Does God exist? (17 Viewers)

[Drsoccerball]

The point is that I was asked to justify why religion is BS.
If someone is permitted to say 'other religions are BS simply because mine is correct', then I should be permitted to say 'ALL religions are BS because my view of the universe (a purely scientific one) is correct.

The fact of the matter is that religion is not needed to explain the universe, and it doesn't do a very good job at it anyway because it depends on assumptions rather than observations. And honestly - the idea that I am supposed to suck up to some invisible being for no other reason than to satisfy its ego or face eternal damnation is just about the most grotesque idea there is.

And judging by the way this poll has been trickling from belief towards disbelief over the last 10 years, I'd say that 100 years from now organised religion will be nothing more than a curiosity. Tales of Christianity and Islam will probably seem to everybody just like tales of Zeus and Neptune (which is how it all appears to me right now). Education is gradually curing us of this pointless baggage.

I wouldn't of said that it's BS. It obviously has things that makes sense and some other things that don't make sense to me. And by no means did I say it's BS because my religion says its BS as you pointed out that would be circular. However, providing arguments based on reason from my religion wouldn't be circular. (I said something that would make sense logically(even though you don't think so.))

You're basing your last argument on the voting of people mostly between the ages of 15-20. But if you look at trends more and more people are starting to believe but then again more and more people are starting to disbelieve. If religion stands 1400 years + what makes you think they'll die in the next 100 years?

Science and religion do not contradict each other

To Dan : I don't physically have enough energy any more to reply to your posts (I went to the doctors and app I have some sickness that the symptoms make me feel really really tired.) sorry

 

[Paradoxica]

I wouldn't of said that it's BS. It obviously has things that makes sense and some other things that don't make sense to me. And by no means did I say it's BS because my religion says its BS as you pointed out that would be circular. However, providing arguments based on reason from my religion wouldn't be circular. (I said something that would make sense logically(even though you don't think so.))

You're basing your last argument on the voting of people mostly between the ages of 15-20. But if you look at trends more and more people are starting to believe but then again more and more people are starting to disbelieve. If religion stands 1400 years + what makes you think they'll die in the next 100 years?

Science and religion do not contradict each other

To Dan : I don't physically have enough energy any more to reply to your posts (I went to the doctors and app I have some sickness that the symptoms make me feel really really tired.) sorry

No, but religion likes to contradict science when crazy people are involved.

I doubt religion will die out. Faith is a derivation of trust that stems from our social nature. Without trust, faith, society would... not be what it is. But the reverse also holds true.

Also, we are imperfect humans in an imperfect world, not everything can have a reasonable explanation. For sufficiently arbitrary definition of reasonable.

But I digress. Live and let live. Some things just aren't worth getting angry over (Statement subject to personal beliefs and values)

 

[nerdasdasd]

I wouldn't of said that it's BS. It obviously has things that makes sense and some other things that don't make sense to me. And by no means did I say it's BS because my religion says its BS as you pointed out that would be circular. However, providing arguments based on reason from my religion wouldn't be circular. (I said something that would make sense logically(even though you don't think so.))

You're basing your last argument on the voting of people mostly between the ages of 15-20. But if you look at trends more and more people are starting to believe but then again more and more people are starting to disbelieve. If religion stands 1400 years + what makes you think they'll die in the next 100 years?

Science and religion do not contradict each other

To Dan : I don't physically have enough energy any more to reply to your posts (I went to the doctors and app I have some sickness that the symptoms make me feel really really tired.) sorry

Of course it does.

People surviving ebola or getting out of a car crash are blaming god for saving them.

No. It's called medicine made from science and medical technology that saved them.

Same for those people that say "God saved my son or daughter from this illness". Modern medicine and surgeons did.

That's one reason why some people (including myself ) call it illogical.

 

[Drsoccerball]

Of course it does.

People surviving ebola or getting out of a car crash are blaming god for saving them.

No. It's called medicine made from science and medical technology that saved them.

Same for those people that say "God saved my son or daughter from this illness". Modern medicine and surgeons did.

That's one reason why some people (including myself ) call it illogical.

There's obviously biological reasons behind everything but obviously it is caused by God. So in your example you thank God because he allowed the conditions such that you were able to overcome ebola/ a car crash. So we look at the causes of biological conditions not only the conditions. A little example of this is looking at the base of a waterfall and noticing bubbles form. The bubbles each show a sun and many people would say each bubble is a sun while someone who thinks would say obviously because the suns reflecting onto the water etc... You do this until you reach the conditions of the event and you stop here without going any further why?

 

[nerdasdasd]

There's obviously biological reasons behind everything but obviously it is caused by God. So in your example you thank God because he allowed the conditions such that you were able to overcome ebola/ a car crash. So we look at the causes of biological conditions not only the conditions. A little example of this is looking at the base of a waterfall and noticing bubbles form. The bubbles each show a sun and many people would say each bubble is a sun while someone who thinks would say obviously because the suns reflecting onto the water etc... You do this until you reach the conditions of the event and you stop here without going any further why?

God didn't create the conditions.

A pill made from 200+ scientists after trial and testing things did.

Fine ... Where did the conditions come from? We didn't have one ... We tested many things

 

[nerdasdasd]

@doc

You must be one of those folks that believes you can pray diseases away or cancer comes from sins ...

 

[Drsoccerball]

@doc

You must be one of those folks that believes you can pray diseases away or cancer comes from sins ...

Nop... The Prophet (pbuh) said Allah created a cure for every disease. He never said good deeds cure diseases.

Furthermore, we believe there's two laws put in place and that are the laws of the universe and the Law of God. The reward and punishment for the latter is received mainly in the hereafter, while the penalties of the former are suffered mostly in this world.

Example of the Laws of the Universe : The punishment for drinking poison is illness and the reward of its antidote is health. The reward for patience is success , while the penalty for laziness is privation; and the reward for labour is wealth.

Sometimes both laws clash and one gets punished in both this life and the next. Like drinking alcohol damages the liver if taken regularly and while that person lives he gets punishment due to the Laws of the Universe (Mainly) and then after he is punished for drinking forbidden things and all the other stuff he did badly when he was drunk. Also some may not be punished in this world. Hitler killed millions of Jews it is physically impossible to punish him even close to what he did in this world so it's taken to the next world.

After all the laws of the Universe are satisfied then we ask sincerely to God to allow us to be cured. It is a fallacy to ask God to win the lottery without buying a ticket. (Even though I don't recommend gambling it's a good example lol.)
The only thing is that we can make supplications believing that even with medical intervention ultimately God is the one who creates the optimum conditions that allow remedy.


Examples of the Laws of God: We have to pray, fast etc... and if we don't we will be punished in the next life.

The punishment's of all the Law's of God can be stopped by repenting before you die. However, taking someone's rights like killing someone, talking behind their back, teasing them etc... Is left up to the people it involves to forgive.

Also it is important to note that any struggle experienced in this life will allow for spiritual cleansing raising our level in the next or even in this world as it gives us insight to find ways to stop the disease in this world eg: Cancer


So even though these diseases would inevitably happen as a result of conditions at that time if we are patient and fulfil both the Laws of the Universe and the Laws of God we can reach unimaginable levels in this worldy life and obviously the next.

“How amazing is the case of the believer; there is good for him in everything, and this characteristic is exclusively for him alone. If he experiences something pleasant, he is thankful, and that is better for him; and if he comes across some adversity, he is patient, and that is better for him.” [Muslim] ( A very authentic source of sayings and actions by the prophet Muhammad (pbuh)

 

[dan964]

For most diseases actually, modern medicine just speeds up the recovery process or aids the natural recovery process, that humans already have.
(Hardly a miracle)

I think that God can cure diseases and the like, but in a lot of cases he does such through the expertise of doctors, and the methods we know in medicine.

Where does knowledge come from? How do people know what they know? It is a interesting question.

On alcohol: it can actually be good for your heart function (especially red wine).

 

[nerdasdasd]

For most diseases actually, modern medicine just speeds up the recovery process or aids the natural recovery process, that humans already have.
(Hardly a miracle)

I think that God can cure diseases and the like, but in a lot of cases he does such through the expertise of doctors, and the methods we know in medicine.

Where does knowledge come from? How do people know what they know? It is a interesting question.

On alcohol: it can actually be good for your heart function (especially red wine).

The medical knowledge we have now came from the evolution of decades of testing and figuring out things slowly.

Like we didn't first come up with the MRI. We discovered magnetic fields, electricity etc.

 

[dan964]

The point is that I was asked to justify why religion is BS.
If someone is permitted to say 'other religions are BS simply because mine is correct', then I should be permitted to say 'ALL religions are BS because my view of the universe (a purely scientific one) is correct.

Because you still then would have to justify your position as much as I do mine; which is done here
http://community.boredofstudies.org...cs/106355/does-god-exist-703.html#post7097076
Yes it may not be sufficient for you. But because I have justified the reasons behind why I am convinced of my position, then I can make the statement that all religions are false (other than my own). Until you do that, then you cannot make the claim. So it is not as you are suggesting, that I am just permitted to make that, as I have made a case for why I hold to my beliefs, and also raised general evidence for why I reject Zoroastrianism.

The fact of the matter is that religion is not needed to explain the universe, and it doesn't do a very good job at it anyway because it depends on assumptions rather than observations.

That "fact" needs to be proven. You are orientated from a worldview that has an assumption this world is all that there is. You are entitled to that, but it means your explanation is still made on assumptions just as much as any other worldview, it is called confirmation bias.

Example Quote: "We've tried our emotion-based way of life for a little too long. We talk of love and God as if they are tangibles.
But if a scientist can't see it, touch it, analyze it, and alter it, then it isn't real."

The naturalism is strong on this one. We can analyse the Gospels to see if they are credible or not, can we not? Can we not analyse the accounts where claims of God interacting with this world occur? Or do we just dismiss them because God cannot possibly exist?

Have you ever heard of the black swan. Before they discovered Western Australia, many people said there is not such thing as a black swan, until they encountered evidence to the contrary.

The real question is with the account for instance of just one event in history, the resurrection of Jesus Christ; if that happened, or didn't; we cannot just dismiss such events or abnormalities because they are different. If that were the case, we could not learn or discover new things.

And honestly - the idea that I am supposed to suck up to some invisible being for no other reason than to satisfy its ego or face eternal damnation is just about the most grotesque idea there is.

Think of it like this, I am supposed to suck up to my parents for no reason then to satisfy their ego or face damnation (maybe not eternal in this case). The whole reason why people submit to a higher authority such as in this case God (which is a better word than "suck-up"*), is because its an authority. It only be genuinely grotesque, only if God was undeserving of being the king of our lives; which if he is the creator of the universe (which of course you think he isn't, the creator that is, as you think he doesn't exist), is completely deserving as the giver of life. (*to understand more fully the justification, lies in the difference between "pleasing God" and God's grace; a fundamental distinction made in Christianity for instance, because in Christianity, it is not about us sucking up to God, in fact it is the opposite, a God that reached out to people who were rebels etc. etc.).

And even it is say, grotesque, that isn't an argument for his non-existence, just more so an argument for apathy, agnosticism or unbelief; rather than actually whether God does exist or not.

And judging by the way this poll has been trickling from belief towards disbelief over the last 10 years, I'd say that 100 years from now organised religion will be nothing more than a curiosity. Tales of Christianity and Islam will probably seem to everybody just like tales of Zeus and Neptune (which is how it all appears to me right now). Education is gradually curing us of this pointless baggage.

1. 30 more people don't believe in God as of 26-01-16, whoopido. Since when did a poll on a high school forum decide whether God exists or not. To be honest, yes western society might be tending away from God, but certainly not from religion/spirituality, they just tend to be different forms, (ahem FSM etc.). Secondly, most of the world religions, have been around on the world stage for 2000 years + (with the exception of Islam which is about 600 years younger than that). I would find that not every person would find this thread their cup of tea anyway.
2. Atheism is just as much dogmatic in its non-belief in God, as most religious people would be in a belief of God. The last thing we need in the secular education, is brainwashing, whether that be of a naturalistic worldview or atheistic education or a religious one.
3. There seems to be assumption that the progress we are making is good; and somehow that we are evolving of our of "baggage" such as religion etc. In some ways the progress we are making is no different to the civilisations beforehand. Rather that progressing forward, if we compare some of the moral practices that are slowly or have become acceptable in society, we see that many of them were acceptable for instance in the pagan Roman empire. It is not the case that we are progressing out of religion, but rather back to the days, at least in a moral sense, to our roots.
4. No Christian or Muslim (cannot verify exactly the latter), believes in a God-of-the-gaps like figure such as Zeus, whereby we use to explain things we don't understand.

 

[dan964]

The medical knowledge we have now came from the evolution of decades of testing and figuring out things slowly.

Like we didn't first come up with the MRI. We discovered magnetic fields, electricity etc.

Yes, I am not ignorance of that. What I am implying is what we call epistemology. Put concisely, it is the study of knowledge and justified belief. It questions what knowledge is and how it can be acquired, and the extent to which knowledge pertinent to any given subject or entity can be acquire.

 

[dan964]

continued... For instance on criteria of truth:

"Naïve Realism posits that only that which is directly observable by the human senses is true. First-hand observation determines the truth or falsity of a given statement. Naïve Realism is an insufficient criterion of truth. A host of natural phenomena are demonstrably true, but not observable by the unaided sense. For example, Naïve Realism would deny the existence of sounds beyond the range of human hearing and the existence of x-rays. Similarly, there are a number of sense experiments which show a disconnect between the perceived sensation and the reality of its cause"

The real question is what qualifies as truth, and how do we know that something is true or more astutely how do we know what we know??
Now I suspect you might answer, science. But it depends how you approach science. If you presume, science is the only lens at looking the universe, then it will be the only one you will look through. But there are other lens, the lens of history and literary criticism, to mention some of the more accurate ones; plus the fallable ones of experience, emotion etc. Reason as well, may offer some insights.

It becomes much more philosophical, such as what is reality, and how can know what is real? etc.

I would probably have to look a lot more into it, if I was honestly going to formulate a better response.

 

[nerdasdasd]

Yes, I am not ignorance of that. What I am implying is what we call epistemology. Put concisely, it is the study of knowledge and justified belief. It questions what knowledge is and how it can be acquired, and the extent to which knowledge pertinent to any given subject or entity can be acquire.

Hmm! I get your point

Knowledge comes from application of experience and information.

We didn't have information back in the stone ages but then we figured things out and then it got externalised into books.

We were apes, we didn't know about fire or anything ... one day we accidently created fire by smashing rocks together and it got recorded down in a book (ages later).

As for medicine.... we got hurt and needed a way to heal people. So we tried plants, chemicals, materials and then mixed it together.

How did we find out about bacteria and that they could multiply? Pasteur showed that microorganisms grew in broth in a sealed tube, but no growth or spoiling of the broth occurred if it was boiled first.

 

[dan964]

Hmm! I get your point

Knowledge comes from application of experience and information.

Yes it does. The question we then have to ask what information/experiences can we consider to be helpful or valid in asking whether God exists or not.

I am not really into evolutionary explanations, which is why I didn't address them.

 

[dan964]

Science and religion do not contradict each other

To Dan : I don't physically have enough energy any more to reply to your posts (I went to the doctors and app I have some sickness that the symptoms make me feel really really tired.) sorry

Sure, that is fine.
And yes, I agree that science and religion do not contradict each other, but it depends on (1) the religion and such interpretation especially of texts like Genesis 1 etc., (2) whether one holds exclusively to naturalism.

 

[dan964]

a) anyone can write a *religious * book (cough cough Scientology )

and Mormonism. As you put "religious" in inverted commas, there needs to be some measure on determining on what basis is one book determined religious. Texts that may form the religious text (for instance texts like those that make up Vedas or the Bibles which are collections rather a single continuous texts like the Quran or the Book of Mormon), may have not intentionally have specifically a religious motive, some have other motives, to report what had happened. The question is then are they reliable, accurate; or were they corrupted? etc. There is sufficient evidence to say that the New Testament is reliable, accurate in terms of being well-preserved; but is it true, is the real question at the matter?

-b) anyone can claim "it "exists and that they saw something

But as you know just because I see something doesn't mean it is real. Likewise the converse is also true, just because I cannot see it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

-c) the person that wrote the book may have been delusional

Yes I agree on the case of the most religions, where one person wrote a book. Rather with Christianity, it was something that was public, 500+ witnesses (in the case of the resurrection for instance).

 

[Drsoccerball]

On alcohol: it can actually be good for your heart function (especially red wine).

The advantages are outweighed by the disadvantages.

 

[Drsoccerball]

<1> If God can see without eyes, can hear without ears, and speak without a tongue, then he can have a son without a wife. We've have lots of discussion over this already.

Mathematical and logical fallacy. Firstly what you are saying is like in induction when you have to prove for all n values. How I see your argument "If n=1 is true and n=2 is true then n=anything must be true." Which is not the case and thus you cannot make the conclusion you made. Also we have to consider what having a son means. Firstly as you know the words "begotten son" is used... why would God use the word begotten along with son if he was trying to refer to Jesus(pbuh) as someone who isn't begotten? Okay let us view other versions of the bible that removed that word.(Which you said was because people misunderstood what it meant... But wouldn't God, if it was truly about his nature make it clear and concise so that there's no room for misinterpretation since it's such a vital topic of faith and can either lead to eternal damnation or eternal salvation? Also woudn't removing a word or verse from a scripture be changing the scripture of God?)

What is a son ? From what we know its the birth through sexual acts or through other methods such as IVF. So If God says he has a son that must mean he reduces himself to the lower levels of animal acts. Also why would God create himself ( I personally don't get this? ) Why would God create a creation such as a son which automatically makes Him love the son more than me and favour him over me ? Don't you think this sounds unfair ? No matter what a son does the parent would always love him so thus I have to be more careful than the son and I have a more likely chance of going to heaven then that son and have a more likely chance of going hell than that son.

<2> "God exists because of the Bible blah blah..." well if you actually quoted in full, you'll see the case I put is not the same.
The case I was refuting is "God exists because religious text (Bible/Quran/Vedas) says so, and the religious text is true because it is the word of God/Allah/Brahman etc.). You have to actually establish the claims of the text to be true another way. Mind you the Bible, isn't actually a single text, but 66 separate texts.

I think the Greek word was Biblos ?

This actually means examining the claims of Jesus; because if true, then it already leads to God's existence, but the claims are testable in the sense, that Jesus being God, means that God has broken into history for all (for scrutiny). < That is how Christians, like myslef would explain it

I think for this we have to agree to disagree As sy123 posted a while ago showing the contradictions in the above statement but I guess it makes sense for you.

The argument is "God exists because of the Bible says so, and the Bible is true because it is God's word etc. etc."
What i am saying is if one can examine the claims of Jesus i.e. the first 5 books of the New Testament and establish them to be true, then you have proof of God existing. The argument I said no-one couldn't use also applies to the Quran as well, you cannot assume its truthfulness, that is why you can assume its true because you have affirmed is as true. The real question is can we justify the truthfulness of the account.

We don't assume it's truthfulness we obviously prove it. Also if we go by your claims by Jesus(pbuh) you have to verify every single thing he said and did?

Well the Quran teaches explicitly that Jesus didn't die on the cross, in direct contradiction with non Christian sources. Why it (Quran) says this? Don't know. But all it means I am less likely to rely on the Quran which is 600 years later, for information about Jesus, then the account of Mark or Luke for instance which date within 40-50 years of the event.

But if the Quran is from God then it would be more accurate than an inspiration. But you don't believe the Quran to be true so lets leave this to one side.

 

[Drsoccerball]

Well; Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." - Every religion has exclusive claims, no-one is denying that.

"(Mohammed) You are only a Warner and for every nation there is a guide." (S 13:7)
"And we have sent no messenger but with the language of his people, that he might make (the message) clear for them." (S14:4)

"And this (Quran) is a blessed book which we have revealed, confirming that which was (revealed) before it, so that you (O prophet) may warn the mother of the cities (Makkah) and those around her." (S6:92)
"And thus we have revealed to you an Arabic Quran, so that you may warn the mother of the cities (Makkah) and those around her." (S42:7)
The principle given by the Quran here proves that as per his own standards Mohammed can only be a guide for his nation i.e. Arabs.
The above verses clearly show that Mohammed claims to have received a revelation in Arabic to warn people of Makkah and those living close to it, of course the Arabic speaking people.

Will answer this in inbox soon busy at the moment.

http://www.gotquestions.org/Lord-of-the-Sabbath.html
There are certain aspects of the Law that Jesus fulfilled. Interestingly, most concepts of the Law/Judaism such as the Atonement etc. are present still or explained in Christianity, but unusually missing in Islam.

- Doubt he was trustworthy, especially in the context of war. The Quran says very little of Mohammed, so what does the Haddith say then? Or do you want me to quote it?

DrSoccerball, feel free to PM me a reply. Just link this post.

If I look up the arabic im 99% sure I wont see the word lying or lie or anything on those lines. Also in wars as I said tricking the opponent is allowed. It is also expected

 

[dan964]

1. I have already explained why the term "begotten" does appear to be likely in the earliest texts, which are present, well at least in John 3:16. I have also explained that the Quran significantly misrepresents the Christian view of the incarnation, especially by what Christians mean when they say Jesus is the Son of God. Even then "only-born" is a better translation but most versions translate "one and only", because Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary.

Secondly, even if begotten is in the texts, Christians understand it to imply birth by woman but not necessarily conception of man.

2.

Mathematical and logical fallacy. Firstly what you are saying is like in induction when you have to prove for all n values. How I see your argument "If n=1 is true and n=2 is true then n=anything must be true."

It is like you trying to compare it to an analogy and failing. The Quran affirms that God can see without eyes, hear with ears, speak without a tongue; Christians agree, and also say that God can have a son without a wife; it is not that ridiculous. Your comparison to mathematical induction; is ridiculous, because I haven't assigned cases, or numerical values.

(Which you said was because people misunderstood what it meant...

People in the 16th century, we now have even more copies, of the New Testament. The same applies for 1 John 5:7, we have enough historical data, to piece together with a great deal of certainty what the original texts were. In fact, we can piece together the entire NT except something like 3 sentences of such, just from quotations in other preserved writings from the early church.

But the reason I can make that inference, is because it we say that God doesn't require what is NORMALLY EXPECTED for that to be the case, for the case of sight, hearing and speaking; why would God having a Son be any different??

But wouldn't God, if it was truly about his nature make it clear and concise so that there's no room for misinterpretation since it's such a vital topic of faith and can either lead to eternal damnation or eternal salvation?

That, if it wasn't for Christ, would make a strong case for atheism. Since if we take the Gospel seriously (and true), then we end up with the conclusion, that Jesus is indeed God, meaning that God has made his nature and character clear. Secondly, God has also made his nature very clear in creation; his divine power as well. Which brings me to this...

The only room for misinterpretation comes when you take a text/revelation that was revealed only to one person, as in every religion, except Christianity (see later down) that comes at least 600 years after the events occurred, comes and then says that the texts which are closer/closest in some cases to the events are corrupted and hence has to redefine or reinterpret what is fairly clear and make it vague:
e.g. "[Jesus said] All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him"

A. God created by the Word.
B. Jesus in the Quran, is called the Word of God.
C. Is the Word, therefore creator or creation?

4. The Bible wasn't collated until the 3rd century. The texts that make it up, already existed and were widely accepted and in circulation.

Also if we go by your claims by Jesus(pbuh) you have to verify every single thing he said and did?

No, I think it would be sufficient all I have to do is show that Jesus died and rose again. BECAUSE if that was not true, then he would be either a lunatic or liar.
This would show TWO things, one that the Quran does not give us the right view of Jesus (which is doesn't anyway, considering that statement A below is unanimously agreed by all historical scholars, with the exception of Muslims).

And that is enough to verify large amounts of the rest of what he said. The first is already verified in history as fact, and the second follows on logically, if you consider the accounts. The argument is very simple:

A. Jesus had to be dead & buried (in a tomb) - fact, historically verified, and medically consistent.
B. The tomb had to be empty - usually disputed, but there is evidence for that.
C. Jesus appeared to many people - also disputed, and there is evidence also for this, the earliest texts on the resurrection affirm the appearances to many, including Peter, the 12 and 500 individual people.

If I look up the arabic im 99%

These translations are done by Muslims or Muslim scholars. I have good reason to trust that the text, is very correct.

But if the Quran is from God then it would be more accurate than an inspiration.

Again the inspiration = from God. So don't know where the basis for your claim. Besides the Quran/Muslims, say that previous revelation FROM God was corrupted; so either its a circular argument, or has no basis for arguing the Quran's superiority.