Does God exist? (1 Viewer)

[lollyluu]

In my opnion I don't believe God exist. But i got nothing to prove he doesn't exist or if he does exist either. It's just how I was brought up and yeah I don't believe in any spiritual stuff either like psychics etc..
This is my first post haha i'm so excited. Anyway this issue would never be settled so I guess there will always be two sides.

 

[Riffy Raffy]

But they're not though. They only claim to be following the Bible or the Koran, but prove me if I'm wrong in saying that neither of those texts have God saying its ok to go out and kill anyone that has wronged you.

Those people are indeed wrong because they are incorrectly using a Holy Text to justify their actions

I posted this is another thread. This was originally posted by me on an anti-Islam website, so that is why I am picking of the Old Testament and not the Koran.

“Whoever rebels against your word and does not obey your words, whatever you may command them, will be put to death. Only be strong and courageous!” (Josh 1:18 )

“See, I have delivered Jericho into your hands, along with its king and its fighting men… They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it-men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.” (Josh 2:2, 21)

“And when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.” (Deut 7:2)

“However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes.” (Deut 20:16)

"Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." (1 Sam 15:3)

"While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp." So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD commanded Moses." (Numbers 15:32-36)

"If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again." (Deuteronomy 13:6-12 )

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." (Leviticus 20:13)

"Prepare a place to slaughter his sons for the sins of their forefathers; they are not to rise to inherit the land and cover the earth with their cities." (Isiah 14:21)

"The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God.They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open." (Hosea 13:16)

In my opnion I don't believe God exist. But i got nothing to prove he doesn't exist or if he does exist either. It's just how I was brought up and yeah I don't believe in any spiritual stuff either like psychics etc..
This is my first post haha i'm so excited. Anyway this issue would never be settled so I guess there will always be two sides.

Welcome! Anyway, it is true you can not disprove God, but how can you disprove something which people have made unable to be disproven? I've made a scenario where agnosticism is correct, and where atheism is correct.

Say I said there was a fairy right behind you. Before you turn around, it is rational to be agnostic - you CAN disprove it OR prove it, so you are right in being skeptical of its existence, but you'd be irrational if you disbelieved in it completely without turning around.

However, what if I said that the fairy followed you as you turned, so it was always behind you? Also, it made no noise, had no smell, and was invisible in a camera or a mirror. Also, no one else could see it except those who were able to see it. Then would it be rational to be agnostic? No, you'd be in your right mind to be an "atheist" to it (I know it would be more a-fairy, but still). God is like the fairy. Theists have said that God is objectively invisible, and only people in their right mind can see him (feel him). In that way, if God DID exist, he'd be an unjust and evil being to punish me.

 

[boris]

If there was a god, he'd have found me something to wear to the picnic races by now.

 

[fernando]

imo it's better to be influenced by philosophies that seem logical to yourself...and don't restrict you

 

[Sastrawan]

Just a couple of thoughts, and these haven't been fully thought through yet, so feel free to criticise them any way you want.

1) Science and reason has no greater validity to describe the world than any other form of belief system. It just so happens that science is very adept at describing and predicting the behaviour of physical things in controlled conditions. This is science's primary and only aim. Newton himself said "I make no hypotheses." He did not claim to be able to explain why things happened, only the ways in which they would happen.

2) Logic itself is founded on axioms which are asserted, much like religion. If Christianity begins with the premise "God exists and He is good", logic is based on things like "If all As are Bs, and all Bs are Cs, then all As are Cs" (not quite, but my technical knowledge of logical axioms is shaky). In fact, 20th century logicians have proven, among other things, that from the axioms of set theory and logic, it is possible to come to a conclusion that is independent of those axioms. That is, the axiom system is incomplete.

3) Another proven theorem is that "there are an infinite number of statements that are true but unprovable" - Kurt Gödel.

[By the way, none of this is my material; it comes from my Maths teacher Dr. Bill Pender, whom you may know from his 3U Cambridge Maths textbook]

What (3) means is that mathematical proof is an insufficient method for reaching mathematical truth.

What I tried to get at by (2) and (3) is to show that logic is not a perfect and complete system in and of itself; let alone one to describe reality.

Whatever you believe, you have to accept the fact that science is a model, created by us, which we use to describe the phenomena we observe. And the phenomena which each person observes is unique to themselves. Hence it is impossible for Richard Dawkins to claim that God doesn't exist because when he does his tests in the lab, no God-force appears on his instruments. The very logic apparatus he is using fails, inherently, to include all of reality and truth.

If I were to go up to Richard Dawkins and say "I saw the Virgin Mary at Coogee today", there is nothing he can do to prove me wrong.

This, of course, does not mean that he cannot prove the so-called 'arguments for the existence of God' wrong. Many such arguments are fallacious, as we have seen in the past three hundred or something pages.

I was having a discussion with a friend of mine one day and I kept question why he thought science was right. Eventually, he came up with this justification: "Using science, you are able to build a bridge from one part of the river to another. Using mathematics you can measure its length and count out the mass of materials you need. By praying to God, you can do none of these things."

True. But notice that he has shifted the criterion of value from "objective truth" to "usefulness in specific situations". This, I believe, is a better criterion to use for systems of belief. Objective truth, in my opinion, does not exist. Science is useful for engineering and sending rockets to the moon and making a model of how sub-atomic particles interact and healing people. Fantastic. Religion can foster a sense of community, love, and a place in the world. It can encourage people to improve themselves, be kinder and more tolerant. (It can also do the opposite, just as science can be used to make bombs and logic can be used brainwash) And religion can give people solace, just as science can create a sense of wonder.

The only problem is when you start misusing or misunderstanding the functions of science and religion. I believe that no true religious person would advise you to avoid taking your child to a doctor when he or she is gravely ill, and instead to pray to God to heal them of His own accord. I think a true religious person would say that God created doctors for the very purpose of healing the sick. As for those people who claim to heal people by supernatural means, well, I've never experienced that, nor seen it, so who am I to judge whether it happens or not? If it does, great. If it's all a hoax, an intelligent person will see through it very quickly. Much worse things are happening in the world than that. John Edwards isn't an evil man, for all his manipulation (he makes people happy, doesn't he?). The Burmese junta on the other hand...

 

[Kwayera]

Just a couple of thoughts, and these haven't been fully thought through yet, so feel free to criticise them any way you want.

1) Science and reason has no greater validity to describe the world than any other form of belief system. It just so happens that science is very adept at describing and predicting the behaviour of physical things in controlled conditions. This is science's primary and only aim. Newton himself said "I make no hypotheses." He did not claim to be able to explain why things happened, only the ways in which they would happen.

2) Logic itself is founded on axioms which are asserted, much like religion. If Christianity begins with the premise "God exists and He is good", logic is based on things like "If all As are Bs, and all Bs are Cs, then all As are Cs" (not quite, but my technical knowledge of logical axioms is shaky). In fact, 20th century logicians have proven, among other things, that from the axioms of set theory and logic, it is possible to come to a conclusion that is independent of those axioms. That is, the axiom system is incomplete.

3) Another proven theorem is that "there are an infinite number of statements that are true but unprovable" - Kurt Gödel.

[By the way, none of this is my material; it comes from my Maths teacher Dr. Bill Pender, whom you may know from his 3U Cambridge Maths textbook]

What (3) means is that mathematical proof is an insufficient method for reaching mathematical truth.

What I tried to get at by (2) and (3) is to show that logic is not a perfect and complete system in and of itself; let alone one to describe reality.

Whatever you believe, you have to accept the fact that science is a model, created by us, which we use to describe the phenomena we observe. And the phenomena which each person observes is unique to themselves. Hence it is impossible for Richard Dawkins to claim that God doesn't exist because when he does his tests in the lab, no God-force appears on his instruments. The very logic apparatus he is using fails, inherently, to include all of reality and truth.

If I were to go up to Richard Dawkins and say "I saw the Virgin Mary at Coogee today", there is nothing he can do to prove me wrong.

This, of course, does not mean that he cannot prove the so-called 'arguments for the existence of God' wrong. Many such arguments are fallacious, as we have seen in the past three hundred or something pages.

I was having a discussion with a friend of mine one day and I kept question why he thought science was right. Eventually, he came up with this justification: "Using science, you are able to build a bridge from one part of the river to another. Using mathematics you can measure its length and count out the mass of materials you need. By praying to God, you can do none of these things."

True. But notice that he has shifted the criterion of value from "objective truth" to "usefulness in specific situations". This, I believe, is a better criterion to use for systems of belief. Objective truth, in my opinion, does not exist. Science is useful for engineering and sending rockets to the moon and making a model of how sub-atomic particles interact and healing people. Fantastic. Religion can foster a sense of community, love, and a place in the world. It can encourage people to improve themselves, be kinder and more tolerant. (It can also do the opposite, just as science can be used to make bombs and logic can be used brainwash) And religion can give people solace, just as science can create a sense of wonder.

The only problem is when you start misusing or misunderstanding the functions of science and religion. I believe that no true religious person would advise you to avoid taking your child to a doctor when he or she is gravely ill, and instead to pray to God to heal them of His own accord. I think a true religious person would say that God created doctors for the very purpose of healing the sick. As for those people who claim to heal people by supernatural means, well, I've never experienced that, nor seen it, so who am I to judge whether it happens or not? If it does, great. If it's all a hoax, an intelligent person will see through it very quickly. Much worse things are happening in the world than that. John Edwards isn't an evil man, for all his manipulation (he makes people happy, doesn't he?). The Burmese junta on the other hand...

you do not know what you are talking about

 

[Slidey]

[SIZE=-1]omg i cant take reading this shit anymore. this post made me want to cry[/SIZE]

There there. At least we know there are still sane people like you and me around.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Won't someone answer him point by point?

 

[ari89]

lol @ this

thanks ari

Wanna touch my Subhana W'talah?

 

[Iron]

...

Science does not claim to have absolutely killed the notion of God. That would be unscientific. But it does claim that the weight of evidence holds in favour of God not existing - i.e. there are perfectly rational ways of explaining our experience without reference to (the myth of) a priori knowledge.

Also, I cant see how you can have any meaningful concept of God after rejecting the notion of objective truth. God must be the absolute source of truth according to your scattered post

 

[Slidey]

Won't someone answer him point by point?

I doubt anybody can be bothered arguing with a 2008 extension maths student who thinks he's an expert at platonic philosophy and relativistic logic (I mean the fact that he tried to tie the incompleteness theorems into his argument says a lot to me).

Most I can be bothered is to recommend him some good books and to live a few more years so he gets those absolutist thoughts out of his head.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

I doubt anybody can be bothered arguing with a 2008 extension maths student who thinks he's an expert at platonic philosophy and relativistic logic (I mean the fact that he tried to tie the incompleteness theorems into his argument says a lot to me).

Most I can be bothered is to recommend him some good books and to live a few more years so he gets those absolutist thoughts out of his head.

that faint whirring sound you can hear in the distance is Godel spinning in his grave

 

[Slidey]

How so? The philosophy of mathematics is related to but still fairly removed from the philosophy of science.

I'm just saying that one shouldn't abuse absolutism and relativism to the point that one can no longer differentiate two ideas which clearly differ in intellectual usefulness and validity - e.g. science and religion/metaphysics; I'm often not a fan of over-analysis.

 

[Enteebee]

1) Science and reason has no greater validity to describe the world than any other form of belief system. It just so happens that science is very adept at describing and predicting the behaviour of physical things in controlled conditions. This is science's primary and only aim. Newton himself said "I make no hypotheses." He did not claim to be able to explain why things happened, only the ways in which they would happen.

What? Science can explain why sometimes the earth quakes... Science can explain why some animals are green and others are brown... As for the bolded part, True but if you're willing to accept science in every other circumstance to lead to factually true results other than some exceptions, I think you need a pretty good argument for your exceptions.

2) Logic itself is founded on axioms which are asserted, much like religion. If Christianity begins with the premise "God exists and He is good", logic is based on things like "If all As are Bs, and all Bs are Cs, then all As are Cs" (not quite, but my technical knowledge of logical axioms is shaky). In fact, 20th century logicians have proven, among other things, that from the axioms of set theory and logic, it is possible to come to a conclusion that is independent of those axioms. That is, the axiom system is incomplete.

They are asserted because (other than in the world of philosophical musings) we cannot separate ourselves from their 'truth'. If I don't believe in God then I can still lead a logically consistent lifestyle, however if you don't believe in these logical principles yet apply them on a day to day basis, I'd say you're lying when you say you don't believe in them.

What I tried to get at by (2) and (3) is to show that logic is not a perfect and complete system in and of itself; let alone one to describe reality.

I think you'll find all atheists in this thread accept that is true, we have a constructed reality which may or may not be true, but is based off the best knowledge we can have. We can't separate our minds (imo, without becoming unconscious or something) from the other basic logical axioms, so they will always form a part of our 'constructed reality', the same definately can't be said of any 'god' axiom.

Whatever you believe, you have to accept the fact that science is a model, created by us, which we use to describe the phenomena we observe. And the phenomena which each person observes is unique to themselves. Hence it is impossible for Richard Dawkins to claim that God doesn't exist because when he does his tests in the lab, no God-force appears on his instruments. The very logic apparatus he is using fails, inherently, to include all of reality and truth.

I could say the exact same thing for magical love pixies though couldn't I? Do you accept their existence? As for personal experience, I think we definately know that people can be deluded in their experiences, much better than we know any of the various flights of supernatural fantasy exist... so I'd discount it pretty strongly, though I can imagine it'd be hard (perhaps impossible) for an individual who believes they have had such an experience.

If I were to go up to Richard Dawkins and say "I saw the Virgin Mary at Coogee today", there is nothing he can do to prove me wrong.

Yeah sure... and if you honestly believe you saw the virgin mary at coogee (or have communicated with god or had a visit from santa claus) and there's no way it could be a delusion, go ahead and keep thinking that. Personally I think in most cases you're probably being disingenuous.

Objective truth, in my opinion, does not exist.

Then you don't really believe in God. Personally I think objective truth exists, just perhaps that we'll never know it for certain.

John Edwards isn't an evil man, for all his manipulation (he makes people happy, doesn't he?)

He's a fraud, he is evil because he decieves people who if given the choice would never choose to be decieved... what paternalistic nonsense.

 

[Slidey]

Definitely, Dan. Utilitarianism should be a basic part of any freedom-lover's vocabulary - tempered with basic protection of the individual and minorities, as provided by liberal democracy.

 

[Slidey]

Fuck I'm sick of hearing you cunts bang on about freedom. I'm going start a military coup and indefinately oppress the world 1984 style, just to teach you fuckers a lesson.

Remember to set my care variable to 1 in that unlikely event.

 

[boris]

you do not know what you are talking about

Let it be known that I shall challenge you point by point.

Later though. When I'm bored.

But be expecting it.

 

[Riffy Raffy]

Epistemologically, it is possible that everything we think is true is false. It is possible that the scientific method is completely flawed too. However, science has far more practical benefits than religion. Also, if I did find out that God existed, I'd be pretty pissed off at him for sending me to Hell for disbelieving in a God that made it so that everything we rationally believe is false.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Science deals with facts. If you want truth, go to philosophy class

 

[Iron]

That was the greatest movie ever made. Had not seen till last night!
Epic, sweeping, grand.
Had everything.
The mere perfection of it is enough to prompt the question of God's existence