Does God exist? (1 Viewer)

[seano77]

i

BOOM

(not entirely correct)

haha nice.

 

[seano77]

Hell is actually the absence of God, then?

Yes I think that is biblical. However, I do not know everything about it.. I am young. Still learning..

 

[KFunk]

I think there is a noticeable divide, as outlined in Either/Or, that there are aspects of the internal/external when it comes to religious defined morality, versus a hedonistic viewpoint.

One could be hedonistic as in onanistic (Usually considered a sin), and yet fully adhere to all external rules put forward as doctrine.

A direct contrast between a starkly hedonistic lifestyle versus a structured and adherent one, I feel, exists only to back up the claims of those who extol the virtues of the structure, as it helps contribute to their own myopic worldview that if a system appears ordered and calm and follows their virtues then it is, indeed, virtuous.

This is the personal/social ethical divide, I would say, that leads to a deeper examination of the whole ethical concepts of Religion. (It's been a long time since I've had a proper ethical/moral/social discussion, so bear with me).

Were we to accept that, through Christian reasoning, a man's autonomy is his own, and only through following a virtuous path would he be rewarded with whatever the reward of heaven entails.

I guess at this point our underlying theory of moral psychology also becomes quite relevant. If one supports a Hobbes style psychological egoism/hedonism, which would hold that apparently moral actions are ultimately performed for self-interested or pleasure-seeking reasons, then it seems that the aesthetic and ethical (and with it, perhaps, the religious) lives may intersect. Personally I support a somewhat more sophisticated psychology which leaves room for conflict, though I have little doubt that emotion and pleasure-seeking play at least some role in our moral decision making.

Undoutedly the kind of 'scene setting' performed by ethical and religious doctrines plays a significant role whether we judge there to be conflict. However, as an (atheistic) agnostic I tend to examine religious frameworks as I would ethical/cultural frameworks. In light of this my tendency is to turn to the moral psychologists when trying to assess whether the hedonistic and ethical lives might conflict. My feeling is that while some fortunate people may achieve a significant degree of intersection, others may also experience great conflict.

 

[Slidey]

I think the real question here is:

"Does Schroedinger exist?"

 

[Slidey]

square root of i is not negative

Well considering that i is the answer to the equation i^2=-1, there is in fact two values of i: one which is negative and one which is positive.

Come on MSN

Also I'm macro.

oh sluts, I didn't see this post.

 

[chaldoking]

God does exist and there is no doubt about it. I want to pose a few questions and see what answers you come up with.

1) How was the universe created? (If you don't believe God created it because there is no proof, nor can you use the Big Bang argument because this is only a theory)

2) Explain how humans came to existence? (The argument of evolution is thrown away, because God is constantly creating.)

3) Explain how when a Priest is going to perform an excorsism, the person without being told knows that the Priest has the body of Christ with him. Also, explain excorism - if God doesn't exist so doesn't the devil.

4) Explain the apparitions in our world today - such as Fatima and how the secrets of Fatima ended up being true.

5) Explain the miracle of the bleeding Eucharist, where the Priest held it up and then the Host began to bleed from the middle, SCIENCE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THIS!

6) If Jesus is only a mere figure that didn't exist, and rise from the dead, explain the finding of the linen cloth Jesus was wrapped around in.


I hope I have given you some questions that allow you to ponder and think about God truly being existent in our world today. You do not have to reply to these questions, if you don't wish to, they can be taken as rhetorical questions.

I hope I have contributed to this debate in a positive manner

"Google doesn't have the answers to everything" ​

 

[Slidey]

neither the square root of -i or i is negative, but it sounded like schroedinger was implying otherwise. wouldn't want people thinking sqrt(i) is negative now would we?

hence god does not exist.

The complex number field is made up of two scalar fields: the reals and the imaginaries.

Both the reals and the imaginaries have ordering (hence can be positive and negative, and larger or smaller). The complex number field does not have ordering axioms. One cannot say 1+i is greater than 2+i, nor can one say it is less than it. But clearly they are not equal.

It is not correct to say "i = sqrt(-1)", rather the correct definition is i, defined by i^2=-1. As such, there exists two possible values for it: i=(-1)^(1/2), and -(-1)^1/2

BTW: You keep saying "the square root of i". This is fairly nonsensical, as it is the fourth root of -1... or do you really mean to take the 4th root of -1?

Incidentally, the 4th root of -1 has 4 different values:
w^4=-1, w^4+1=0, let w^2=u: u^2+1=0. u=i, -i
w^2=i -> w=sqrt(i), -sqrt(i)=(-1)^(1/4), -(-1)^1/4
w^2=-i -> w=sqrt(-i), -sqrt(-i)=(-(-1)^(1/2))^1/2, -(-(-1)^(1/2))^1/2
So, letting w be the 4th root of -1:
w=(-1)^(1/4), -(-1)^1/4, (-(-1)^(1/2))^1/2, -(-(-1)^(1/2))^1/2, or
w=sqrt(i), sqrt(-i), -sqrt(i), -sqrt(-i), where i is either of the two square roots of negative one.
Or, expressing this in terms of the complex number field:
-1=cos(pi(2k+1))+i.sin(pi(2k+1))
w^4=cos(pi(2k+1))+i.sin(pi(2k+1))
w=cos(pi(2k+1)/4)+i.sin(pi(2k+1)/4), now chose 4 consecutive integral values for k (e.g. 0, 1, 2, 3)
w=cos(pi/4)+i.sin(pi/4), etc...
w=(1/sqrt2)(1+i), etc...

 

[MaNiElla]

The complex number field is made up of two scalar fields: the reals and the imaginaries.

Both the reals and the imaginaries have ordering (hence can be positive and negative, and larger or smaller). The complex number field does not have ordering axioms. One cannot say 1+i is greater than 2+i, nor can one say it is less than it. But clearly they are not equal.

It is not correct to say "i = sqrt(-1)", rather the correct definition is i, defined by i^2=-1. As such, there exists two possible values for it: i=(-1)^(1/2), and -(-1)^1/2

BTW: You keep saying "the square root of i". This is fairly nonsensical, as it is the fourth root of -1... or do you really mean to take the 4th root of -1?

Incidentally, the 4th root of -1 has 4 different values:
w^4=-1, w^4+1=0, let w^2=u: u^2+1=0. u=i, -i
w^2=i -> w=sqrt(i), -sqrt(i)=(-1)^(1/4), -(-1)^1/4
w^2=-i -> w=sqrt(-i), -sqrt(-i)=(-(-1)^(1/2))^1/2, -(-(-1)^(1/2))^1/2
So, letting w be the 4th root of -1:
w=(-1)^(1/4), -(-1)^1/4, (-(-1)^(1/2))^1/2, -(-(-1)^(1/2))^1/2, or
w=sqrt(i), sqrt(-i), -sqrt(i), -sqrt(-i), where i is either of the two square roots of negative one.
Or, expressing this in terms of the complex number field:
-1=cos(pi(2k+1))+i.sin(pi(2k+1))
w^4=cos(pi(2k+1))+i.sin(pi(2k+1))
w=cos(pi(2k+1)/4)+i.sin(pi(2k+1)/4), now chose 4 consecutive integral values for k (e.g. 0, 1, 2, 3)
w=cos(pi/4)+i.sin(pi/4), etc...
w=(1/sqrt2)(1+i), etc...

................

Umm, so is that supposed to mean that God does or doesnt exist?

>.<

 

[KFunk]

1) How was the universe created? (If you don't believe God created it because there is no proof, nor can you use the Big Bang argument because this is only a theory)

2) Explain how humans came to existence? (The argument of evolution is thrown away, because God is constantly creating.)

3) Explain how when a Priest is going to perform an excorsism, the person without being told knows that the Priest has the body of Christ with him. Also, explain excorism - if God doesn't exist so doesn't the devil.

4) Explain the apparitions in our world today - such as Fatima and how the secrets of Fatima ended up being true.

5) Explain the miracle of the bleeding Eucharist, where the Priest held it up and then the Host began to bleed from the middle, SCIENCE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THIS!

6) If Jesus is only a mere figure that didn't exist, and rise from the dead, explain the finding of the linen cloth Jesus was wrapped around in.

(1) Science only deals in theories. Saying that you can't use the big bang model to explain the origins of the universe 'because it is a theory' demonstrates a misunderstanding of science. Except for matters of logical consequence science aims only to provide the 'best explanation', not strict proof. For present intents and purposes 'god' may similarly be seen as a theory/hypothesis. Undoubtedly this question (how did the universe begin?) is likely to be a difficult one, so I am impressed that science has made as much headway as it has.

(2) Evolution, the process, is to be expected mathematically - that much you can't reject. What is up in the air (for you, it seems) is whether this process can account for the appearance of humans and the other diversity on earth. I'm afraid that you'll have to say more than "god is constantly creating" in order to falsify a well constructed theory. More importantly you appear to be begging the question :

Assume god exists --- therefore ---> We can reject evolution (thus removing potential evidence against the claim 'god exists') because god is constantly creating --- therefore ---> god exists.

If your ultimate aim is to provide evidence that god exists then you can't, logically speaking, assume god's existence from the outset in order to combat falsifying evidence.

(3) Psychotic dellusions probably. I expect that cultural/psychological explanations can be provided.

(4) I don't really know enough about it, so I can't comment.

(5) Didn't this happen quite a long time ago? It's quite difficult to perform a proper investigation of that kind of event after so many years. 'Stage magic' is always a possibility, of course.

(6) Firstly, thousands of people want to believe that Jesus existed so it is not hard to perpetuate artifact myths. Nonetheless, it doesn't ultimately matter whether a self-proclaimed prophet named Jesus existed. The important question (for you case) is whether or not he is actually the son of god.

 

[BradCube]

Yay, the thread really is alive again! Kfunk I assume you are back from your trip down the coast now?

I must say I was a bit stumped by you asking me what my thoughts on ethics are. My understanding was that in most cases our morals dictate our ethics and hence you would already know my views from my previous discussions. Am I missing something?

Also 3unitz, just wanted to check if you had any success in your research for morality based on evolution - particularly in regard to pedophilia?

Regarding the debate about which is more appealing, a life with belief in God or without, I have to say I am quite astounded that such an argument has even come up in a thread such as this. Either point of view does nothing to solve the argument since neither is any proof. Any truth to either claim is merely an appeal to the genetic fallacy.

For what it is worth though - I don't think the hardest part of becoming a Christian is your own personal struggles with sin. By becoming a Christian you acknowledge that people that you know or have known are going or are in hell. I find this a far bigger struggle since it could involve close persons that have now passed away. Missing people that have passed away is one thing, but believing that they are now in hell is a far harder concept to stomach.

On another related note I was interested to see that the big bang theory was denied use by someone arguing on the side of God existence. In my opinion the big bang theory is very supportive to the argument of God since anything that begins to exist needs a cause. In this case, a cause that transcends the natural laws of the universe being created.

 

[seano77]

For what it is worth though - I don't think the hardest part of becoming a Christian is your own personal struggles with sin. By becoming a Christian you acknowledge that people that you know or have known are going or are in hell. I find this a far bigger struggle since it could involve close persons that have now passed away. Missing people that have passed away is one thing, but believing that they are now in hell is a far harder concept to stomach.

On another related note I was interested to see that the big bang theory was denied use by someone arguing on the side of God existence. In my opinion the big bang theory is very supportive to the argument of God since anything that begins to exist needs a cause. In this case, a cause that transcends the natural laws of the universe being created.

Yes, fantastic point. I should've mentioned the pain that is knowing your friends/family are going to hell. The reason I think i didn't mention it is because I haven't had any non-christian friends die yet. I'm sure when it happens, it will hit hard.

Also, I believe when God created the world there would have been a pretty big bang.

 

[Kwayera]

God does exist and there is no doubt about it. I want to pose a few questions and see what answers you come up with.

1) How was the universe created? (If you don't believe God created it because there is no proof, nor can you use the Big Bang argument because this is only a theory)

2) Explain how humans came to existence? (The argument of evolution is thrown away, because God is constantly creating.)

3) Explain how when a Priest is going to perform an excorsism, the person without being told knows that the Priest has the body of Christ with him. Also, explain excorism - if God doesn't exist so doesn't the devil.

4) Explain the apparitions in our world today - such as Fatima and how the secrets of Fatima ended up being true.

5) Explain the miracle of the bleeding Eucharist, where the Priest held it up and then the Host began to bleed from the middle, SCIENCE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THIS!

6) If Jesus is only a mere figure that didn't exist, and rise from the dead, explain the finding of the linen cloth Jesus was wrapped around in.


I hope I have given you some questions that allow you to ponder and think about God truly being existent in our world today. You do not have to reply to these questions, if you don't wish to, they can be taken as rhetorical questions.

I hope I have contributed to this debate in a positive manner

"Google doesn't have the answers to everything" ​

I'm going to add onto what KFunk said, because I have further comments.

1) As KFunk said, in science, a theory is not a "maybe" or "could have happened"; it is the best explanation based on available data. Currently, there is overwhelming evidence for the big bang, as there is for the "theory" of evolution and the "theory" of tectonics and other scientific "theories" (most of which a layperson can safely take as fact).

2) You can't argue away evolution. There is, as I said, and has been thoroughly delineated in this thread, overwhelming evidence that evolution is in fact, well, fact.

3) I personally believe those that believe themselves in need of an exorcism are either deluded, brainwashed or mentally ill. But that's just me.

4) Uh, as far as I am aware, the "secrets of Fatima" were a personal revelation, and is even not fully supported by the Roman Catholic Church (even though individual Popes accept it).

5) The "Eucharist miracle" I believe you are referring to is supposedly when the bread at consecration, aka the "Host" starts to bleed. Or something. The last time such an event was "reliably reported" was, as far as my extremely limited research uncovered, was 1331. Hmm.

6) You're referring to the Turin Shroud, and that was scientifically and conclusively debunked.

Next.

 

[Kwayera]

Yes, fantastic point. I should've mentioned the pain that is knowing your friends/family are going to hell. The reason I think i didn't mention it is because I haven't had any non-christian friends die yet. I'm sure when it happens, it will hit hard.

Also, I believe when God created the world there would have been a pretty big bang.

But what do you count as Hell? The stereotypical, fiery underworld with demons and torture and all that? Or what it is typically (and probably more correctly, if one were to believe in such things) - simply the absence of God?

Those who would typically go to Hell - unbelievers, etc - are already in the absence of God.

 

[BradCube]

But what do you count as Hell? The stereotypical, fiery underworld with demons and torture and all that? Or what it is typically (and probably more correctly, if one were to believe in such things) - simply the absence of God?

Those who would typically go to Hell - unbelievers, etc - are already in the absence of God.

Interesting idea but I think you may have misunderstood what it would mean to be in the absence of God. That is a world or life full of only what is not God. This means a world such as this would be void of everything that God regards as good. There would be no justice, no love, no peace, no forgiveness, no joy etc etc.

In this way, unbelievers are not currently in hell because they are in a world that (assuming God exists) God has had and continues to have direct influence in.

 

[Kwayera]

Interesting idea but I think you may have misunderstood what it would mean to be in the absence of God. That is a world or life full of only what is not God. This means a world such as this would be void of everything that God regards as good. There would be no justice, no love, no peace, no forgiveness, no joy etc etc.

In this way, unbelievers are not currently in hell because they are in a world that (assuming God exists) God has had and continues to have direct influence in.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[BradCube]

Thanks for the clarification.

Ha ha, no problem Kwayera - I expected a far more hostile response than that

 

[WaZe]

Here is just another piece of evidence i wrote on another forum as to why evolution does in fact exist, and how the origins of the universe co-relate with God's existence or whatnot. Please correct any errors or misconceptions if you find any.

Evolution and Darwin's theory of natural selection cannot be discounted at a glance. The idea behind natural selection is this:
-From time to time, genetic anomalies may arise within a given species. These genetic anomalies may increase the chance of survival for that species. Lets just say that we have a particular species of frog that faces extinction at the hands of a genocidal disease. One special frog is born with a genetic mutation that renders it immune to the disease that is causing its species to become endangered. This frog than reproduces sexually, creating another frog with a similar, if not identical genetic anomaly. The species therefore multiplies and survives the disease and becomes more resistant to that kind of viral attack. This is the process of evolution.

-A similar case may be applied to humans. Faced with extraordinary consequences such as varying habitats and environments, we can see that humans have evolved in slightly different ways. The Tibetan people living at high altitudes have adopted a more efficient aerobic system to cope with the lack of oxygen, which would be superior to those human beings who wouldn't otherwise live in that habitat. Maybe one person developed this first through incessant exposure to these elements and passed on the genes to the generations below. This is evolution.

-The case of whether or not evolution dictates that human beings need to be reproduce asexually or just sexually is a hazy one. You cannot say that the preferred path of evolution is asexual reproduction, when in fact it has been proven that a more diverse species tends to live longer. Asexual reproduction does not enforce diversity. This is critical, because evolution is spurred on by diversity, which can only be imprinted through sexual reproduction, where the XX and XY chromosomes of male and female merge in order to create a whole new being that is neither identical to mother OR father. Asexual organisms tend to die off more easily. Why? Put simply, they are identical. If one of them dies at the hands of disease, then they will all die, because they are not diverse. In effect, asexual reproduction produces CLONES. An army of clones cannot evolve, because they merely produce copies of themselves in asexual production, as you will only have one pair of chromosomes. In this case, evolution will be severely stunted, and the species' chances of survival greatly reduced. Sexual reproduction on the other hand produces an entirely new specimen each time, and this accounts for the diversity we see within the human race, and why the human race has survived to this day.

- The Big-Bang theory is actually quite feasible. Think of that pen-tip sized ball as a singularity with INFINITE density. When we compare this with other singularities such as black holes and the amount of unknown power they possess this is not so hard to believe. However, the origins of such a singularity are hazy and our current level of technology has not yet allowed us to analyze how it came about, although we do realise that it must have been composed of heavier metals such as iron, and gases such as nitrogen and hydrogen. To understand how the Big-Bang produced the universe as it is now, you must understand Einstein's equation of Mass-Equivalence, the big tamale: E=MC^2. What this equation does is place a relationship between energy and mass, proving that this infinitely dense singularity can in fact produce large amounts of energy. Enough to create a universe. Say you get the mass of one neutron, approximately 6 x 10^7g (or a very small mass, i forget) and multiply it by the SPEED OF LIGHT SQUARED (9 x 10^16 ms^-1) you will get incredible amounts of energy. This explosion is the first step, transforming all that mass into energy. Then you will get the expansion and cooling, as well as the formation of a very dense cloud of plasma that spreads while also forming into a condensations called nebulae. These nebulae in turn cool to form a whole string of very hot protogalaxies (i think thats the term), which in turn cool into even more blue hot dwarves that generate huge amounts of energy through the fission of hydrogen atoms. Eventually, the clouds of space dust and hot plasma settle down back into matter, and we have the formation of the planets we live on. We have proof that the expansion has not stopped yet, as astronomers continue to employ parallax methods to measure the increasing distance between stars, as well as determining the spectrum of the radiation they emit through space. The only problem with this theory as of yet is how the singularity exists and how it exploded so abruptly. This leaves it open to religious interpretation, which is as speculative as the origins of the singularity itself. The only thing we can be sure of is time; that is, when time itself began through the use of Hubble's law.

Science has facts, while religion is speculation. Get your facts right before you start speculating.

waze.

EDIT: The absence of space is in fact comprehensible, considering that space itself is not an entity, but rather a void. Space is there regardless of the existence of the singularity or the universe. It is just space without stars, without brightness. The explosion of the singularity is the ultimate conversion of mass into energy, introducing elements such as hydrogen, helium and the heavier iron into the universe. As to what caused the explosion, that will remain a scientific mystery. I dare say that it would be irrefutable to even say GOD caused that explosion.

 

[KFunk]

Interesting idea but I think you may have misunderstood what it would mean to be in the absence of God. That is a world or life full of only what is not God. This means a world such as this would be void of everything that God regards as good. There would be no justice, no love, no peace, no forgiveness, no joy etc etc.

In this way, unbelievers are not currently in hell because they are in a world that (assuming God exists) God has had and continues to have direct influence in.

But if you really take the 'opposite world' hell to its full conclusion then existence is just as dependent on god as good, justice all that. So you might expect those entering hell to cease to exist all together.

Also, as I've previously argued, if morality is to be non-relative then morality needs to have some basis beyond the whim of god. Thus, facts regarding what is good would necessarily persist in hell even if their realisation in actions did not.

I have major doubts about the tenability of 'opposite world' hell.

 

[BradCube]

EDIT: The absence of space is in fact comprehensible, considering that space itself is not an entity, but rather a void. Space is there regardless of the existence of the singularity or the universe. It is just space without stars, without brightness. The explosion of the singularity is the ultimate conversion of mass into energy, introducing elements such as hydrogen, helium and the heavier iron into the universe.

I was under the impression that at the point where the universe began all of our dimensions were also created. Surely then there could be no such space or void with these properties before this occurrence?

 

[KFunk]

Yay, the thread really is alive again! Kfunk I assume you are back from your trip down the coast now?.

Aye, that is correct .

I must say I was a bit stumped by you asking me what my thoughts on ethics are. My understanding was that in most cases our morals dictate our ethics and hence you would already know my views from my previous discussions. Am I missing something?

On another related note I was interested to see that the big bang theory was denied use by someone arguing on the side of God existence. In my opinion the big bang theory is very supportive to the argument of God since anything that begins to exist needs a cause. In this case, a cause that transcends the natural laws of the universe being created.

On Ethics:

A while back in the thread I was quite interested, and still am interested, to find out what you thought made moral/ethical claims true. Consider the proposition 'a cat is on my mat', call it CM. We might say that CM is true if and only if there is, in fact, a cat sitting on my mat. This common account of the truth of propositions is termed the correspondance theory of truth, and it holds that propositions are made true by their correspondence with facts about the way the world is. Further, the truth/falsity of descriptive propositions is typically seen as objective because, for the most part, we accept that world-describing facts are non-relative.

So then, how are we to account for the truth of moral claims? One problem is that they are commonly prescriptive, rather than descriptive. They state how the world ought to be not how it is. At first glance it would appear that descriptive facts alone will not be enough to confer truth to ethical claims. One could, of course, try to reduce prescriptive moral claims to seemingly descriptive ones like 'x is good', but I am inclined to think that prescriptivity is essential to morality as commonly conceived and that to reduce it to purely descriptive statements is to render its imperatives impotent.

Some relevant questions are then: is it at all feasible to derive prescriptive facts from descriptive empirical facts? Is it possible to justify moral claims using logic, perhaps even some logic which can handle prescriptivity (e.g. deontic logic)? Mightn't there exist moral claims which could be considered 'properly basic'?

My personal feeling is that the answers to the above questions are all negative. However, I am interested to know what you think.


On the Argument from First Cause:

Scientists, more or less, agree that anything which exists contingently (i.e. not necessarily) must be caused. However, the flaw in the argument from first cause is to then conclude that this cause must be god. The only conlusion which is logically entailed by the argument is that a cause exists - it does not guide us towards the nature of the cause.

This is where Ockham's razor enters and says that we are only warranted in making the minimal necessary assumptions (i.e. that something exists necessarily, whatever it might be) needed to explain the phenomenon. If we go beyond this without evidence we invite arbitrariness. Such evidence may exist, but it does not come from the argument from first cause.