Does God exist? (3 Viewers)

[B1andB2]

Right now our current understanding of Science can not exist with God.

On what basis? Science and God's existence go hand in hand.

 

[B1andB2]

Well for example if god or heaven existed it would obviously have to exist in some other higher dimension that we can not see or travel to right now. However so far only 4 dimensions have been proven with time being the 4th one. The rest of the ‘proposed’ dimensions are just theories and not proven laws, so with our current laws of Physics it can not coexist.

I will admit i have 0 knowledge on whatever you just said so unfortunately i cannot rebut, welp.

 

[Drdusk]

I will admit i have 0 knowledge on whatever you just said so unfortunately i cannot rebut, welp.

Yeah that’s kinda my bad I gave a really bad example that even I find weird.

What I’m trying to say is in the grand scheme of things it seems like they can go hand in hand but getting into the nitty gritty it really raises a lot of alarming questions that we have no Scientific explanation for because science hasn’t gotten up to that point yet.

 

[idkkdi]

Without anyone causing anyone else pain, why would there be a need to suffer : (

the assumption that no one causes anyone else pain was not in my statement.

 

[Squar3root]

If you could eliminate all pain would you?

ofc you should, everyone would be happy then. if there was a god this would be the case.

What is life without pain?

no religions lel

I think anyone CAN find evidence of God’s existence, it’s just whether they WANT to or not

That's called confirmation bias. It's like saying i found a comic of spiderman so he must be real as well

 

[Speed’o’sound Sonic]

ofc you should, everyone would be happy then. if there was a god this would be the case.

no religions lel

That's called confirmation bias. It's like saying i found a comic of spiderman so he must be real as well

Eliminating all pain would in no way make all people happy imho.
Without pain there could be no happiness, as people would have no opposite to judge it against, and hence would see it as the norm.
And I think you totally misunderstood what I said and compared it to a comic let’s keep things civil and respect other’s beliefs yeah : )

 

[Squar3root]

Eliminating all pain would in no way make all people happy imho.
Without pain there could be no happiness, as people would have no opposite to judge it against, and hence would see it as the norm.
And I think you totally misunderstood what I said and compared it to a comic let’s keep things civil and respect other’s beliefs yeah : )

yeah that's true, if there were no pain people will just start to expect more and more and never be happy

I prob did misunderstand. I myself am atheist and don't believe in any religious texts which is why I compare bibles etc to comics cos that is all that I think they are.

 

[Coconut1]

What don't you agree with the bible on, there is a strong foundation of morals even for non-believers.

 

[Speed’o’sound Sonic]

What don't you agree with the bible on, there is a strong foundation of morals even for non-believers.

Don’t agree with the beginning of the Old Testament when God was killing people for stealing, etc.
Also believe people should be free to have their own sexual preferences/beliefs.
And some of the 10 commandments are Wack haha.

 

[thetestdude]

What don't you agree with the bible on, there is a strong foundation of morals even for non-believers.

100%

And some of the 10 commandments are Wack haha.

1. You shall have no other gods before Me.
2. You shall not make idols.
3. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
5. Honor your father and your mother.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10. You shall not covet.

Which ones if you don't mind me asking?

 

[Speed’o’sound Sonic]

100%

1. You shall have no other gods before Me.
2. You shall not make idols.
3. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
5. Honor your father and your mother.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10. You shall not covet.

Which ones if you don't mind me asking?

I’m not sure what it’s called, I’m Christian but just a bit more loose haha.
I don’t agree with the second, I try my best to support other religious beliefs too

 

[thetestdude]

I’m not sure what it’s called, I’m Christian but just a bit more loose haha.
I don’t agree with the second

Fair enough. I think the second commandment is a bit tricky because of how people might interpret it. I believe it's asking us not to make idols so that our focus on our faith in God isn't affected. Sometimes we may idolise a figure whom we think is good but isn't. Other times we might be so influenced by someone to the point where we consider them a god.

There is a difference between idolising a particular figure, and appreciating whatever positive contributions they have made to our world. The former should be directed at God, and the latter can be directed at any person, where applicable.

I try my best to support other religious beliefs too

I'm pretty sure supporting other religious beliefs does not necessarily imply idolising a particular key figure from a different religion. In fact, supporting other religious beliefs only serves to promote peace between different religious groups, which is definitely a Christian understanding.

 

[dan964]

See life does seem highly unlikely to occur. I remember reading soo many times how when cooling down even if something almost negligible was different the universe as we know it wouldn’t have existed. With that being said it’s not an objective proof. Objective proof would be for example if God itself came down to Earth or something and spoke to all of humanity or whatever, or if someone from the dead could come back alive and bring evidence of a heaven or what not. Sure how un-probable we are to exist can suggest something external at play but suggesting is not the same as proving. There are soo many things in life that have like a 1 in millions chance of happening and still happen because that’s how probability works.

There’s a wonderful quote which I adore.

“If there are gods and they are just, they will not care about how devout you have been but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods but they are unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no Gods you will be gone but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones” - Marcus Aurelius.

.....
It’s kind of similar to our evolution in knowledge of a black hole. Back in the old days Scientists had many theories regarding why our observations of the galaxy are not consistent with our calculations, there were theories that existed and black holes was one of them. Just like God some people believed it others didn’t and it was just a suggestion/theory. However now we actually have a real photo of a black hole and it matches everything we calculated and observed so that’s an objective proof confirming black holes in fact do exist.

(1) Firstly, why the obsession with 'objective' proof?
There are a lot of things that are given and not necessarily explained by science.
(I would even argue that mathematics should be considered separate field to the empirical methodology of science)

For instance there are 3 types of knowledge:
1. Logic / maths / laws e.g. knowing the rules of chess.
>> This requires reason but more importantly a good starting point (base assumptions/axioms)

2. Science / empirical e.g. knowing that water boils at 100 degrees
>> This requires good measures and instruments;
e.g. I can look at a person and determine how tall they are.

3. Relational e.g. knowing a person.
>> This requires trust in what the person is saying.
e.g. I can know Bob because Bob has told me about his likes/dislikes etc.

As great as maths and science are, they can only determine so much about a person. Sure if God was Russell's teapot, then we would have certainly disproven his existence surely, and there would no believers.

For instance, the origins of information (true or otherwise) are something that cannot be explained by science. (This also includes DNA, morals, and the origins of reason/thoughts); although we can explain how information is transformed, transferred. Even AI (predictive AI) requires information to be fed into it, from an external source (such as a human), and its code is written by humans.

Science starts at a zero point assuming that we don’t know anything about the universe and then seeks evidence and experiments to prove anything we come up with.

(2) It is factually incorrect to say that science starts from a point of zero knowledge and then moves to enlightenment through experiment. Even maths doesn't start from a point of zero knowledge.
Most of science is based on previous knowledge (whether that knowledge is correct or not). Science doesn't start from a blank slate.
Pragmatically, a lot of science is driven by previous predictions/theory or practical applications.

Maths on the hand, is all about the assumptions and setting the rules. This is why maths can sometimes be divorced from science.

Secondly, science operates on assumptions and basis as well as maths.

For example, it assumes that the mechanics of the universe are relatively unchanging (in terms of the physical laws) (or what the Bible refers to 'nothing new under the sun'), which basically is why you can conduct the same experiment several times and get the same conclusions.

(3) Bases for truth
What the black hole example actually was, is that people used their existing knowledge of black holes and calculations to be able to photograph it (there is an episode on Catalyst on ABC that looks in this). All the photo did was confirm existing theory was on the right track, which leads me to these criterion for what is true.

1. Correspondence/consistent - does it fit with all other information?
2. Coherence - is it clear and understandable?
3. Relevance/Pragmatic - is it is useful/liveable?

“If there are gods and they are just, they will not care about how devout you have been but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods but they are unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no Gods you will be gone but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones” - Marcus Aurelius .

There is a lot wrong with this quote (it is like an inverted version of Pascals wager) ,
It assumes that a just God (imposing our warped understanding of just) is a God who doesn't care how faithful we've been (deliberately substitution here). It is like saying that a just ruler doesn't care if its citizens obey the laws of the land; or a Father doesn't care to discipline his children when they show him no respect. If that is the case for these earthly examples, how much more so for one who made the heavens and the earth?

...

 

[dan964]

Objective proof would be for example if God itself came down to Earth or something and spoke to all of humanity or whatever, or if someone from the dead could come back alive and bring evidence of a heaven or what not.

> Jesus, if you take him at his word, then there is your objective proof, a man who came down and went to heaven;
AND on top of that who is God incarnate (come down to human flesh).

> Secondly, even if someone came back from the dead or God came down; there is no guarantee that people will listen to you.

27 “The rich man answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’

30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.

The point is people don't listen to the words of God (Moses and the Prophets and the Gospel), then they won't even be convinced if someone did come back from the dead with evidence.

The issue is not a lack of evidence, the issue is hard-heartedness (unwilling to believe) and trust issues.

 

[dan964]

I’m not sure what it’s called, I’m Christian but just a bit more loose haha.
I don’t agree with the second, I try my best to support other religious beliefs too

If you take the first, then the second logically follows.

Just as it would be wrong/improper for a husband/wife to be unfaithful to their wife/husband in adultery (#7);
Then if there is one God, then it would be wrong/improper to worship other Gods. Hence why no idols.

Besides if you read the 10 Commandments in context, (you will notice, that #2 is the one they break)
"Then the Lord spoke to you out of the fire. You heard the sound of words but saw no form; there was only a voice

"You saw no form of any kind the day the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully, so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman... (etc)"

The point is when the 10 Commandments were given, there was no form, but a voice. Something that is clearly repeats.
full text here

 

[dan964]

I am increasing convinced that we'll never be able to prove the existence of God via science and to attempt to do is futile.

(My conclusion at the bottom in blue)

===================================================
Consider these words, from a witness of resurrected Jesus/God (full text here: here)

Spoiler

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.” Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.


Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him.

And so it was with me, brothers and sisters. When I came to you, I did not come with eloquence or human wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3 I came to you in weakness with great fear and trembling...

We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words. The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them...

or consider these words from Jesus: (full text: here)

Spoiler

I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word. Now they know that everything you have given me comes from you. For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me. I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours

The point is that God doesn't reveal himself to all men (or to everyone), nor is he a God that is not known by the wisdom of the world, by philosophers.

You can ask for God to give "proof" in the form of miracles / signs. But the issue is that unless that God reveals himself, aye, through the Lord Jesus, then it is a futile exercise. Unless you listen to his words, the gospel (which is about Jesus) then you'll never know him.

Practically, this means in this debate, if you want 'proof' of God existence, then read and weigh up what is his word.
You have to deal with Jesus who not only claimed to have come from God, and gone back to him; but also showed (attested to by witnesses) that he was indeed 'God among us" (or Immanuel), which is something even in our calendars to this day we mark at Christmas.[/ispoiler][/spoiler]

 

[thetestdude]

If you take the first, then the second logically follows.

Just as it would be wrong/improper for a husband/wife to be unfaithful to their wife/husband in adultery (#7);
Then if there is one God, then it would be wrong/improper to worship other Gods. Hence why no idols.

Besides if you read the 10 Commandments in context, (you will notice, that #2 is the one they break)
"Then the Lord spoke to you out of the fire. You heard the sound of words but saw no form; there was only a voice

"You saw no form of any kind the day the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully, so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman... (etc)"

The point is when the 10 Commandments were given, there was no form, but a voice. Something that is clearly repeats.
full text here

You elaborated on the Commandment much better than I did, in fact.

I am increasing convinced that we'll never be able to prove the existence of God via science and to attempt to do is futile.

A friend of mine once said "If God exists and he is almighty, why would he make it easy for us, or even possible, to prove his existence?"

I spent time thinking about this. For someone who believes in the coexistence of God and science in our world, I believe in some sort of hierarchy/ranking system. That is, if God exists, he would be classified higher than humans, meaning that his existence cannot be proven by anything humanly (e.g. the laws of physics). But that's just a theory.

 

[dan964]

You elaborated on the Commandment much better than I did, in fact.



A friend of mine once said "If God exists and he is almighty, why would he make it easy for us, or even possible, to prove his existence?"

I spent time thinking about this. For someone who believes in the coexistence of God and science in our world, I believe in some sort of hierarchy/ranking system. That is, if God exists, he would be classified higher than humans, meaning that his existence cannot be proven by anything humanly (e.g. the laws of physics). But that's just a theory.

Well he is the term is 'holy' - so radically different to us, his 'existence' is not the same as ours.

The point is if God is personal, then the only way would know him truely (beyond saying he is big, powerful and eternal) is if he revealed himself to us (spoke to us), and just as we can refuse to reveal our personal information to someone who is a stranger, so indeed God can reveal to whom he chooses.

why would he make it easy for us, or even possible, to prove his existence?. He wouldn't because that would leave us to boast.

 

[thetestdude]

Well he is the term is 'holy' - so radically different to us, his 'existence' is not the same as ours.

The point is if God is personal, then the only way would know him truely (beyond saying he is big, powerful and eternal) is if he revealed himself to us (spoke to us), and just as we can refuse to reveal our personal information to someone who is a stranger, so indeed God can reveal to whom he chooses.

why would he make it easy for us, or even possible, to prove his existence?. He wouldn't because that would leave us to boast.

Absolutely

 

[dan964]

Absolutely

that said the debates are still worthwhile. good for testing and exposing each others assumptions.