Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
“Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for. By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.” — Hebrews 11:1-3
Science and belief in God can absolutely go hand in hand. Science is the study of what is observable (Creation), and faith is the utilization of science to understand the un-observable (is there a Creator).
Faith that is sure of something is much better than faith that is blind, so it’s good to ask questions.
Even "City of God" couldn't reconcile it
The Torah (Old Testament) is the basis for people's belief in God. And almost everything in it has been disproven by science (archeology, history, geology, astronomy, etc) in recent years. That being the case, how can the rest have any credibility.
Why do people place their entire faith in "the one true God" solely on one single book compiled by Judean scholars in the second century BC? Those scholars had an agenda to glorify the Judean people by creating a mythological history.
The Gospels in the New Testament are full of highly questionable stories and were written by people who never even met Jesus. And Revelations reads like the imaginings of a schizophrenic.
Science isn't infallible. Humans aren't close to knowing everything. But my question is, why do people believe in "God" or gods at all?
i think it's ok to believe minor things that commonly happen without special evidence. like for example if someone says stuff like "i have a degree in (insert whatever field)". people have degrees so you can suspend disbelieve.
but with extraordinary claims like gods or people claiming to know what happened before big bang or after you die... things that have no evidence and no precedent, you should never just believe it. cause that's delusional. if you're not critical of these things, you'll fall for snakeoil and quacks. that's not a good way to go about life.
This isn't a question that science can actually address, because it's not the right tool. God, if such exists, would by definition be that which is responsible for our physical reality, and thus transcend it in much the same way as a novelist transcends (i. e. is not a part of) the story that he/she has created.
Good point. I can't see skin cells even with my glasses lenses, but we don't say "don't believe it", just because the wrong tool failed to expose it.
Opinion
30Opinion
What do you mean there's tons of scientific evidence God exists. More so than evidence he doesn't exist. There's scientific evidence of a Divine creator and every Nick and cranny of creation. In fact we have the ability to love and have emotions like jealousy and anger is scientific proof. Ask yourself this can you create something from nothing. How did the universe come to being into existence clearly it was created. Because if it wasn't created where did it come from you can't take and make something out of absolutely nothing only a Divine Creator can do that. You can take supplies and materials that already exist and make something like you can take a tree and make a chair but you can't make a chair out of absolutely nothing. Then ask yourself this ask yourself this if God doesn't exist why does everybody no within the fabric of their being that they were wonderfully made and not an accident. There's no such thing as an atheist or sinking submarine if you're dying when you're going down you're praying to somebody because here's the logic of the issue if there's no God and you're right then I lose nothing but if there is a God and I'm right and you're wrong you just rolled the dice for no reason at all why even roll the dice it's a fool's bet
There is plenty of historic archaeological evidence that can be dated scientifically for Jesus being around and to corroborate testimony from witnesses that wrote the gospel of Jesus... Here's another piece that was just in the news recently. If you want to believe historic documents or not, that's up to you.
The problem that you have is much of science was tested by other scientists historically and they recorded their testimony. Because they claim to be scientists you take them as truth. While you may have recreated some experiments, you have not recreated all of their experiments to test the validity of their ideas. You just have faith in their testimony. If you can have faith in scientists testimony for hundreds of years ago, and you can have faith in historic evidence about the world recorded from hundreds of years ago, and you can have faith that literature and philosophy were written by certain men hundreds of years ago, then why would you reject the religious men that gave you testimony on what they experienced and witness when multiple witnesses corroborate each other's stories and historic archaeological evidence helps to back up their claims? It seems like you have a bias.
That's the problem with so many people that proclaim science as their answer to everything... Most of those people are not scientists. I can easily notice this because, I am a scientist... When you study science, a big part of your education is research. You are trained to be skeptical and critical of most "science" you read. You can go through many papers and think they are complete bs, that there isn't a quality data set, that the hypothesis is flawed, that it comes from an nonreputable source, etc. That's your job as a peer in the field, to not trust the science... If something looks sound, then if you have the chance you carry out the experiment yourself to test it and then you repeat that experiment many times and document your findings. If you findings confirm their findings then you report on it to further corroborate the evidence. If you find a flaw in their position you challenge their position and disprove their assertion. Only non scientists worship science.
I agree with you that many people don’t understand science (and I think that is due to how science is taught in schools). It bothers me when people argue by saying something along the lines of, “this is an irrefutable, scientific fact”.
I think believing things 'blindly' (whether it is a religious scholar or scientist) can be problematic.
*whether it is from a religious scholar or scientist
Hi OfDeath, are you replying to phraseology?
That's what he's doing. He's come to deny all early writing about Jesus and all archaeological locations discussed in the Bible that have been unearthed, studied, and dated in Israel for example, all early churches, ancient religious graffiti, etc... There is real evidence for the existence of Jesus in Judea. Some will deny Jesus was Messiah even when they claim to believe in God, others will claim even though he existed as a man that doesn't mean he was God int he flesh. Like I said, it's up to you if you believe the testimony of independent eye witnesses that corroborate one another concerning what they observed and documented. The same can be said of all historic documents regardless of if they are science, literature, law proceedings, chronology of history, etc. When dealing with human knowledge at some point you need to have some level of trust. Our ideas are built upon one another. Everything you have been taught in life depends on the faith you have in humanity and what they have recorded to make learning easier for you. If you trust nothing, you know nothing and can measure nothing because all forms of language and measure were made by other men in other times. You pick up where they left off and advance humanity in our pursuit of understanding of the world around us.
I am not interested in debating whether or not Jesus exists. I am not religious, so I don't care.
Eye witness testimony is not convincing because people can lie/hallucinate/misunderstand.
I live without 100% certainty of anything, and I am fine with that.
So you dismiss all of human history? Why then are you typing in the English language? How can you trust that it is real?
Did someone tell that the English language is real? What if they lied, hallucinated, or misunderstood? Do you think in the English as well? If you do, how can you trust your own thoughts if the foundation for them could be flawed by human testimony?
I mean England doesn't even exit on the map today, historians tell us that the United Kingdom was formed by the unification of England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland but how can we trust them that England even existed? All we can see today is the United Kingdom. What if lied, hallucinated, or misunderstood? How can we know England is real? If England is not real, how can there be an English language? If there is no English language then your entire mind is flawed. What can you do now?
**What they if lied...
Do I think all of human history should be taken at face-value? No; winners write history.
Is it useful to read history? Yes, because you can learn about the minds of people who wrote it, as well as possible things that happened (which you can hopefully verify by other means such as archeological evidence)
Why then are you typing in the English Language? Because I was taught English and that is the only language I know well.
How can you trust that it is real? I don’t know what you mean by that. I can see the written language with my eyes and hear the spoken language with my ears. What matters is that the language works and is useful for communicating with other people who also know English.
How can you trust a historian?
You evaluate the credibility of the person. You can also verify their claims by other means (e. g. archeological evidence). And if that is too much work, you can choose to believe it anyways. That is up to you.
If England is not real, how can there be an English Language? I don’t need to know England existed to know that English exists.
People have different opinions on what is adequate evidence. If testimonies are good enough to you for believing in a God, good for you. Just don't shove your beliefs down other peoples throats.
So what you are arguing is that you were indoctrinated into the faith of English, thus since your religion tells you that English is real you accept it. You have a consensus among the followers of English that it is in fact true because among your followers you agree to have faith in a particular set of ideas. Did you know that there are only approximately 400 million native English speakers on planet Earth? In comparison to Christianity, the English faith is a small one. There are 2.18 billion Christians on Earth. Thus by your own logic of consensus, you should trust in Christianity even more so than in the English faith due to the magnitude of consensus. If you travel around the world, those ideas will be agreed upon by far more people than English.
You TOTALLY understand my perspective, and your reading comprehension / logic skills are flawless. ;) Have a good rest of your day.
Why are you running away? Ah did your brain break? It's clear your can't substantiate why you follow your belief system. You just follow a set of bias positions based on faith given to you by your cultural upbringing. As a result you are unable to conduct unbias scientific research, and thus can trust nothing you think.
You are an unreliable source for your own mind due to your own bias.
You're probably just hallucinating though... That's your answer for everything.
Why The Evidence For Jesus Hasn't Convinced Me, Yet ↗
I found this to be an interesting take on the evidence about the historicity of Jesus.
m I get this STRONG impression that we can't really stop to believe in something unsubstantial or unreachable, whatever that is, the very concept of belief, or faith, seems part of us.
I really think we need to believe, like we need oxygen.
However, for too many reasons, believing in God would not be my favorite belief at all lol. I'll go with faith in humanity instead, not the all mighty humanity either. Because humanity would be just a pixel in time and space, all scales considered.
@Gold618
Well, appearances are deceitful lol
I mean, we are used to consider that a belief is related to spirituality or religion, but it's misconceived, due to how much spirituality is advertised around us. I suppose you believe in the good and the bad for example, as you have been raised to believe in that?
Science is just another religion.
It makes the unproven assumption that just because you can detect things with human senses they must be the only things that exist.
There's no more reason to blindly accept the dogma of science then there is to accept the dogma of any other religion.
Furthermore science has no answer to the most quintessential questions.
They cannot provide a rational explanation for the existence of the universe or create even the most simple living organism. Yet they expect us to believe that they have all the answers and summarily dismiss the beliefs of other religions.
I don't think anyone should blindly believe anything (whether you get info from a Scientist or Religious figure). I recommend always being skeptical.
Agree.
Fire,
They need to go camping in the forest.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyJRsp5t9mA
It's all about the Big Bang theory that happened 14 billion years ago. That explains it all. There was bang, and then there were owls in the trees. It all makes sense!
I'm not saying there's a guy with a white beard, but no human on Earth can explain how it all works, or why we are here.
Exactly so. These pompous "scientists," especially the Marxist ones, are just pushing a political agenda using "science" as the religion of their cult.
My least favorite expression that they use is "We now know that..."
Yeah right... You know NOTHING!
Call me back when you can create a universe or even a single living cell!
PS: I liked John Denver from way before you were born. 😉
There are 10,000 religions in the world. But it's only chic to complain about God. Allah is awesome. (or they will cut your head off. That would suck to not have a head)
Yes, John had beautiful music.
True, sucks to be a Democrat.
The attack on God is not about God really, it's about Western civilization and freedom. Marxism requires you to bow to the God of government autocrats and put them before all others. All communist systems outlaw religious beliefs in a God that is a higher authority then their government. Government is all powerful in communism and the only God you may bow to is them.
That makes sense in this crazy world.
They have figured out how to brainwash a good portion of the Western world with their anti-God propaganda and have them working for their communist cause as their "useful idiots."
They are like the The Association of German National Jews who supported Hitler in his rise to power. And as soon as he got it they were the first to go into the ovens.
In the spring, the butterflies will come out from their caves, (or wherever they go in the winter. Maybe the Bahamas) and I believe this doesn't just happen by chance. There has to be some kind of higher power choreographing this all out. The name of the power doesn't matter to me. But to deny it, is goofy.
I agree with a minor twist. I don't think it's goofy to be skeptical that there is some kind of higher power. But I think it is goofy to categorically rule it out.
"Should" is difficult. What's their goal? Would belief in a god support or deter their ability to reach that goal?
Everyone says the naturalistic or is-ought fallacy is a hallmark of science. I say that surely it is impossible to determine what you ought to do from an is statement. But all I need are two IS statements and I can give you an ought. If it IS the case that you want your vehicle to last you as long as possible; and it IS the case that proper maintenance helps your vehicle last longer. Then you OUGHT to perform proper routine maintenance.
Don't go full retard, kiddo.
Belief doesn't work on "evidence". Even science doesn't work on evidence alone, as a lot of it is just theories and collective opinion. What is "science fact" today could be hoax, fraud, or interested advice tomorrow.
I am not sure what you are trying to say. You can believe something without being certain.
People can believe in whatever they want to. I'm not religious but I'm not going to tell someone they can't be religious because there's no evidence. That's what faith is. I understand the need for some people to believe in some higher power. So long as their beliefs don't impact mine, or I'm forced to follow rules because of religious beliefs then I don't care.
People can believe what they want with or without any scientific evidence. Embarrassing is just letting yourself manipulate because of ideology that is often connected with your belief. Especially if this particular ideology lays an emphasis on blind and unquestionable loyalty toward people who control narrative and information flow of belief your picked.
It's good to be optimistic and open minded to the idea but not to be set entirely on a specific religion or belief or that it is factual and 100%. Focus on just being a decent human being and doing your best and if there's a creator or supreme being who knows your heart, they will be understanding and know you did what you could to be a good person at heart.
the bible is made up of faith you can't belive in God without haveing some sort of faith in him and science cannot explain the maricles he has performed a good story from the bible is when this roman soldier comes to Jesus and asks him to heal someone and Jesus asks to be taken to this person but the roman soldier says no for if you say it is so it will be done just as you say and jesus responds by saying that he has more faith than all the people in the land combined.
SAME as you believe any college book "without personally checking scientific evidence" so yes but...
what you are REALLY asking is: "should people believe in electrons without seeing them in a microscope".
or a better analogy: "Should you believe in plant cells, that you can't see with your spectacles glasses?"
your spectacle lenses do not see small same as science only sees physical not spirit.
I don't care if someone believes in anyone.
I have a problem when someone tells me that if you don't believe in my God and Godman, then you will burn in the fire of hell or we will kill you or we will abuse you
Whether people should or shouldn’t is up to the individual.
"This restores one's faith in politicians"
Those who wrote this example have a great sense of humor 👌🏼😂
@Maybe_Maybe_not 🤣, didn’t notice when I posted it lol
I didn't notice that either until it was pointed out
I now have faith there is someone as bad with details as me and needs things pointed out sometimes. 🤷♂️
"Should people..." Belief in God is not a choice. It's a conclusion based on the evidence, or, as near as I can tell, the complete lack of evidence. I can no more believe in God than I can believe in Leprechauns or Bigfoot.
Why does God always need money? 🤔
I like it too.
Agnostics can do it too !
because they need some higher power to impact their lives...
but government is a higher power... so that is not the reason.
If there's scientific evidence, it's not a belief, it's a theory. A belief in a supernatural like God involves faith, and faith doesn't need evidence.
There's evidence that ice cream sales cause an increase in rapes. That doesn't make it a theory. Would make it an hypothesis. A Theory is a hypothesis that's been tested repeatedly, has strong explanatory power, and hasn't yet been disproven. IE Germ Theory Of Disease, Theory Of Gravity, etc.
If we value rationality, the only answer is no. People shouldn’t believe fantasy stories to be taken literally.
Phraseology seems to be a religious nut job. He doesn't understand that some people see English as just a tool of communication...
I don't think people understand how science works. Science basically explains "approximately" what is "physically observable" in the universe. You can't rely on science to explain everything.
Faith is not a knowledge of things. In fact if someone has a perfect knowledge of something then faith is null and void, no longer necessary
So the universe came from nothing... life came from nothing... when you die you become nothing.
No scientific proof for that either.
Personal choice and you don't have to believe in just one God. Prior to Christianity people believed in nature and forces of nature too
I don't care. I'm not falling for the ''trust me bro'' things. Mostly.
Do you believe in the scientific method without evidence? No. It is believed on faith in it.
humans can't even comprehend the minds of robots nor the size of our Earth let alone an omnipresent entity that can't be explained or proven by modern science technology
Science is the most reliable method for finding the truth. there's nothing else. So if you believe something without scientifc evidence, your chances of being wrong extrapolate.
There is no set rules. Whatever helps you pick up your bootstraps and trudge through another full day of life.
Other: When it comes to ''believe'' there should (sic!) not be a 'should'' involved.
Every scientific things are evidence of God existence
Yup, the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) is totally real. ;)
Yes, just as they have Faith in other aspects of life.
I don't know what you mean by "Faith in other aspects of life". Please give some examples.
Should people believe in anything without scientific evidence?
When you step on a plane you have faith it will not crash. When you start a relationship you have faith you could fall in love. When you cheer for your football team you have faith they will win the game.
Yes, there are things in life you should believe in without waiting for clear scientific evidence.
Is there a possibility that you will die in a plane crash, not fall in love, and your football team will lose?
If yes, do you accept the possibility that God (s) do not exist? Why?
Yes there is a possibility. But I believe He exists. How is the world worse if God exists?
I am glad you are open minded to the possibility that God (s) do not exist, and I am tolerant of you believing that one still exists.
I don't think the world is worse by just believing God (s) exist (s).
Believing God (s) exist + other related stuff, without being open-minded of the possibility of being wrong (i. e. "my way or the highway"), is problematic.
For sure
It doesn’t matter. You feel him guiding you sometimes. That’s good enough evidence
Without evidence so this is the least of their worries
People should believe what they believe for the reasons they believe it.
You only believe without scientific proof
I like my deities better 🌌
You can’t disprove God exists.
You can also add your opinion below!
