Does God exist? (17 Viewers)

[Not-That-Bright]

Does anybody here seriously think that this debate can be proved one way or the other?

You said this before, I responded. Personally, I think the 'prooving' of whether or not it is moral to allow abortion is much harder than proving one way or another if God exists. Essentially the debate about whether God exists is as difficult as the debate about whether santa/the tooth fairy/magical leprechauns exist. Sure, there will never be 100% conclusive, undeniable proof - but if we put things to that sort of burden of proof then the question of 'what sex are you' becomes difficult, because hey! who knows - maybe you're really FEMALE and have just had some magical spell over you to make you think you're male.

 

[bshoc]

You said this before, I responded. It's like the abortion debate, do you seriously think the issue can be 'proved' one way or another?

Abortion can becuase its murder vs. convenience, its within the grasp of the indavidual rational human mind.

This is a completely different issue, the very topic one discusses here is the origin of creation itself, since every debate on this topic can be essentially be brought back to the origin of creation itself, scientists can only theorise that "the big bang" sprang out of a technical singularity for no apparent reason (I'm still yet to hear why something as infinitely stable as singularity would produce such an amazing event), and their telescopes have the ability to see back billions of years into the past (i.e. speed of light), they cannot however observe past a certain time limit due to what appears to be, some form of ionised field as such, that was created in consmic terms, a little after the big bang itself. The religious hypothesis is self-serving, much like the science one actually, except with less science and more weight placed upon "faith", and just like the science one it has a case, but not a proof. Either way I am very convinced that the answer to such a question is not comprehensible to even the greatest human mind.

Thus from my perspective this debate does not have a conclusion, hope you understand.

 

[lengy]

Please discuss abortion in the other thread. Murder is justifiable in certain circumstances in my opinion.

 

[sam04u]

Does anybody here seriously think that this debate can be proved one way or the other? :rofl:

It's hard to prove anything with 100% accuracy, as has been said. We assume that if you throw something out the window, it'll land on the floor outside the window. But, imagine one time you throw something out the window, and it just hovered there. Is it impossible? Nope, not really, but there's just more proof that it will fall then not fall.

It's the same as this argument, if arguing the right conditions, and the 'accuracy', of the religious texts, we can come 'pretty close', to proving either side. eg(If somebody proved the universe could be created without an omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent creator. That still wouldn't rule out the 'existance of one', it just would make it extremely unlikely.

In reverse, if it was proved that 'no-matter what', the universe must have had an external power to have 'created' it, no matter the contribution. Then it still would leave questions such as, 'what created god'. and the answers to those questions are even more absurd then believing one never existed.

Therefore, a decision has pretty much been reached, that everyone should form their own opinion. I've hypothesised, that it is 'more' likely that 'God' (creator of the universe), exists then doesn't. It's more likely that a 'magical powerful, bla blah blah', exists than a natural occurence which 'makes the universe like bursting popcorn'.

If you go back and read, I think you'll be able to form your own decision, In my opinion God Exists. (even at the most neutral viewpoint), and people who are intelligent enough to see my logic, will agree.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Abortion can becuase its murder vs. convenience, its within the grasp of the indavidual rational human mind.

Ok, sure thing, in your deluded world that's the way it is.

Thus from my perspective this debate does not have a conclusion, hope you understand.

It doesn't matter that it doesn't have a conclusion, nor does it matter that science has yet to come up with a perfect natural explanation for the 'beginning of creation'. The only question in this thread, as far as I can see, is 'does god exist', just because we don't know how the universe came into existance does not make the 'God hypothesis' any better. Any explanation that rests on 'it's magic' or 'it's supernatural' is not an explanation at all.

 

[bshoc]

Ok, sure thing, in your deluded world that's the way it is.

We should seriously keep this in the other thread, but my mind is in no way deluded, I form my own opinions, I dont let others form them for me, be it christians, athiests, feminists, leftists or anyone else.

It doesn't matter that it doesn't have a conclusion, nor does it matter that science has yet to come up with a perfect natural explanation for the 'beginning of creation'. The only question in this thread, as far as I can see, is 'does god exist', just because we don't know how the universe came into existance does not make the 'God hypothesis' any better. Any explanation that rests on 'it's magic' or 'it's supernatural' is not an explanation at all.

Unless it was god(gods?) him/her self who instigated the big bang

 

[lengy]

Cause doesn't not equate having a sentient creator.

 

[bshoc]

Cause doesn't not equate having a sentient creator.

True, but it doesent equate to not having a creator either.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Unless it was god(gods?) him/her self who instigated the big bang

I don't even know what it is that I wrote, that you're responding to.

True, but it doesent equate to not having a creator either.

But we have no evidence-based reason to imagine that there was a creator. It's like me hypothesising that evil demons give people aids, can you disprove it? No. Does the fact that you can't disprove it make it any more credible? No.

 

[*Love-2-Hate-U*]

But we have no evidence-based reason to imagine that there was a creator.

um, what kind of evidence are you looking for?

do you want him to actually (physically) sit next to you?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

um, what kind of evidence are you looking for?

do you want him to actually (physically) sit next to you?

I don't know what evidence it would take to convince me, I'm sure God does tho, right?

 

[sam04u]

Love-2-Hate, you're now implying that the creator of the universe is a 'living being', now think about what you're implying. If I use your logic, isn't it easier to believe that we were created on an accident, then the result of a 'powerful' being putting us here? (for no 'apparent' reason).

This question, has haunted man, like a bad dream. It's likely it wont go away, it's upto man to make a decision. There is no 'right' decision at the moment, you either see the logic of one argument or deny it.

But, if you're vain enough to 'deny' religion because it's hard to believe a 'powerful entity created the universe', then you should provide a better explanation, otherwise you're basically contradicting yourself. Admittedly, you can't rule out that a god created the 'universe' and you can't explain what did. Isn't it more logical (at this moment in time) to believe the universe was created than anything else?

I've hypothesised, and regardless of what you believe, the universe was 'created', perhaps not in detail, and perhaps by an accident. But, an entity must have created the first laws which inevitably led to the creation of this universe. (What is this entity? Where did it come from? Well that's another question. )

Now, when you combine this logic, with whatever else you prescribe too, then you can form your own opinion. But, then again this is my logic and your logic is your own. The only way we can truly reach a conclusion is by sharing ideas and considering others. Regardless of how absurd they are, perhaps absurdity is just a state of mind, because everything will/has been absurd to someone at some time, in one way or another.

Discuss your logic for reaching your conclusion, In detail.~

-End

 

[KFunk]

But, if you're vain enough to 'deny' religion because it's hard to believe a 'powerful entity created the universe', then you should provide a better explanation, otherwise you're basically contradicting yourself. Admittedly, you can't rule out that a god created the 'universe' and you can't explain what did. Isn't it more logical (at this moment in time) to believe the universe was created than anything else?

I disagree with your claim of contradiction. Take this creationist theory:

The multiverse consists of two higher dimensional meta-spoons which rotate about the aether. At one point the two spoons collided creating a concentrated build up of energy. It was this collision which resulted in the creation of our universe.

I feel that I can deny this argument on the basis of the implausibility of the base construct of reality being two dinner spoons. Also, I don't see myself at any risk of contradiction by not offering an alternative. Many arguments against 'god' rest on the fact that, to them, such a being is implausible and the fact that they can't come up with a more plausible example doesn't make the existence of god any more likely. Consider the following argument based on the implausibility of god possessing the concept of 'things' other than god:

(1) If god exists and is the creator of all reality then one can assume that initially god was all that existed

(2) There are some modern psychological theories which assert, on the basis of experimental evidence no less, that our concept of self arises out of the presence of the 'other' (something which has a certain 'a priori' ring to it). More specifically, other people mirror our emotional states back at us and so we gain a higher level perspective on ourself where our mental states become the object of our attention rather than simply being the object experience.

(3) Consider the fact that god, as first cause, is without any form of stimuli. In fact, there is nothing other than god and, as such, nothing exists which could engender a sense of self in god. Furthermore, given that nothing else exists there is no reason why god should possess the concept of something other than itself.

(4) If god has no concept of things other than god, let alone itself in relation to other things, then there is no way that such a being could conceive of the creation of this thing we call our universe.

 

[ur_inner_child]

the above was pretty awesome to read there

I never thought of it in such a sense

 

[sam04u]

I liked the spoon analogy, Lol. It went downhill from there, as you're comparing an 'entity', with a 'being'. Comparing god, with 'human psychology', ie(a life creation), automatically begins the contradiction.

The entity, which inevitably created the universe most likely can't be defined using physical properties, since everything we know only exists as it does because of the way our universe is. An example of this is, gravity, perhaps in another universe with different laws gravity wouldn't exist. Perhaps a complete other universe without light, It could still have lifeforms, but not the light. (It wouldn't be impossible), think about the effect of this on modern human psychology.

Here is what happens, a) The energy which is once transfered as light, is now non-existant, so the temperature of a Star increases exponentially. The extra energy means more heat is created, as apart of friction, and the stars 'Live' for a shorter period of time. (People don't see light, so never see the stars, and therefore an entirely new mentallity is created, and theories about the creation of the universe cease to exist.)

Think about the stars form, it isn't a human form is it? Our star "Sun", created all the planets in our Solar System, but it didn't talk to another Star to do this. It's just how it naturally works. Basically, our star "Sun", nurtures humans and all other life on earth. (It doesn't do this intentionally, it's just following the laws which it is constrained too. )

God, would probably do similarly, the entity creates, because the entity is, as it is, all powerful, and has always existed. It's powers are undeniable, worshipping the entity, would surely show respect and a level of intelligence ascertained, but questioning would equally show respect. (as long as one comes to a logical conclusion before the end of their lives.), Is it impossible that the entity has another universe where (Humans in a different form), can exist?

It's like a battle with this question, and answering it before time (in your weak perception) ceases to exist is an objective to the sane.


1. KFunk, I understand your logic about not accepting something 'purely' because you have no better explanation. But, I'll give you an analogy which you may find interesting .

There was an old King, who had too many peasants living on the outskirts of his kingdom most of which lived poorly because of the ammount, so he decided to kill about half and draft half into the kingdoms army. (mainly because they couldn't properly live and pay taxes, the ammount of them made everyone elses life more difficult.)

So, he thought up a way to decide when killing these people should stop. He proclaimed, "When a man can answer my riddle, then he will be the saviour of the rest of the people.", if a man fails the riddle he shall die, all men and women will be able to attempt the question.
So, the first man stands before him, the King smirks and sais "You must answer this riddle if you fail then you will be executed.", the man whimpers and
answers "Ok".

The King then asked "How many strands of hair do I have on my head", with doing so he burst into laughter. The man who was faced with the question had no logical answer. He said, "Sorry, it is impossible to know." The king then signalled the guards to take them to be executed. (Analogy to humans dying trying to find the right answer). Then after many being executed, the King was faced with a man of great intelligence, this man perhaps was more intelligent then the King.

So, the King made it harder on this peasant. He said, you may only have one attempt, and if you fail, your women and children will also be executed. The man was angry but controlled himself, the king then asked "How many strands of hair do I have on my head?", the peasant man answered in the time it takes for the heart to beat. "1 Hundred and 55 Thousand, 4 hundred and 13. " The King was dumbfounded. He said that is Incorrect and made the Signal to the guards. The man seeing this said "WAIT!", the guards watched the Kings reaction. The King asked, "What?", the man proclaimed "My answer was correct", the King shook his head and said "Impossible", the peasant cried out "Why is it Impossible?", the King answered "Because, how could you know how many strands of hair are on my Head?", the peasant man reasoned, "If you don't believe me then count the strands of Hair on your head".

The King shortly ended the murders, and had the town scribe, write the answer to the riddle "1 Hundred... etc etc", on every town square and bar.

The point is, you can either except the most Logical answer or count the strands of hair. (The number which the peasant answered could actually be correct or close to it.)

 

[lengy]

So you're saying that you're willing to believe in something that's more convenient for you, underwear gnomes, than admit you were wrong and you lost your socks at the laundromat? Your analogy also assumes there is threat of execution should we get the wrong answer. If I'm wrong, I'll gladly go to hell. If you're wrong your body dies and you with it. There is nothing beyond. The 'King' is stupider than his 'follower' who is actively provoked and forced to obey his 'King' ( oppression ) because the King doesn't want a correct answer and is willing to accept the answer of something the 'follower' clearly pulled out of his arse. Are you in agreement that religious texts are something clearly pulled out of someone's arse and that your 'King' accepts this? There you go, analogy obliterated.

 

[KFunk]

I liked the spoon analogy, Lol. It went downhill from there, as you're comparing an 'entity', with a 'being'. Comparing god, with 'human psychology', ie(a life creation), automatically begins the contradiction.

So you deny this 'entity' human characteristics yet you wish them to possess some form of judgement (since they choose people to go to this mystery universe) and obviously there is some kind of underlying value system since they have a way of deciding who gets to go and who doesn't. On top of this they have to be aware and for some reason they have some kind of vested interest in the human population (why us??), for why else would they make a 2nd universe for us and then choose who gets to go there.

Simultaneously you both admit and deny certain features of this entity/being:

When it comes to creation it's more useful if the god has no reason to create and simply does what he is 'constrained to do' in a manner analagous to the way our sun helped shape our solar system. Such a description does not lend itself a 'being' (as both you and I have argued) so instead we end up at something more similar to the primeval forces of ancient greece, some kind of fate personified. For this entity to also be constrained to act in a certain way (evidently this being 'has to create', even with its ultimate power it can't avoid creation) you almost seem to be describing universal laws, but clumped together as a collective 'entity'.

Assuming I interpreted your analogy at least somewhat correctly - you are suggesting that in contemplating god in a respectful fashion (and not simply shying away from the issue) we can gain a position in "another universe where Humans in a different form can exist." Note that this god is then able to choose between people, to detect this 'respect', and, ultimately, to make what seems to be a judgement implying an inherent value system. Suppose this is simply 'what god does' - a more appropriate universal question to ask would start to become "why is it that god does this?!"

That some cosmic deterministic force could be constrained to reward respect seems as bizarre to me as meta-spoons. Similarly, if you admit human qualities like judgement (for example) you start finding clashes since you are admitting some qualities whilst denying others which are extremely basic to any intelligent being like consciousness and awareness.

 

[IceOnFire]

wow that is a detailed arguement and analysis?

 

[ichocolateyou]

In China YuHuangDaDi is instead of God. Actually, people here believe nothing at present but money and power, and more money and more power, no faith, no holiday, no democracy(western), and no complains……just work work workkkkkkk^^^^^^^^^

 

[irisqi]

heys,

one guy right in the beggining asked:

"ive got a question about christianity/monotheistic gods. Ive never really understood this, im sure christians must have some sort of answer for it since it seems like such an obvious problem.

Firstly, God is omniscient. He knows everything, he is outside of time. he knows the past and the future.

Secondly, I have free choice to accept god or not. My future is not pre-determined, I can make my own decisions.

But how can I have a free choice if god already knows what Im going to do? God knows the future, he surely must know what I am going to do and if he does then I wouldnt have free choice. If he doesnt know what Im going to do, then he isnt much of a god."

Well I don't believe in god, but I did when I was young and I pondered the same question. All I could come up with is that in order for god to send you to heaven/hell YOU have to know what you did that was wrong/right. For example if I die and go to judgement god can't simply say I know you are going to sin and not repent in the future so therefore you're going to hell.

My biggest problem with the idea of a god is the fact that looking back at history isn't it kind of coincidental that different regions and different times all had different gods. If there is one god than surely he would send profits throughout the globe?