Does God exist? (3 Viewers)

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

A theist would say this lends greater credence to their argument, tbh they love the mystery. Science rules where the light of truth shines while religion scatters off into the remaining darkness like cockroaches.

 

[quixote studios]

god is an abstraction.

he is the flame that hold back the darkness. he is that rope you cling onto when you approach the edge. it doesn't matter that the fire does jack all about the monsters that lurk in the abyss, that the rope isnt tied to anything. you feel warm and fuzzy. you like it. and so you adhere to it, and blindly preach it to everyone else. you try to stop those who would venture out from the warmth of the fire, for their "own good", even when its broad daylight.

tl;dr STOP INTERFERING IN MY SIN. if you do, ill stop the public nudity. maybe

 

[ballin]

so this thread has been peppered with personal opinions, which is why i guess its been so popular. but one more couldnt hurt-

for me, the title of god is just foolish. what do we know about this person? very little. the church and organised religion were all created out of FEAR. to think that this fear is the foundation of what to billions of people is "faith" is kind of strange to comprehend. and yet in every one of these channels of faith, there is this supreme leader. why? in my opinion, because there needs to be. people want their doubts taken away, their wounds healed, their sins forgiven, their afterlifes guaranteed. god grants that, in any case. to me, its simply a figure fostered for the salvation of many humans who are just suffering from denial. i do think theres something holding the universe together, but i'd hate to label that force "god".

another point, concerning genesis. so god made the oceans and the mountains and just about everything in a week. if you were to meet him right now and ask for a specific type of watch to be custom made for you, do you really think he could do that? i'd say you'd be better off going to a watchmaker. and besides, no one will ever "disprove" the existence of god. imagine trying to undermine the pinnacle figure of two millenia - it wont happen. i guess all we can do is discuss it like this and make our own decisions.

 

[Kwayera]

You can't disprove what doesn't exist.

 

[KFunk]

You can't disprove what doesn't exist.

In an empirical sense you can't - but it may be the case that the logical impossibility of an entity ensures that it cannot exist, in which can an impossibility proof may be available.

 

[ur_inner_child]

sometimes yeah, i think God exists but sometimes not.
i guess it all depends.

how vague

 

[shutup434]

Bet with God ;]

"Either Christianity is true or it's false. If you bet that it's true, and you believe in God and submit to Him, then if it IS true, you've gained God, heaven, and everything else. If it's false, you've lost nothing, but you've had a good life marked by peace and the illusion that ultimately, everything makes sense. If you bet that Christianity is not true, and it's false, you've lost nothing. But if you bet that it's false, and it turns out to be true, you've lost everything and you get to spend eternity in hell.”

- Blaise Pascal quotes (French Mathematician, Philosopher and Physicist, 1623-1662)

 

[ur_inner_child]

Bet with God ;]

"Either Christianity is true or it's false. If you bet that it's true, and you believe in God and submit to Him, then if it IS true, you've gained God, heaven, and everything else. If it's false, you've lost nothing, but you've had a good life marked by peace and the illusion that ultimately, everything makes sense. If you bet that Christianity is not true, and it's false, you've lost nothing. But if you bet that it's false, and it turns out to be true, you've lost everything and you get to spend eternity in hell.”

- Blaise Pascal quotes (French Mathematician, Philosopher and Physicist, 1623-1662)

I have a few problems with what you posted:

• You posted a quote, without further discussion from you. I too could post random quotes supporting my views without ever really drawing discussion or my personal touch on it.
  
• Ultimately that quote is telling me I should believe in God because it's a "safe bet".
  
• It also seems to say that life without God is an illusion, which... well, it's really something.
  
• I could turn this quote into your disbelief on Santa and it would make sense. And perhaps you'll see that your quote has very little to offer in the argument:

Bet with Santa

"Either Santa is true or it's false. If you bet that it's true, and you believe in Santa and submit to Him, then if it IS true, you've gained Santa, Christmas presents, and everything else. If it's false, you've lost nothing, but you've had a good life marked by peace and the illusion that ultimately, everything makes sense. If you bet that Santa is not true, and it's false, you've lost nothing. But if you bet that it's false, and it turns out to be true, you've lost everything and you get to spend christmas without presents.”

 

[katie_tully]

I have a few problems with what you posted:

• You posted a quote, without further discussion from you. I too could post random quotes supporting my views without ever really drawing discussion or my personal touch on it.
  
• Ultimately that quote is telling me I should believe in God because it's a "safe bet".
  
• It also seems to say that life without God is an illusion, which... well, it's really something.
  
• I could turn this quote into your disbelief on Santa and it would make sense. And perhaps you'll see that your quote has very little to offer in the argument:

I think it's coz they're a troll???

Even the most die hard God lovers on here put in their two cents worth of incessant ramblings.

 

[ur_inner_child]

Boring troll then.

I've seen real die hard christians do nothing but post quotes before. IP check and everything. Passive god lovers? Ones who can't speak for themselves? Surely!

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Bet with God ;]

"Either Christianity is true or it's false. If you bet that it's true, and you believe in God and submit to Him, then if it IS true, you've gained God, heaven, and everything else. If it's false, you've lost nothing, but you've had a good life marked by peace and the illusion that ultimately, everything makes sense. If you bet that Christianity is not true, and it's false, you've lost nothing. But if you bet that it's false, and it turns out to be true, you've lost everything and you get to spend eternity in hell.”

- Blaise Pascal quotes (French Mathematician, Philosopher and Physicist, 1623-1662)

Should I bet on Christianity or Islam? Pascal's Wager works for both of them so I don't know what to do

 

[shutup434]

Boring troll then.

I've seen real die hard christians do nothing but post quotes before. IP check and everything. Passive god lovers? Ones who can't speak for themselves? Surely!

oh so im a troll now?
ahaha i really dont give a shit.
do watever you want.
does it look like im trying to convert you?

as for the philosophical quote, i posted it since if i put my opinion anyway, people like you would bullshit it anyway. either way you'd look for something to write about.

& who says i have to elaborate that quote? ooooo YAY my own little 'personal touch'?! WOOPEE. the quote's written there, take it or leave it. i dont have to discuss just like how you dont have to believe. its a free country.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Bet with IPU guys. Plus other problems with Pascal's wager. It's stupid. Good going.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X94YffpUryo

 

[ur_inner_child]

i dont have to discuss just like how you dont have to believe. its a free country.

No, this is a site owned and run by actual people.

Consider it like private property. Stick by the rules, or get your posts deleted.

Yes you DO have to discuss.

 

[KFunk]

I don't think that it is too unreasonable to throw up a quote in order to stimulate discussion (I've done as much before, though I'll grant that my posting history probably indicates that I'm likely to engage with the ensuing discussion). In any case, on Pascal's Wager:

Bet with God ;]

"Either Christianity is true or it's false. If you bet that it's true, and you believe in God and submit to Him, then if it IS true, you've gained God, heaven, and everything else. If it's false, you've lost nothing, but you've had a good life marked by peace and the illusion that ultimately, everything makes sense. If you bet that Christianity is not true, and it's false, you've lost nothing. But if you bet that it's false, and it turns out to be true, you've lost everything and you get to spend eternity in hell.”

- Blaise Pascal quotes (French Mathematician, Philosopher and Physicist, 1623-1662)

The central problem with Pascal's Wager (as hinted at by ur_inner_child) is that it encourages you to believe in any, and every, entity that satisfies the following conditions (other similar sets of conditions could be generated, but we'll keep it simple here):

(1) It is impossible to disconfirm the existence of the entity - i.e. you cannot prove conclusively that they do not exist.

and (2) Belief in the entity will confer some great benefit upon you should that entity exist (e.g. you will get to spend eternity in fantasy land) and will cause no significant detriment should it not exist.

Now, consider that these criteria encourage belief in:

• Mamud the great who, if you are male, will give you one hundred times your weight worth of virgins in the afterlife.
• Mick the leprachaun who will give you a second life in which you have access to all the gold you want.
• Sanctus the omnipotent sprite which gives the true believer an everlasting sensation of love after they die.
• And so on, you catch my drift...

Admitedly, I've been somewhat facetious in coming up with my examples, but you can easily come up with some very serious sounding ones which carry the kind of 'spiritual weight' you would expect from a holy text. Does it really strike you as rational to believe in all of these entities? Could you possibly find a rational criterion which would lead you to accept some but not others (e.g. something vague like, 'only believe in the entity if you will receive infinite benefit!')?

In a similar vein to Christopher Hitchins in the video CaptainGh3y posted I feel I should ask you: would you really feel comfortable rocking up to god's high chair and saying 'I believe in you for the same reason I believe in Mamud, Mick, Sanctus, the FSM and the Big Purple Dorito'? I don't know about you, but if there is a god up there that endorses a rational principle like that I'm not sure I want to be part of that club. More to the point though, if god is supposed to be hyper-rational and omniscient wouldn't you expect that they would not endorse Pascal's reasoning, given its absurd consequences?

 

[KFunk]

Let me make the case more strongly: suppose that we think up a class of entities that will only confer their rewards upon you if you a) believe in them, b) worship them for at least one hour each day and c) follow their variant of moral law. You have some problems here:

- Firstly, there are only 24 hours in the day and you have to find time to eat, drink, sleep and, time permitting, procreate. Your time is limited and your selection of entities to pick from is either infinite or absurdly large. Someone has some difficult choices to make...

- Secondly, the requirements of one god may clash with those of another making them mutually exclusive options (that is, if you want their rewards). Once again, you have to pick and choose.

So, crunch time arrives - you have to choose which entities to believe in. Limited time and supernatural exclusivity forces you to limit your selection and so presumably you need some kind of criterion in order to make the best choice, i.e. in order to choose those entities that are most likely to yield dividends. But then you run into a major problem. If your main reason for believing in these entities in the first place comes from Pascal's wager then you don't really have much left to work with. What are the odds that you will strike gold? Slim to none. Is the wager then worth praying 6 hours a day and restricting your moral life? I think not.

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

2. what is a more reasonable position atheist or agnostic?

If more consistent = more reasonable then I would argue the position of an atheist is generally better than a theist or an agnostic.

 

[KFunk]

1. what are the best reasons to believe that a god may exist?

2. what is a more reasonable position atheist or agnostic?

(1) I am yet to see good reasons presented in this thread. In my opinion all of the following classical arguments can be debunked (hence shown to be unreasonable):

• The cosmological argument from first cause
• The anthropic argument from our existence
• The ontological argument which conceieves of a 'being greater than which no other can be conceived'.
• The teleological argument from design/order
• Arguments from 'miracles' or historical events
• The argument from the existence of objective morality (this existence is highly debatable)
• The argument from the existence of properties which may be non-physical (again, highly debatable) such as moral facts, consciousness, and beauty.

In this thread we've seen all of the above, though I'm not sure if we've really seen proper versions of the last two. I feel that all of the above can be debunked, and I don't think that their additive power is enough to justify beleif in a deity.

(2) In lieu of a knock down argument against the existence of god I think it is more reasonable to be agnostic. Given exposure to the right facts it may well become reasonable to take up the full blown atheist position (while I am an atheist in practice, I suspect I am more properly characterised as an agnostic).

 

[Captain Gh3y]

I think Chadd meant being atheist is more consistent because we don't call ourselves agnostic to other things we see no evidence for

 

[veloc1ty]

Sometimes people overlook how precise agnosticism is defined: "a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience". In other words, an agnostic person believes it's impossible to know whether god exists. Like Captain basically said, this could be applied to other things (Russell's teacup etc). In this way atheism could be said to be more reasonable.

More importantly in my opinion is your outlook on life. Atheism means you accept that there is no god and you look for meaning in a finite life, you appreciate what there is and the relationships you have. It also seems cliché to say so in light of how many times atheists say it, but the sense of awe is always there, even in simple things. Atheism can have the "spirituality" that theists so often [in my experience] deny it has. On the other hand, from my point of view agnosticism does not provide this; it seems unsure and doubtful and skepticism to both sides does not lend much to debate. Personally, I haven't met an agnostic who arrived there by logic or personal feeling, rather it seems just a "safe" fence-sitting position.

PS. I went off on a bit of a tangent, short answer: I believe atheism is a more reasonable position than agnosticism.