Why do you believe?

[Opeeved]

*removed*

[cutter7]

I like to believe i have an open mind, still waiting for proof of life emerging from a rock or dust, still waiting for proof of one species evolving from one species to another ( lots of fossils of dinosaurs but no humans with feathers or scales) but alas there is no support for such that leaves me with no alternative but to believe life on earth is by intelligent design.

Why would hominids have scales or feather s? They're neither reptiles or birds. You will find direct lineage through primate fossils though.

And since we don't exactly know how the pyramids were built, aliens must have built them

I've wondered the same thing from as the first post. A creator makes even less sense to me than trying to figure out particle physics, and I don't understand much at all there.

I am thinking of a time well before primates, can anyone explain to me how rock and dust mixed with moisture create life?

[Opeeved]

I like to believe i have an open mind, still waiting for proof of life emerging from a rock or dust, still waiting for proof of one species evolving from one species to another ( lots of fossils of dinosaurs but no humans with feathers or scales) but alas there is no support for such that leaves me with no alternative but to believe life on earth is by intelligent design.

Why would hominids have scales or feather s? They're neither reptiles or birds. You will find direct lineage through primate fossils though.

And since we don't exactly know how the pyramids were built, aliens must have built them

I've wondered the same thing from as the first post. A creator makes even less sense to me than trying to figure out particle physics, and I don't understand much at all there.

I am thinking of a time well before primates, can anyone explain to me how rock and dust mixed with moisture create life?[/quote]
No, I can't. You're asking for a person on a board to explain no less than one hundred years of genomics, physics, quantum mechanics, biology, astronomy, medicine.. among many disciplines. I'm sure you've noticed we're the only primate able to use a pen (or stone tablet) for the last 7 thousand years of written history. If you really want such a simple answer, you won't get one. If you want to approach the answer through a lifetime of learned knowledge and an appetite for the truth, well, thankfully, in the internet and cable age, you can start now.

[cutter7]

I have seen the chart that shows primates and humans have a common ancestor, the problem? the common ancestor is missing on the chart and unexplained.

evolution cannot show any species evolving to another, there are no fossils linking one species to another and no way to explain how life could possibly begin from a rock or dust, so if a person wants to believe in intelligent design, my opinion is they have the strongest argument

[Poindexter]

I have seen the chart that shows primates and humans have a common ancestor, the problem? the common ancestor is missing on the chart and unexplained.

evolution cannot show any species evolving to another, there are no fossils linking one species to another and no way to explain how life could possibly begin from a rock or dust, so if a person wants to believe in intelligent design, my opinion is they have the strongest argument

This to me exemplifies why the OP nailed the religion debate by simply asking why you believe. The only way someone would reason that something unexplained is proof of God is through belief because to someone like myself, it's an absurd assumption that we should have learned by now is just wrong..

The first assumption you implied is that rock or dust is a simple thing, that's a mistake. When the universe began there was one element -- hydrogen. A single electron circling a nucleus is how it started. In order for rock to exist that first element on the periodic table had to go through an extremely complex and cataclysmic process of gravity gathering the element, ignition of a star and the subsequent death of the star in a explosion that sent the newly formed elements back into the vacuum of space to be gathered again by gravity. This process took billions of years before the first rock formed. The formation of rock is no little achievement because in every rock is a concoction of many complex elements on the periodic table.

One of those elements is carbon and because all life is carbon based, as far as we know, the universe finally had the first ingredient in order for life to begin. So when you question how life could possibly come from rock or dust you're already off track because you are making the assumption that these are simple object which is far from true.

The first humans would have had no idea how rocks were formed and either assumed they were always there or was created by a God. This is where you need to be introspective and ask yourself, "why am I making the same mistake that early humans would have made". Especially in this day and age when over and over this assumption has proven to be wrong. Early man used a God to explain everything from what the moon is to why stars appear to float in the sky at night. We no longer need to or should be making this assumption.

Surely we've made enough progress as humans to have learned that not understanding something isn't proof of a God, it's simply proof that we have yet to know.

[youjustcomplain]

I have seen the chart that shows primates and humans have a common ancestor, the problem? the common ancestor is missing on the chart and unexplained.

evolution cannot show any species evolving to another, there are no fossils linking one species to another and no way to explain how life could possibly begin from a rock or dust, so if a person wants to believe in intelligent design, my opinion is they have the strongest argument

Poindexter made the point better than I ever could.
I'm curious though. You feel that because the answer to your question of rock+dust+moisture isn't simple, and can't be conveyed by lay people on an internet forum, that it must be impossible? Intelligent design is but another explanation that requires your faith. And yet, you make your choice. Why?

For me, it's not known how life started. Imo, stating that I don't know is a more honest answer than invoking whichever god you happen to believe in and say that HE must have done it. If the question is, how did life begin and you answer with God did it, then the next logical and tired old question is "who created god?". It's a god of the gaps problem that people of faith in god tend to fall victim to. Admit you don't know and follow the science where it leads you. Finding something you don't understand doesn't imply god. It implies ignorance. (I don't mean that as an insult because I'm also quite ignorant on the topic)

[Ka-El]

If the question is, how did life begin and you answer with God did it, then the next logical and tired old question is "who created god?".

While that counter-question certainly is tired, it is more rigid and limited than it is logical. Why would God (whatever it is) be confined to such constraints as beginning or end? Perhaps God has always existed and will always exist. Infinite. Time, after all, is only a construct made up by man to explain something we cannot understand - much like God.

[Poindexter]

God, after all, is only a construct made up by man to explain something we cannot understand - much like time.

[Thinktank]

I'm curious. Why do you (those who do), believe in a god, or spirits or afterlife... Whatever your beliefs are. Why believe ?

who cares what anyone believes. Today, the preacher does not like accumulating money. Tomorrow, he's accumulating money. People change their minds continually. Today I love my enemy. Tomorrow I hate him.

If you ask any of the one billion Christians, who all believe in prayer, given a choice between the prayers of ten of the best people on earth, or $1,000 - which one would they choose - all one billion Christians would choose the $1,000.

The only thing anyone really believes in is money. Yet, if you could choose between having a Mormon family as a neighbor, or an alcoholic, or drug dealers, or a lawyer, most people would choose the Mormon family. Because, while money is our only true god, religious people are still better. I'll trust a religious person more than a drug dealer any day.

[Opeeved]

If the question is, how did life begin and you answer with God did it, then the next logical and tired old question is "who created god?".

While that counter-question certainly is tired, it is more rigid and limited than it is logical. Why would God (whatever it is) be confined to such constraints as beginning or end? Perhaps God has always existed and will always exist. Infinite. Time, after all, is only a construct made up by man to explain something we cannot understand - much like God.

Planck time.

[Opeeved]

I'm curious. Why do you (those who do), believe in a god, or spirits or afterlife... Whatever your beliefs are. Why believe ?

who cares what anyone believes. Today, the preacher does not like accumulating money. Tomorrow, he's accumulating money. People change their minds continually. Today I love my enemy. Tomorrow I hate him.

If you ask any of the one billion Christians, who all believe in prayer, given a choice between the prayers of ten of the best people on earth, or $1,000 - which one would they choose - all one billion Christians would choose the $1,000.

The only thing anyone really believes in is money. Yet, if you could choose between having a Mormon family as a neighbor, or an alcoholic, or drug dealers, or a lawyer, most people would choose the Mormon family. Because, while money is our only true god, religious people are still better. I'll trust a religious person more than a drug dealer any day.

I'll take the lawyer, thanks. At least he knows the"rules" . The others make it up as they go along. Some so far as spaghetti monsters.

[youjustcomplain]

While that counter-question certainly is tired, it is more rigid and limited than it is logical. Why would God (whatever it is) be confined to such constraints as beginning or end? Perhaps God has always existed and will always exist. Infinite. Time, after all, is only a construct made up by man to explain something we cannot understand - much like God.

Why would god be confined to such constraints? If that is to be a valid question, then why should science be bound these restraints?

We have a scientific theory of the big bang that started everything as we know it. Believers spend countless hours trying to find a question about the Big Bang that would have a scientist say "I don't know", and as soon as it's said, the believer feels that the god hypothesis is given credibility. It doesn't.

To your second comment, if god is something we just can not understand, then why do we have holy people all over the world doing "gods work" and telling us what god expects of us, what will happen to us after we die. Why, it seems like if god can't be understood, then there really isn't any point in following him as what basis would we have to do so?

[Glacier]

You do realize that the Big Bang was proposed by a believer, right? It has nothing to do with believing or not.

[Ka-El]

Why would god be confined to such constraints? If that is to be a valid question, then why should science be bound these restraints?

Any constraints imposed on science have been created by man (eg. known laws of physics). There is a great deal that science is still trying to explain, and even more it has not yet discovered. Physicists and mathematicians are still working on Eisenstein’s theories. There is still so much we do not know.

We have a scientific theory of the big bang that started everything as we know it. Believers spend countless hours trying to find a question about the Big Bang that would have a scientist say "I don't know", and as soon as it's said, the believer feels that the god hypothesis is given credibility. It doesn't.

I’m not exactly sure what you’re trying to argue here. You are correct in stating the “Big Bang” is just a theory, and science is already looking at alternate theories tied to the creation of the universe (for example, an infinite number of “bangs” spread out and occurring at the same moment). It is a huge unknown. As far as science acknowledging it does not have the definitive answer as an indicator of credibility for the God hypothesis – well, I certainly never suggested that. People who believe in God, or some uniting universal power or force that is beyond our understanding, do so for a multitude of reasons – possibly the least significant one being science says “I don’t know”.

To your second comment, if god is something we just can not understand, then why do we have holy people all over the world doing "gods work" and telling us what god expects of us, what will happen to us after we die. Why, it seems like if god can't be understood, then there really isn't any point in following him as what basis would we have to do so?

It is completely your choice in what to believe and how to pursue understanding (assuming seeking greater understanding is even your choice). However, you should understand there is a great difference between religion (the tenets of which you have described) and spirituality. While the concepts can overlap, they are neither mutually exclusive nor mutually inclusive.

[youjustcomplain]

You do realize that the Big Bang was proposed by a believer, right? It has nothing to do with believing or not.

You've brought this up before. I still don't understand the relevance. Why does it matter who came up with the idea? We're all human, whether we believe in a god or not. I'm sure there are lots of valid theories that has yet to be proved incorrect that came from believers in a god. I don't discount theory because of who came up with it.