a matter of semantics, which I accept as a valid explanation.

[Dogmeat]

What’s more important that whether there is a god is which of the hundreds of deities that have existed throughout human history is/are the true god/s.

Until someone/something can prove to me that their god is, without question, the only god that could ever exist, there are simply too many possibilities, including those imperceptible to the human mind, to attempt to worship a deity/deities with any conviction.

What if all of those many deities are flawed interpretations of different aspects, facets, or roles of an infinite god that is not fully comprehensible to the human mind? We can’t even fully understand ourselves, so I highly doubt that anyone has ever fully comprehended any deity that may exist.

The thing is though, when we're dealing with things like that - things that are real, but difficult to understand - then despite the inherent difficulty of these topics, over time experts begin to converge on consensus. Quantum mechanics is tricky and counter-intuitive, but vitally nobody who studies particles these days really disputes that, "this - apparently - is the way particles behave."

That's the opposite of what happens when it comes to God or religion. The "experts" only diverge. If they were all studying the same thing from different angles, they'd converge towards similar conclusions. But they don't.

[The New California Republic]

Oh so you have no real evidence huh? If that is the case don’t make giant nonsense claims about atheist.

"WhErE aRe YoUr PrOoFs!!!?!!?"
Pls don't try that hard to fit the stereotype of the atheist, you're making me feel bad for you now.

Oh joy, you are using words with intermittent caps again in a mocking manner, because you really have no response to a request for evidence. That is very telling.

And yes, that really bad stereotype of daring to ask for evidence when someone makes a claim. So terrible(!)

[Andsed]

Oh so you have no real evidence huh? If that is the case don’t make giant nonsense claims about atheist.

"WhErE aRe YoUr PrOoFs!!!?!!?"
Pls don't try that hard to fit the stereotype of the atheist, you're making me feel bad for you now.

So me asking for evidence of your massive claim about how atheist are apathetic and only atheist because of society is me being a stereotype? Just admit you made a massive generalization about atheist based on personal experience instead of actual facts instead of your weak attempts to make me look dumb. I am not asking much here just some evidence.

[The Blaatschapen]

Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation. Accept Christ and trust Him as your savior, and you'll be saved forever!

I tried that once, but then I got a nasty rash.

That is the wrong kind of salve used.

[Ausinia]

Oh so you have no real evidence huh? If that is the case don’t make giant nonsense claims about atheist.

"WhErE aRe YoUr PrOoFs!!!?!!?"
Pls don't try that hard to fit the stereotype of the atheist, you're making me feel bad for you now.

Ah yes, someone who doesn’t just feel but also thinks! Just imagaine what would happen if he accepted, probably wouldn’t last, like me..

[Aellex]

So me asking for evidence of your massive claim about how atheist are apathetic and only atheist because of society is me being a stereotype? Just admit you made a massive generalization about atheist based on personal experience instead of actual facts instead of your weak attempts to make me look dumb. I am not asking much here just some evidence.

Yeah, you bitching about needing "dem sources 'n prufs" when I'm making an anecdotal remark is quite the stereotype because you don't even pause for two second to try and comprehend what's being said but rather just jump to a Pavlovian response, no matter how inadequate it is to the current situation it is, without even thinking for a second.

"WhErE aRe YoUr PrOoFs!!!?!!?"
Pls don't try that hard to fit the stereotype of the atheist, you're making me feel bad for you now.

Oh joy, you are using words with intermittent caps again in a mocking manner, because you really have no response to a request for evidence. That is very telling.

And yes, that really bad stereotype of daring to ask for evidence when someone makes a claim. So terrible(!)

Well yes I'm not going to bother myself much when someone is bitching about sources in response to an opinion that is said to be anecdotal from the get-go because it deserves nothing more.

Yes, that stereotype of always screeching about having FACTS, SCIENCE and LOGIC on one's side and thus moaning about sourcez 'nz shitz even when it makes no sense whatsoever, it's a rather bad one indeed. As the saying goes, "La culture, c'est comme la confiture, moi on en a, plus on l'étale." :^)

Ah yes, someone who doesn’t just feel but also thinks! Just imagaine what would happen if he accepted, probably wouldn’t last, like me..

wat

[Jolthig]

Aellex, as a theist, and as someone who's been in your shoes in the past before I learned my lesson, you're not really getting anywhere in here, no offense. All you're doing is committing fallacies, and red herring.

An atheist simply isn't going to believe you. They believe in or rather have confidence in the theories and evidences science brings up for the world. They don't believe in anything supernatural or spiritual because they aren't of the natural world.

Even I acknowledge this as a theist. Take a vacation from the forum, man if atheists get under your skin.

[The New California Republic]

Yes, that stereotype of always screeching about having FACTS, SCIENCE and LOGIC on one's side and thus moaning about sourcez 'nz shitz even when it makes no sense whatsoever, it's a rather bad one indeed.

I don't really see how the whole burden of proof thing makes no sense to you, but whatever. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

As the saying goes, "La culture, c'est comme la confiture, moi on en a, plus on l'étale." :^)t

I think you mean La culture, c'est comme la confiture, moins on en a, plus on l'étale surely? No?

[Aellex]

Aellex, as a theist, and as someone who's been in your shoes in the past before I learned my lesson, you're not really getting anywhere in here, no offense. All you're doing is committing fallacies, and red herring.

An atheist simply isn't going to believe you. They believe in or rather have confidence in the theories and evidences science brings up for the world. They don't believe in anything supernatural or spiritual because they aren't of the natural world.

Even I acknowledge this as a theist. Take a vacation from the forum, man if atheists get under your skin.

Nah, it's alright fam. Most of my mates IRL are atheists so I'm accustomed to it but it's just that I can't help but feel a little bemused when people are playing a trope so straight.

[Jolthig]

Aellex, as a theist, and as someone who's been in your shoes in the past before I learned my lesson, you're not really getting anywhere in here, no offense. All you're doing is committing fallacies, and red herring.

An atheist simply isn't going to believe you. They believe in or rather have confidence in the theories and evidences science brings up for the world. They don't believe in anything supernatural or spiritual because they aren't of the natural world.

Even I acknowledge this as a theist. Take a vacation from the forum, man if atheists get under your skin.

Nah, it's alright fam. Most of my mates IRL are atheists so I'm accustomed to it but it's just that I can't help but feel a little bemused when people are playing a trope so straight.

That's cool, and all, but when you're debating, you should answer arguments with counter arguments. Not simply mocking someone's view by appealing to their beliefs in order to discredit them. That's kinda an ad hominem which is an invalid argument. Plus it makes us theists as a whole look bad.

When debating, I try my best to study the views of other people before engaging them. That's how debates become productive.