Does God exist? (12 Viewers)

[davin]

a question on that jcnme, if i may. or well, two.

do you have a particular reason why you do believe/ have faith? do you think it possible to convince someone else to have faith? or is all the evidence purely on a personal level?


and note, i'm curious, not attacking. i think you've got a sensible attitude toward proving God exists, from what you said.

 

[transcendent]

*sigh

i was hoping this thread would die.

 

[HotShot]

A The sun 'rises' each day because as the earth spins around the sun.
B The sun 'rises' each day because Zeus commands it to!

A Your computer turns on when you press the button because electricity begins to flow.
B When you press the button it signals magical leprehauns inside your computer to get to work!

A The rivers were created by rain.
B The rivers were created by a magical gigantic snake!

A The sun is a firey ball of gas.
B The sun is a magical fairy that shines upon us!

why do u stop there? ask youself? why does the sun rise? why does electricity flow? keep asking why? and you will find that 'zues commanded ..' isnt such bad thought at all.

the fact is, science is bullshit upon bullshit, its like one lie leading to hundred. once you uncover one lie it leads to the uncovering of all the other lies, and then you realise hey, science hasnt explained jack shit at all.

on the other religion, simply puts it upfront god did it. u cant argue with tat? 'science' may have made ithappen? but what made science? of course god did i mean who else?

 

[jcnme]

a question on that jcnme, if i may. or well, two.

do you have a particular reason why you do believe/ have faith? do you think it possible to convince someone else to have faith? or is all the evidence purely on a personal level?


and note, i'm curious, not attacking. i think you've got a sensible attitude toward proving God exists, from what you said.

The reasons for my faith are so numerous it would be too labourous to enumerate. but then again why does anyone beleive in anything... i gues because deep down their instincts sense its true...

perhaps the best way i could describe it is to liken faith to the wind. for example you cant see the wind but you can feel it blowing and more importantly you can see the effects of it... in the same way you cant see God but you can have faith that he does exist because you can feel his pressence and you can see the effects he has on people lives.

as to convincing someone else to have faith... im absolutely certain that all the evidence is definately on a personal level and i very much doubt that you could persuade someone otherwise...

And on that note i also think that it is ethically wrong and deplorable to try and convince anybody into any faith... its definately a personal thing.

cheers

oxo

h

 

[davin]

see, if more religious people were like you, i think there'd be far fewer really annoyed athiests in the world.

the fact is, science is bullshit upon bullshit, its like one lie leading to hundred. once you uncover one lie it leads to the uncovering of all the other lies, and then you realise hey, science hasnt explained jack shit at all.

on the other religion, simply puts it upfront god did it. u cant argue with tat? 'science' may have made ithappen? but what made science? of course god did i mean who else?

hotshot, if science is pointless, please get off the internet now. this is science at work.

 

[robo-andie]

the fact is, science is bullshit upon bullshit, its like one lie leading to hundred. once you uncover one lie it leads to the uncovering of all the other lies, and then you realise hey, science hasnt explained jack shit at all.

This method of analysis can be applied to any explaination given by anyone. You only have to approach their theory with a closed mind and it works.

on the other religion, simply puts it upfront god did it. u cant argue with tat?

Well, you can, and we have been. The debate still continues.

'science' may have made ithappen? but what made science? of course god did i mean who else?

God didn't create science. We created science, we gave the pursuit of knowledge which describes the 'why' a name; science. Just like all other names, we created them, we developed language ourselves.


Science is in no competition with religion and it is sad you see it that way.

 

[HotShot]

God didn't create science. We created science, we gave the pursuit of knowledge which describes the 'why' a name; science. Just like all other names, we created them, we developed language ourselves.


Science is in no competition with religion and it is sad you see it that way.

we created them, but who created us? - now i am not religious in the sense i dont believe supersititions or the existence of god, but i am intrigued by how u argue that science is a reason for god non-existence.

its not competition, its rather how you see it. As humans we are limited, but people see god as unlimited - all powerful and that he is capable of anything. SO really science is nothing to him, it all comes down to one question?
how did it all start?

according u to we created science. so u claim science didnt exists before humans...? u srs?

 

[robo-andie]

we created them, but who created us? - now i am not religious in the sense i dont believe supersititions or the existence of god, but i am intrigued by how u argue that science is a reason for god non-existence.

Ok, 'who created us', are you asking me to provide proof of this, because if you are, then I can't, no one really can. IMO we started from nothingness (or near enough to), atoms, slowly binding together and reacting with other molecules, growing and changing over billions of years, until eventually it evolved into the human species. You get the drift, I am pretty much a supporter of the evolution theory.
Also, I personally am not arguing 'that science is a reason for god(s) non-existence'. Nothing of the sort. So please, don't associate ME with that argument. I am well aware Science and Religion work together and I am in support of this.

its not competition, its rather how you see it. As humans we are limited, but people see god as unlimited - all powerful and that he is capable of anything. SO really science is nothing to him, it all comes down to one question?
how did it all start?

I really can't make sense of this. What exactly are you trying to say?

according u to we created science. so u claim science didnt exists before humans...? u srs?

haha, no of course it existed before we did. It wasn't until we were aware of it that we could name it and study it. It's not like scientifical theories and the subjects they focussed on, only appeared when we created science (created meaning acknowleding its existence). Just because we don't realise it is there, or just because we don't understand or have a name for it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. This works for the theory of God (and that's all it is, a theory, as is science).

 

[blue_chameleon]

Just because we don't realise it is there, or just because we don't understand or have a name for it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. This works for the theory of God (and that's all it is, a theory, as is science).

Bing bing bing! We have a winner!

 

[davin]

science isn't a theory. its a process of finding rules as to how things work or happen. unless one wants to get into epistemology, that part isn't up for debate.

as for god, the issue isn't that science disproves the potential existance of god, its that, with science, we haven't hit a point where 'god' has become a neccessary concept. natural explanations have worked.
from there you get two groups...athiests that then say there is no god, and agnostics like myself. personally, i don't believe at all that if there's a god he is at all intervening in the universe, but i can't rule out 100% that one exists. were god passive, there'd be no way to tell.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

the fact is, science is bullshit upon bullshit, its like one lie leading to hundred. once you uncover one lie it leads to the uncovering of all the other lies, and then you realise hey, science hasnt explained jack shit at all.

on the other religion, simply puts it upfront god did it. u cant argue with tat? 'science' may have made ithappen? but what made science? of course god did i mean who else?

Hotshot: You're giving religion a different standard of proof than science. Also, NO, definitive answers that have just been thrown out there with no justification are not any good at all... "God did it" will never satisfy anyone that's really trying to find the truth.

Just because we don't realise it is there, or just because we don't understand or have a name for it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

It doesn't mean it does exist either. Robo-Andie I am sure you're already aware of such thinking and apply it yourself... but I feel the need to repeat it because I think some others are unaware and think what you just said is justification for believing in whatever you so please.

Lets say we wanted to prove Santa Claus didn't exist, so what would we do? We'd start throwing reindeer off a cliff to see if any could fly... because Santa requires reindeer.

Now we do it to one, it falls off and dies - splat -
We do it to another 5000, they all fall off the cliff and die - splat -

Now at what point can we say 'chances are there is no flying reindeer' or 'there is no flying reindeer' ? Only after we have thrown them all off the cliff to test it? No that's a ridiculous burden of proof and it doesn't apply to real life. We are creatures of induction, when we walk out onto the road we dont test to see if it's going to fall through on us because we've inductively come to the conclusion that it does not happen.

So when answering the question of whether reindeers can fly, we say currently it is true that reindeer cannot fly, but that could change in the future with some revelation. Our 'truth' is not ultimate (because we cannot know the ultimate truth) but instead is just based off the best knowledge we have at the current time.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Davin, can you please find me an atheist who claims that they 100% know that god does not exist? I'm not 100% sure there is no God, but I call myself an atheist? Why? Because I don't think there is a God, inductively. It's the same standard as anything else, I wouldn't say I am a "flying magical pink goat from zoltan" agnostic, I'd say I'm an atheist.... the fact that I am not 100% certain (OF ANYHTING) doesn't mean that I shouldn't state clearly what my current position on a matter is.

To say you're agnostic (imo) is more about you truely having a struggle in your mind over which is true, with both sides having a fair grasp at your beliefs.

 

[crazyhomo]

Davin, can you please find me an atheist who claims that they 100% know that god does not exist?

i do

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I am sure you know that you can't be certain about anything.

 

[davin]

i would differentiate it in that i can't rule out anything similar to diesm, which doesn't feature a god that intervenes at all. i'm doubtful still, but i have no way to prove or disprove an uninvolved god.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

But you have no reason to believe in it either, there's no clue to bring you to such a conclusion. Also, how can something not intervene... AT ALL... and still exist?

 

[davin]

i would compare it to multiverse theories. one can talk about it...sometime later we may be able to test it, but for now....no clue one way or the other.

 

[crazyhomo]

I am sure you know that you can't be certain about anything.

you seem pretty certain about that

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I am pretty certain, but I am not ultimately sure

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Just to be clear, agnosticism isn't about the likelihood of belief. It's about the limits of knowledge.

It is an epistemological position that says that we do not, or cannot, have knowledge of the existence of god.

Technically one can be a theistic agnostic or an atheistic agnostic.