Does God exist? (4 Viewers)

[c_james]

Do you believe that believers actually do believe? A little bit earlier in this thread I made a few posts explaining that I don't really think believers believe in God. I based this on that their actions/decisions do not seem to be those of a person whom accepts god's existance as a reality just as much as I accept that the earth revolves around the sun.

IMO the only believers are the extremists that are willing to die for god, the nutjobs whom really do think they hear god talking to them etc. The rest are just people that really, really, really want to believe, or whom believe belief in God is a good thing.

I see your point - while individuals may call themselves believers, society as a whole is fairly agnostic. You can see it in the laissez faire attitude we have towards religion. The most disturbing thing I find is that belief is a predominantly selfish phenomenon. Devout Christians, on the whole, live the practices more than they do the values - attending Church regularly, but not practically applying the teachings of their faith.

 

[transcendent]

I see your point - while individuals may call themselves believers, society as a whole is fairly agnostic. You can see it in the laissez faire attitude we have towards religion. The most disturbing thing I find is that belief is a predominantly selfish phenomenon. Devout Christians, on the whole, live the practices more than they do the values - attending Church regularly, but not practically applying the teachings of their faith.

That is also my perspective on their beliefs, that they don't really follow but just adhere to the practices and believe that that is enough to get on God's good graces.

 

[ur_inner_child]

Being taught and studying for purposes of school is different to studying for the purpose of extending ones self spiritually, yes?

I studied a bit on Islam around the time it started to get hyped up in the media. I studied with no intention to believe it, I just wanted to know, and not just believe the media. Also, I had a friend who was muslim, and she meant a great deal to me. Often I would consult her so that I would understand what it is she and other muslim people believed, to better myself as a informed and educated individual, rather than become a media sponge. I definatley can say I understand it, since it has been, say, years now, but I still do not believe in it.

But you're saying that by taking upon this interest in other religions and studying it must equate to believing it in some sort of way?

Don't you yourself read things so you can better understand the world, rather than stick with only studying what you agree with?

Maybe you don't actually experience that sort of desire to understand by stepping outside your comfort zone. If you don't, I'd say you should try it.

I made the example of studying at school and rejecting a theory because the act itself is much like what one would experience when learning about a religion. And I used the cultural example because I felt you would then rebutt by saying "You can't say you can't understand it if you don't believe in it"

I most definatley understand the Chinese culture, but disagree with many of its values, and not *believing in them* does not mean I do not understand it.

And is not culture a type of internal enrichment?

Spiritual enrichment or not, the act of studying with no interest in believing (but still an open mind) is possible.

 

[transcendent]

'Just because I understand doesn't mean I care'

I don't know who said that first but the person is a legend. You can understand something and not agree with it. That's the point of debate. If you had actually been in any real debates you would know to result the kind of points that the opposition would put forward and counter them with your rebuttals.

I've never been a fan of the economic perspective but I took interest in it purely to understand the basic workings of monetary flow. I didn't do it because liked it, or wanted to agree with it. I did it to understand why it is that economists think that way.

Although I disagree heartily with some of Justin's view's on economics they are still valid because he comes from a economic's background whereas I would come from a more social justice background. We all have our causes and perspectives to further. Of course, some opinions are greater than others in the case where those that have evidence backing it up have greater say than those who believe purely through faith alone and without evidence to support it's argument.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I see your point - while individuals may call themselves believers, society as a whole is fairly agnostic. You can see it in the laissez faire attitude we have towards religion. The most disturbing thing I find is that belief is a predominantly selfish phenomenon. Devout Christians, on the whole, live the practices more than they do the values - attending Church regularly, but not practically applying the teachings of their faith.

Yep exactly.

Although I disagree heartily with some of Justin's view's on economics they are still valid because he comes from a economic's background whereas I would come from a more social justice background. We all have our causes and perspectives to further.

http://www.randomhouse.com/features/wisdomofcrowds/index.html

I recommend everyone to read this book if at all possible. Essentially it is about how groups of people, all fighting for their idea of what the right answer is (diverse groups, groups that agree don't work), will come out with a better answer usually than any one individual.

Those kinds of people - which truly are a minority, I have to say - really are a joke.

I disagree. Some survey's are comming out of America showing that 45% of them believe the universe is only 6000 years old. Even in the secular world I would say the radical believers and the moderates are much closer in numbers than is often expressed. In the non-secular world, you have millions of people, all of whom would have views that even the most accepting of secular person would find radical.

They are indoctrinated while they are children and while you're a child you can do nothing but accept what you are told as truth, as we'd expect, a child that attempted to experiment when an elder said 'don't go near that cliff' would be one that lived for a short amount of time.

 

[*yooneek*]

Do you believe that believers actually do believe? A little bit earlier in this thread I made a few posts explaining that I don't really think believers believe in God. I based this on that their actions/decisions do not seem to be those of a person whom accepts god's existance as a reality just as much as I accept that the earth revolves around the sun.

IMO the only believers are the extremists that are willing to die for god, the nutjobs whom really do think they hear god talking to them etc. The rest are just people that really, really, really want to believe, or whom believe belief in God is a good thing.



See this is why I call myself an atheist, any fairly intelligent person will accept that you can't know objective reality. Beyond that tho the 'reality' of our universe is something that changes with our knowledge as more evidence is found, always accurate in the present, but at the same time always open to change due to further revelations.

The same can be true for some christians, however unfortunarely there are many out there that do believe they know 'the objective truth'.

As for faith:

Religious faith is the absense of reason, critical thinking and thought its self.

The root of all evil:

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=6193866746249268230&q=richard+dawkins
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-8239331458224461127&q=richard+dawkins

atheists speak of abstract concepts such as "reason", "critical thinking" in a universe that is supposed to have no meaning or intelligent design. they are often happy to speak of moral issues in an amoral universe. how inconsistant is that?
theists act, live & breath & "think" as though there's such thngs as logic & predictability to life .. atheists can't help operating within the same framework because they're created in God's image as well. They don't like it, but they can't escape who they are.

 

[transcendent]

Actually that does look very interesting. It'd probably do wonders as I greatly dislike group mentality rebelling against it at every possible chance it is convenient. But even if I do gain a different perspective on groups I doubt it will fundamentally change my opinion on whether or not to 'get along' with other people.

 

[transcendent]

atheists speak of abstract concepts such as "reason", "critical thinking" in a universe that is supposed to have no meaning or intelligent design. they are often happy to speak of moral issues in an amoral universe. how inconsistant is that?
theists act, live & breath & "think" as though there's such thngs as logic & predictability to life .. atheists can't help operating within the same framework because they're created in God's image as well. They don't like it, but they can't escape who they are.

Tiani, that is by far the best written post I've ever seen you type. It's like you've grown up, but not by much. *wipes tear from eye

Anyways just because the universe is chaotic and meaningless doesn't mean that applying a certain amount of order to it is somehow inconsistent. It is probably brought about as a means of identifying predictable patterns or ideas and categorising them for ease of understanding. Through this i believe we developed language and culture through sharing of ideas and thoughts. Creating order in a chaotic world was more out of convenience than devine intervention. The world is still chaotic, it's just we understand it's chaotic and seek to tame it.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

atheists speak of abstract concepts such as "reason", "critical thinking" in a universe that is supposed to have no meaning or intelligent design. they are often happy to speak of moral issues in an amoral universe. how inconsistant is that?

Allow me to explain this the best I can from your question.

Meaning
While we don't think there is a 'meaning' to the universe, we can create our own meaning and of course. I care about myself and others because it is hard-wired into my being, creatures that feel empathy for others, co-operate and love themselves are more likely to live longer, right?

As an example, have you ever built a sand castle? It was fun right? You did realise at the time that it was an ultimately pointless act, the waves were going to come in and wash it away, leaving no trace of your work, but it was fun to do at the time - nevertheless.

Our lives are much the same. While Ultimately my fate is probably to be a bunch of photons scattered around the universe, it doesn't really matter to me because I'm alive now and there are things that I care about in this life.

Morals

they are often happy to speak of moral issues in an amoral universe

While we do believe there are no absolute morals, we do still care about morals - why? Well because moral's do exist for human's in their human, mortal lives and therefore affect us. Where do we think moral's come from? Evolution. If you look at monkeys, you will that they interact with each other and seem to care for each other. Why is this? Because a long time ago a creature was born with empathy, this empathy meant that it could get other's of its species to help it, they could cooperate to achieve greater results than a single creature. It makes evolutionary sense for us to care about each other and have moral's because that's the best way for our species to keep on marching forward.

Critical thinking

With this, we're generally talking about constantly asking questions. The ultimate beauty of science is when a professor who has worked on a theory for 15 years of his life, can have it disproven to him and accept that he was wrong. Science is all about getting more accurate answers by constantly challenging all that we know, collecting the evidence and examining it against a hypothesis.

I don't really understand what this is

theists act, live & breath & "think" as though there's such thngs as logic & predictability to life ..

There is logic and predictability to life, even for an atheist. We make the same inductive guesses as you do, when I walk out onto the road I do not check to see if it's solid - I inductively guess that it is.

atheists can't help operating within the same framework because they're created in God's image as well.

Well no. What atheist's generally are doing is accepting what evidence they have available to them now, and making that their reality. I.e. I do not have any evidence yet of a blue elephant in africa, therefore, as far as my reality is concerned - there is no blue elephant. While there could ULTIMATELY be a blue elephant in africa, there's no reason to say there is because there is no evidence.

Theist's don't seem to do this. You see, alot of theists want to hang on to their old traditions/values/ideas, they want to hang on to their 'reality' and not let evidence get through it.

So yes, your life may be more predictable fro your perspective, you can get all your answers just from 'God'. Unfortunately, the absolute reality doesn't always match up with your own and while atheists are generally willing to accept changes with their reality and move on, some theist's aren't - the problem with this is that the absolute reality will catch up with you either way. Whether you believe in evolution or not, it exists.

They don't like it, but they can't escape who they are.

Don't like what?

 

[c_james]

atheists speak of abstract concepts such as "reason", "critical thinking" in a universe that is supposed to have no meaning or intelligent design. they are often happy to speak of moral issues in an amoral universe. how inconsistant is that?
theists act, live & breath & "think" as though there's such thngs as logic & predictability to life .. atheists can't help operating within the same framework because they're created in God's image as well. They don't like it, but they can't escape who they are.

It's not inconsistent at all. Athiests/agnostics simply reject supernaturalism, the notion that authority in ethics comes from God, as a valid belief, and with good reason.

Think about the Euthyphro/Socratic question: Is something good because God desires it? Or does God desire something because it is good? Is God the good-maker or good-detector? If it's the former case, morality seems altogether arbitrary. God could desire the torture of babies and it would be deemed moral. If it is the latter case, this suggests that morality exists independently, and therefore prior to, God - this, however, is an anathema to the theist belief that God is an absolute being. Almost all philosophers have rejected supernaturalism as a valid stance in normative ethics.

 

[*yooneek*]

...just because the universe is chaotic and meaningless doesn't mean that applying a certain amount of order to it is somehow inconsistent. It is probably brought about as a means of identifying predictable patterns or ideas and categorising them for ease of understanding. Through this i believe we developed language and culture through sharing of ideas and thoughts. Creating order in a chaotic world was more out of convenience than devine intervention. The world is still chaotic, it's just we understand it's chaotic and seek to tame it.

are you seriously trying to say the universe is chaotic? what happenned to maths, or testing theories with the assumption that a hypothesis can be tested with predicted outcomes?
If you found a watch in a forest, would you say it designed itself & you'll never be convinced otherwise until someone brings its "so called maker" to stand right in front of you?
fact is, people aren't controlled by intellect but by their desires. a scientist will work really hard to prove tobacco doesn't harm anyone, if there's enough $ incentive ... & I'm sure he could put up some form ofrational argument. I could argue logically with your set of assumptions if I wanted to - but I don't want to, & you don't want to ever follow my logic either, we're coming to this discussion with set presuppositions.
you can see the same design in the universe that I can but you choose to say "logically" (?) that because you can't see the designer Himself you are compelled to believe the universe formed itself out of eternal matter & then life created itself & has been designing things from the simple to the complex ever since (including a focusing eye - give it enough million yrs & it just has to be able to pop out the design, right?) - even though there has NEVER been a case of a gene pool increasing in size to form a new species - no amount of experiments will EVER produce that ... oh unless of cause there is a genetic scientist intelligent enough to intervene, add teh extra genetic information, & design such a "creature". (but whose argument would that support?)
I really admire your faith .... but then, like me, you have a barrow to push. You don't want me to be right because then you'll be accountable to a Creator.

 

[littlewing69]

Anyway, If this forum is anything to go by, often the atheists/agnostics seem to have a better knowledge of both religion in general and in particular christianity.

I've found that to be very true. The popular brand of Christianity at the present has little intellectual depth, and a lot of Christians have no idea about the origins, development and deeper beliefs of their religion.

Do you believe that believers actually do believe? A little bit earlier in this thread I made a few posts explaining that I don't really think believers believe in God. I based this on that their actions/decisions do not seem to be those of a person whom accepts god's existance as a reality just as much as I accept that the earth revolves around the sun.

That's an interesting question, and one which I've often thought about. You would think that with 2 billion Christians on this planet, there'd be a whole lot more intense evangelism as these people tried to save friends/family from the reality of Hell, or a whole lot more neighbour-loving ala Luke 10:27 as they tried to assure themselves a place in a Heaven they truly believe exists.

I don't think this shows a lack of belief though, but more an incredulity as to how Christian beliefs can be implemented. Christianity as it appears in the Gospels, that is, the religion of Yeshua, is a radical ideology. He himself says that he has come to turn brother against brother, and that his followers will be horribly persecuted, even to death. He says that his followers must "lose their lives in order to gain them [eternal lives]". That's a pretty big call. Moreover, Christian ethics as revealed in the Sermon on the Mount have startling implications both personally and politically. How do you deal with the "fact" that the poor will be first in Heaven, that you must surrender yourself to the force of others rather than resist, that you must love your enemy?

The history of Christian theology shows an eternal tussle between the radical mysticism of Jesus and the mechanics of everyday life. Observe how the Anabaptists suffered for their literal interpretation of Jesus' pacifism, or how Tolstoy struggled with the same issues to the point of contemplating suicide.

And ultimately, Pauline Christianity has offered a sort of compromise. Modern Christians are likely to consider Jesus' ideals as a reflection of a sort of inner or heavenly utopia. They consider the Kingdom of God to be an inner state (Luke 17:21), and take seriously the instruction to be "in the world but not of the world".

This duality offers Christians a feasible way to practise their faith in this dimension. It may be a cop-out, I agree, but it is the way most Christians deal with their faith. The most important Christians in my life, my parents, sincerely believe that all non-Christians are destined to suffer eternally in a horrible place of punishment. They ARE emotionally tortured by this belief, considering the loved ones they believe will or already are in a state of eternal torment. No doubt, when I share my lack of literal faith with them, they will be heartbroken. Yet they do not spend every minute of their lives evangelising, trying to save the lost. Not because of a lack of sincere belief, but because of a compromise they must really make. They do believe in a spiritual dimension which is as real to them as this one, but they also value their lives down here. And so they donate to charities, they study the bible, they pray, they evangelise and support evangelists--and all of this is a considerable part of their lives, but it is not all of it. They don't try to rule the country, they don't shove their faith down people's throats. They believe sincerely, but they are mystics, and don't think that they are called to create a Kingdom of God here (although Dominion theology, practised in the States, says just that).

As such, Christians can follow a poor reflection of the Kingdom of God they believe is revealed through Jesus and his teachings, while still living in this realm. There is a compromise point, and that differs from Christian to Christian, but not many can deny their humanity, their instincts, and a billion years of human evolution and act as though this life doesn't matter at all. Paul once wrote that "For now we see a poor reflection, as in a mirror" (Corinthians 12:13), and it is this distance between the reality of this life and the reality of the next which Christians believe in which allows them to believe sincerely yet not act on these beliefs to their logical conclusions.

 

[Mc_Meaney]

Spiritual enrichment or not, the act of studying with no interest in believing (but still an open mind) is possible.

Fair enough. Comments withdrawn

 

[Not-That-Bright]

are you seriously trying to say the universe is chaotic? what happenned to maths, or testing theories with the assumption that a hypothesis can be tested with predicted outcomes?

It's ordered but so complex that to us it appears to be chaotic. There is an objective reality which is why such things as maths can work. Hypothesis can be tested based on the evidence which we currently have, but of course they can never be 100% proven as I explained in my former post.

If you found a watch in a forest, would you say it designed itself & you'll never be convinced otherwise until someone brings its "so called maker" to stand right in front of you?

That's because we already know that a watch is man-made, we have examples to use as analogies between watches we've seen made by men and that watch. When you're dealing with a tree, you don't know whether it has been made or not, so the same intuition for a 'maker' does not work. It's a circular argument.

fact is, people aren't controlled by intellect but by their desires. a scientist will work really hard to prove tobacco doesn't harm anyone, if there's enough $ incentive ... & I'm sure he could put up some form ofrational argument

But it doesn't matter so much whether one scientist is bias or not. Scientific theories are 'proven' by many scientists, from many different fields, with many different beliefs looking at all the different evidence, in different ways and comming to roughly the same conclusion.

I could argue logically with your set of assumptions if I wanted to - but I don't want to, & you don't want to ever follow my logic either, we're coming to this discussion with set presuppositions.

No I could not logically argue for absolute morality.

you can see the same design in the universe that I can but you choose to say "logically" (?) that because you can't see the designer Himself you are compelled to believe the universe formed itself out of eternal matter & then life created itself & has been designing things from the simple to the complex ever since (including a focusing eye - give it enough million yrs & it just has to be able to pop out the design, right?) -

It's not that at all. Yes, I can see how a supernatural 'bling' can work, what I can't see tho is how I can prove that it doesn't work. Things need to be falsifiable, any supernatural explanation is not falsifiable because it is beyond the bounds of testing/experimentation. Beyond that we also have the issue of which supernatural thing is better and how does the supernatural thing do what it does?

even though there has NEVER been a case of a gene pool increasing in size to form a new species

Human's have been experimenting with breeding for how long? say 100,000 years? We've got a decent record of this from what? say 1000 years? (I think i'm being quite fair in both reguards) now the planet is roughly 4,000,000,000 years old - can you see maybe why this is true?

I really admire your faith .... but then, like me, you have a barrow to push. You don't want me to be right because then you'll be accountable to a Creator.

Don't be stupid yooneek. I would LOVE to believe what you do, I honestly tho cannot. I really truely wish that it was all true, I would love to have it proven to me and maybe some day it will, but so far it hasn't.

I have some limited faith, but I have not simply created an entire supernatural entity to answer all of my questions.

 

[transcendent]

Watches are mechanical, not organic.

The universe in my opinion is chaotic but reaches an equilibrium is certain areas. You have to understand the larger picture of the universe as well as at the atomic level. The galaxies take millions of years to move whilst an atom charges at super fast speeds.

If God were to exist it'd still be meaningless. He'd be no more than an alien who resides in a higher plane, a separate dimension or who has advanced technology or ability. There is reason, we just need to discover it.

 

[littlewing69]

Don't be stupid yooneek. I would LOVE to believe what you do, I honestly tho cannot. I really truely wish that it was all true, I would love to have it proven to me and maybe some day it will, but so far it hasn't.

I have some limited faith, but I have not simply created an entire supernatural entity to answer all of my questions.

It's the same case with me. I'd love to be able to believe this stuff, and God knows I've been indoctrinated with it to an extent that it should be asy for me to do so, yet I have been given a skeptical, analytical and cynical mind which saw through the religion I was inculcated in. I remember vividly the fear I experienced as a child in primary school, terrified that I would go to hell for my inability to "believe" sufficiently.

I'm not necessarily a hardline materialist, but I struggle to rationalise the inconsistencies of all organised religion I have encountered.

 

[Mc_Meaney]

JOHN SAFRAN Vs GOD watch it

 

[vanush]

are you seriously trying to say the universe is chaotic? what happenned to maths, or testing theories with the assumption that a hypothesis can be tested with predicted outcomes?
If you found a watch in a forest, would you say it designed itself & you'll never be convinced otherwise until someone brings its "so called maker" to stand right in front of you?
fact is, people aren't controlled by intellect but by their desires. a scientist will work really hard to prove tobacco doesn't harm anyone, if there's enough $ incentive ... & I'm sure he could put up some form ofrational argument. I could argue logically with your set of assumptions if I wanted to - but I don't want to, & you don't want to ever follow my logic either, we're coming to this discussion with set presuppositions.
you can see the same design in the universe that I can but you choose to say "logically" (?) that because you can't see the designer Himself you are compelled to believe the universe formed itself out of eternal matter & then life created itself & has been designing things from the simple to the complex ever since (including a focusing eye - give it enough million yrs & it just has to be able to pop out the design, right?) - even though there has NEVER been a case of a gene pool increasing in size to form a new species - no amount of experiments will EVER produce that ... oh unless of cause there is a genetic scientist intelligent enough to intervene, add teh extra genetic information, & design such a "creature". (but whose argument would that support?)
I really admire your faith .... but then, like me, you have a barrow to push. You don't want me to be right because then you'll be accountable to a Creator.

what does everyone think of this:-

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060713/ap_on_sc/darwin_evolution

 

[vanush]

Does God exist?

What is to be extant?

eg.
to be "Still in existence; not extinct or destroyed or lost"

If God exists in a certain persons mind, does that count as existence?

The notion of 'God' was a mindset. There was never a physical existence of a God.

Therefore, since God exists in a mind of a person, he exists.

Of course, this personal belief of God has been tainted by religion.

And maybe even Science. We ask for evidence, but we're looking the wrong place. LOOK IN THE BRIAN!!!!!!!!!11

 

[Mc_Meaney]

what does everyone think of this:-

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060713/ap_on_sc/darwin_evolution

Evolution All The Way