Does God exist? (7 Viewers)

[RANK 1]

Well logically if you consider the definition of God as "omnipotent" then one would assume he has precedence over notions such as time and space, meaning that the concept of something coming "before" God has no real relevance.

accidentally used that instead of omnipresent

 

[mirakon]

Occam's Razor solves this problem rather nicely. If a solution is elaborate then it is less credible than a simpler solution

Again Occam's Razor is never a solution, its a general rule of thumb. It's generally accepted that Occam's Razor has no real purpose in arguments about metaphysical concepts considering that it applies to logical concepts and God is an illogical concept.

 

[Bored_of_HSC]

God wishes everybody lived good lives on this planet without unintentionally sinning. Worshipping may not make us happier immediately or even consistently (been there, done that). Worshipping is often an act of thanking the Lord for all good things, acknowledging our faith for Him (though the true degree of faith one has is often tested practically by the Lord. If the person is just showing off his so called faith without much actual faith, God, through a 'practical test of faith' shows him this so he (hopefully) realises his mistake and goes back to building real faith) and/or simply because people Love him. Worshipping makes God happy, and those who HAPPILY worship God know this, and so are happy because they know God's happy.

Another thing God may wish to do is make this world seem like an unattractive place and encourage people to worship Him so they can eventually reach Heaven and bask in permanent happiness. He doesn't have to do this. We're the ones who have sinned, yet out of love and empathy, He's attempting to get us back onto the right track and attain permanent happiness

But i still don't see why god has to go through all these "tests". If he was truely "good", as per your definition, why not just let us live in permanent happiiness from day 1? (after all many hardships end up making people "bad")

 

[funkshen]

I also think that people concentrate too much on the "God" part of the question rather than the "Exist" part. Even up till now, philosophers have failed to actually provide a wholesome definition of what existence is.

there is no such thing as being, only becoming. existence is about boundaries. you can't prove existence exists (a la ayn rand) if you're contained within the boundaries of existence.

the point of the existential journey from heraclitus to heidegger (or satre or whoever) is that the metaphysical project is fucking redundant. practical metaphysics (like religious doctrines for example) only solve this by laying down some arbitrary criteria (always contradictory) and taking it from there.

 

[lolcakes52]

Again Occam's Razor is never a solution, its a general rule of thumb. It's generally accepted that Occam's Razor has no real purpose in arguments about metaphysical concepts considering that it applies to logical concepts and God is an illogical concept.

I guess that is the problem with this discussion. Its seems impossible to disprove metaphysical notions with non-metaphysical logic.

 

[mirakon]

there is no such thing as being, only becoming. existence is about boundaries. you can't prove existence exists (a la ayn rand) if you're contained within the boundaries of existence.

the point of the existential journey from heraclitus to heidegger (or satre or whoever) is that the metaphysical project is fucking redundant

true

 

[RANK 1]

well you can't prove if a being like god exists or not, hence the next best thing would be to deduce the likelihoods of his existence based on the characteristics he's given, however this changes from person to person

 

[mirakon]

I guess that is the problem with this discussion. Its seems impossible to disprove metaphysical notions with non-metaphysical logic.

indeed and its why i've realised discussion about God's existence is probably one of the most annoying and tedious philosophical problems we have, and ultimately irrelevant. I'd much rather discuss ethics or other more interesting problems.

 

[lolcakes52]

indeed and its why i've realised discussion about God's existence is probably one of the most annoying and tedious philosophical problems we have, and ultimately irrelevant. I'd much rather discuss ethics or other more interesting problems.

You have expanded my horizons. Thanks

 

[mirakon]

You have expanded my horizons. Thanks

No problem

 

[planino]

Thats the thing, i think its ridiculous to try and prove/disprove the existence of God via logic, as such a notion is in itself illogical.

^

 

[RANK 1]

indeed and its why i've realised discussion about God's existence is probably one of the most annoying and tedious philosophical problems we have, and ultimately irrelevant. I'd much rather discuss ethics or other more interesting problems.

well for me its more about them justifying why they believe in god, i.e my sister believes it because the scripture person told her hes real and 'the bible says so'

 

[mirakon]

Am I certain there is a God? No. Do I have a reason? No. To be perfectly honest I simply believe in God because I am an idealist who thinks its interesting and more fulfilling to have a world that isn't simply dictated by logic. Its more of a preference than anything else.

 

[planino]

by your logic, god cant exist either

I know you lightly touched on it in a later post, but please explain further

 

[Absolutezero]

well for me its more about them justifying why they believe in god, i.e my sister believes it because the scripture person told her hes real and 'the bible says so'

Religion has the burden of proof. They have to justify their belief.

Poe's Law version of the student/professor routine

 

[funkshen]

Am I certain there is a God? No. Do I have a reason? No. To be perfectly honest I simply believe in God because I am an idealist who thinks its interesting and more fulfilling to have a world that isn't simply dictated by logic. Its more of a preference than anything else.

i like to go out killing hookers on friday nights. do i have a reason? no. to be perfectly honest, i like to do this because i'm an idealist who thinks its more interesting and fulfilling to have a world where hookers are killed regularly on saturday nights that not. its more i have a preference than anything else.

given the metaphysical framework you're working with, how can you ever possibly criticise someones preferences? what a cop out.

 

[IamBread]

My bad, I should have clarified:
If a person has committed a sin, then I'm saying that very person suffers, not their children - why should their children suffer for their misdeeds?.

My mistake, I thought you were referring to Adam and Eve. But still, people make mistakes, if they do something wrong, that do not deserve eternal punishment.

'God' in my previous post wasn't referring to any specific entity, it was used in a general sense and in no way did I mention that 'my' God was the true one, or superior to any other God. I actually believe that there is only one God, it's just that many different designations are attached to Him. A tap can be called a tap or a faucet, either way it's a tap (or faucet depending on what you call it by) and there's no difference, or correct designation, or superiority between the two terminologies of the same thing).

If something bad happens to another, we should under no circumstances point fingers and criticise them at all - in this way we're adding on to their suffering. Rather we should show compassion and help them out as best as possible since God is in every one of us, when we help another, we have served God (NOTE: Do not think that I'm saying that we're Gods, if I was a God, then English wouldn't be a compulsory HSC subject). Also making others happy in times of need is a great thing to do for obvious reasons

However, if something bad has happened to us, then we should recognise and accept that it's a penalty for a past sin. I fully agree with your post (bar the last part of your first paragraph). There may not be scientific evidence for God, but that's where faith comes in

with all due respect, I hope you understand

But that's the point. The whole idea of God and religion is based purely on faith. Realistically, believing in God is the same as having an imaginary friend. A person may believe that their imaginary friend is real, but in no way does it make it real. All they have is faith. I could believe that there was an invisible pink unicorn behind you, but that doesn't mean there actually is an invisible pink unicorn behind you.

Einstein or not, I found the student's explanations quite enlightening

The professor is an idiot. The argument is stupid. It in no way proves God.
Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it. Now tell me, Professor, do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?

Professor: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do.

Student : Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?

(The Professor shook his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the argument was going.)

Student : Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor. Are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher?
This line shows that the person who wrote this has no idea how evolution works or what evolution is. Even the 'professor' is extremely stupid with his responses.

 

[funkshen]

I know you lightly touched on it in a later post, but please explain further

any rationalist metaphysical project concerned with a 'god' (e.g. aquinas, spinoza, kant) is always based on premises that are ultimately inconsistent or unconvincing (atleast to the end of proving or explaining god).

if you think you can do better than them give it a crack

 

[IamBread]

Am I certain there is a God? No. Do I have a reason? No. To be perfectly honest I simply believe in God because I am an idealist who thinks its interesting and more fulfilling to have a world that isn't simply dictated by logic. Its more of a preference than anything else.

But how does that in anyway make God actually exist? You are just hoping there is one. That's all. I could believe that Santa exists because it makes Christmas more interesting and more fulfilling then just my parents giving me presents. While that might be true, it does not make it true. You need to realise just because you want to believe something, doesn't make it true.

 

[mirakon]

But how does that in anyway make God actually exist? You are just hoping there is one. That's all. I could believe that Santa exists because it makes Christmas more interesting and more fulfilling then just my parents giving me presents. While that might be true, it does not make it true. You need to realise just because you want to believe something, doesn't make it true.

That's my point. I never said God actually exists, I just like the thought of it