Does God exist? (10 Viewers)

[phatic]

Btw, I only read part 1.

...it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.

Whether the evidence is sufficient enough for a certain belief is entirely up to the believer. What is sufficient evidence to some is insufficient to others. It would be impossible to get people to agree on what constitutes 'sufficient evidence'.

With regard to doubt and inquiry. What he is saying is probably applicable to people who know relatively little of doubt. In fact his message sounds similar to that of Socrates - 'question everything'. However, if we take this process of questioning seriously, and never stifle our doubts as this fellow suggests, we will eventually come to a point where there are no answers, and our belief will fall to pieces. Here's a more poetic passage from Nietzsche, in the same vain. (The Birth of Tragedy)

...science, spurred by its powerful illusion, speeds irresistibly towards its limits where its optimism, concealed in the essence of logic, suffers shipwreck. For the periphery of the circle of science has an infinite number of points; and while there is no telling how this circle could ever be surveyed completely, noble and gifted men nevertheless reach, e'er half their time and inevitably, such boundary points on the periphery from which one gazes into what defies illumination. When they see to their horror how logic coils up at these boundaries and finally bites its own tail—suddenly the new form of insight breaks through, tragic insight which, merely to be endured, needs art as a protection and remedy.

If I was to critically examine my belief in God, it would easily fall to pieces. After all, what rational basis is there for believing in God's existance? To my mind, all the arguments are tenuous.

Faith is much stronger than reason, however, and in this is both its strength and its weakness. Strength because it means that we are inspired to believe, in spite of what the rational atheists tell us. Weakness because, as you have said, it can easily lead to violence, such as the crusades, jihad, etc, in spite of what the calm voice of reason tells us.

All things considered though, the article could well be taken to heart by many a person who does not feel the spur of doubt within themselves.

Edit: Oh and I forgot to mention, that that little picture about the persectued christians is trash.

 

[KFunk]

Certainly, if the path of questioning and skepticism is followed as far as one can follow it a kind of absurdity is reached where one finds the self-cannibalization of reason itself (perhaps the dominant problem of much of western philosophy). I have no issue with belief per se, it is more the close minded form of belief which refuses to consider other possibilities. I have a form of admiration for those who can embrace their faith (partly because it's something I'll probably never grasp myself), but at the same time the point I wanted to get across was in reply to the comment along the lines of 'it's fine for people to believe what they want, it doesn't hurt others, let's stop analysing our beliefs'. It's the act of ceasing critical reflection all together which worries me most, because beliefs can be dangerous and, by the same token, so can disbelief.

 

[BlackDragon]

to me its pretty obvious that there is no god. the reason:

every single society throughout history has believed in a god or multiple gods. hence, it is just apart of human nature to believe in the afterlife etc. christianty is no different from this. its just a result of our need to have something more to our lives. and its built into our societal frame of mind. we are taught to believe in something more, to believe in being saved. all societies are. that's why so many people turn to it, yet so many people only follow christianity somewhat. which doesn't mean anything really. you can't follow a religion half heartly. and most christians don't even know the details of what they're following. i mean, didn't a king not like the fact that you couldn't divorce under christianity, so he made his own branch: protestants? and now millions are protestants? THAT DOESN'T EVEN MAKE SENSE. YOU CAN'T CHANGE A RELIGION BECAUSE YOU WANT TO. if you can, then that religion isn't the truth and the baser religion doesn't mean much. and the fact millions of people follow this branch of christianity shows that we need to believe in something as people. which is fine i spose.

anyway, if there was this one god, why haven't all the societies of history turned to this one god? instead, there are thousands and thousands of gods and rituals throughout history. most of which are unique from culture to culture. none of which correlate to the thing, but all of which correlate to the same message: we need to believe in something more, it is inherent in our psyche, the way we are taught when we grow up and our societies. that is why there are thousands of religions that mean nothing.

 

[littlewing69]

i mean, didn't a king not like the fact that you couldn't divorce under christianity, so he made his own branch: protestants? and now millions are protestants? THAT DOESN'T EVEN MAKE SENSE. YOU CAN'T CHANGE A RELIGION BECAUSE YOU WANT TO.

One protestant denomination: the Church of England. There are many others.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

WHO CARES if God exisits. People who believe in a God, or Gods dont hurt anyone! (its the cults that do it) Instead, they have a privat comfort in the idea that everything will be okay, because there is someone, or something watching over them. And if you don't believe, that's good too. Its what ever you are happy with.

- What separates a cult from a religion, exactly?
- Their private beliefs do influence their lives, it is claimed by some that one of the reasons global warming/the environment matters little to some segments of christianity is because they believe it is the end of days. This is adversely affecting all of us and the future generations.

Now, of course people can live happy, fine lives while believing... but to me even in their cases I'd like to still extend the dialogue. If someone believed that they were an alien, their belief possibly could not affect anyone else, but I'd still want to help them see the error in their thinking and I believe all people want to know the truth to the best of their ability.

Whether the evidence is sufficient enough for a certain belief is entirely up to the believer. What is sufficient evidence to some is insufficient to others. It would be impossible to get people to agree on what constitutes 'sufficient evidence'.

Well I'd say they should employ the scientific method and try to explain to them why I feel it is the best way to constitute what is sufficient and insufficient evidence.

Faith is much stronger than reason, however, and in this is both its strength and its weakness. Strength because it means that we are inspired to believe, in spite of what the rational atheists tell us. Weakness because, as you have said, it can easily lead to violence, such as the crusades, jihad, etc, in spite of what the calm voice of reason tells us.

Faith employs reasoning, it's just bad reasoning. It is impossible for someone to believe something without having rationalised it, at least to themselves. If you are inspired to believe because of bad reasoning, I would not call that a strength at all.

In fact his message sounds similar to that of Socrates - 'question everything'. However, if we take this process of questioning seriously, and never stifle our doubts as this fellow suggests, we will eventually come to a point where there are no answers, and our belief will fall to pieces.

I don't have a problem with this. IMHO we do have no solid answers, there will always be doubt, I am agnostic about everything in that way. However, I do think we can still 'create truths' via the scientific method, inductive logic, which are applicable for the time being. I.e. If at the time being, through our best current research, it would appear that X is Y, then it is truth (for the time being) that X is Y - Until knowledge comes along that debunks such a truth.

 

[phatic]

Certainly, if the path of questioning and skepticism is followed as far as one can follow it a kind of absurdity is reached where one finds the self-cannibalization of reason itself (perhaps the dominant problem of much of western philosophy). I have no issue with belief per se, it is more the close minded form of belief which refuses to consider other possibilities. I have a form of admiration for those who can embrace their faith (partly because it's something I'll probably never grasp myself), but at the same time the point I wanted to get across was in reply to the comment along the lines of 'it's fine for people to believe what they want, it doesn't hurt others, let's stop analysing our beliefs'. It's the act of ceasing critical reflection all together which worries me most, because beliefs can be dangerous and, by the same token, so can disbelief.

You make valid points, and I agree - a little self reflection could go a long way with some of those violent zealots...

I realised afterwards that my post was quite a digression down the doubt line, and isn't really applicable to most people.

Well I'd say they should employ the scientific method and try to explain to them why I feel it is the best way to constitute what is sufficient and insufficient evidence.

There's still going to be a lot of room for disagreement though. I think it would be a rare case where there's only one explanation or logical conclusion to be deduced from any given set of circumstances.

Faith employs reasoning, it's just bad reasoning. It is impossible for someone to believe something without having rationalised it, at least to themselves. If you are inspired to believe because of bad reasoning, I would not call that a strength at all.

Hmmm. It really depends on what one would accept as reasons for believing. To my mind, the reason I believe is unacceptable, because it cannot be proven. A vague and undefinable (yet very powerful) feeling/awareness of God would not stand up to reason, because it is completely internal, and as the psychologists would say, I am probably hallucinating. But if this feeling/awareness cannot form a basis for belief, what can?

I acknowledge that faith employs bad reasoning, because you cannot prove faith. Hence the name 'faith'. If you could prove it, it would be called something else.

I don't have a problem with this. IMHO we do have no solid answers, there will always be doubt, I am agnostic about everything in that way. However, I do think we can still 'create truths' via the scientific method, inductive logic, which are applicable for the time being. I.e. If at the time being, through our best current research, it would appear that X is Y, then it is truth (for the time being) that X is Y - Until knowledge comes along that debunks such a truth.

Fair enough. Even if not absolutely true, such truths form a good practical basis for living, etc.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

There's still going to be a lot of room for disagreement though. I think it would be a rare case where there's only one explanation or logical conclusion to be deduced from any given set of circumstances.

Disagreement is fine, I encourage it, the scientific method encourages it.

But if this feeling/awareness cannot form a basis for belief, what can?

Controlled, independently scrutinised tests?

I acknowledge that faith employs bad reasoning, because you cannot prove faith. Hence the name 'faith'. If you could prove it, it would be called something else.

No problem, but I thought from your post you were trying to make out as if faith is something different from reasoning, whereas it is not.

Fair enough. Even if not absolutely true, such truths form a good practical basis for living, etc.

Exactly, I don't need the absolute truth to have all the truth I need

 

[lengy]

I still believe there are some individuals that are more prone to believing in 'God', mainly because they don't have a critical mind.

 

[phatic]

to me its pretty obvious that there is no god. the reason:

every single society throughout history has believed in a god or multiple gods. hence, it is just apart of human nature to believe in the afterlife etc. christianty is no different from this. its just a result of our need to have something more to our lives. and its built into our societal frame of mind. we are taught to believe in something more, to believe in being saved. all societies are. that's why so many people turn to it, yet so many people only follow christianity somewhat. which doesn't mean anything really. you can't follow a religion half heartly. and most christians don't even know the details of what they're following. i mean, didn't a king not like the fact that you couldn't divorce under christianity, so he made his own branch: protestants? and now millions are protestants? THAT DOESN'T EVEN MAKE SENSE. YOU CAN'T CHANGE A RELIGION BECAUSE YOU WANT TO. if you can, then that religion isn't the truth and the baser religion doesn't mean much. and the fact millions of people follow this branch of christianity shows that we need to believe in something as people. which is fine i spose.

anyway, if there was this one god, why haven't all the societies of history turned to this one god? instead, there are thousands and thousands of gods and rituals throughout history. most of which are unique from culture to culture. none of which correlate to the thing, but all of which correlate to the same message: we need to believe in something more, it is inherent in our psyche, the way we are taught when we grow up and our societies. that is why there are thousands of religions that mean nothing.

"Religion is a candle inside a multicoloured lantern. Everyone looks through a particular colour, but the candle is always there."

 

[littlewing69]

I still believe there are some individuals that are more prone to believing in 'God', mainly because they don't have a critical mind.

History is littered with theistic critical minds.

 

[phatic]

Controlled, independently scrutinised tests?

Tests of what? Like, what is there to test? The authenticity of my feeling/awareness in relation to my faith? Whether I am mad and hallucinating, or sane? If you want to prove God's existence, how could you possibly go about it?

Remember, you doubted the validity of the woman who recieved the stigmata and was healed of it within hours. If you cannot accept this, what will you accept?

"With all your science can you tell how it is, and whence it is, that light comes into the soul?"

- Thoreau

I still believe there are some individuals that are more prone to believing in 'God', mainly because they don't have a critical mind.

I applaud those naive souls who know nothing of skepticism, and pray that they remain that way. There is much more to be lost in having a critical mind, than there is to be gained.

 

[littlewing69]

I applaud those naive souls who know nothing of skepticism, and pray that they remain that way. There is much more to be lost in having a critical mind, than there is to be gained.

That's the daftest thing I've ever heard. Lack of critical thinking leaves us with a world full of morons blowing themselves up for "God".

Critical thinking is the greatest gift nature (God?) has given humanity, let's not throw it out in preference to some wishy-washy New Agey childish dreaming just yet.

 

[lengy]

Post-modernism, everything is relative and experienced from the individual. Who am I to deny that you have experienced God? At the same time who are you to deny that I'm actually giving John Howard tips on running Australia?

 

[phatic]

That's the daftest thing I've ever heard. Lack of critical thinking leaves us with a world full of morons blowing themselves up for "God".

Critical thinking is the greatest gift nature (God?) has given humanity, let's not throw it out in preference to some wishy-washy New Agey childish dreaming just yet.

lol. As you wish.

 

[BlackDragon]

in case you were all wondering, there definitely isn't a god. but that doesn't mean life is pointless. it means life is beautiful and that we should celebrate our mortality by learning, seeing the world and forever searching for happiness. also, it doesn't matter if people embrace religion. because that is a very easy way to find happiness. i mean, what's better, a happy, loving pointless life or a pointless life where you can't find happiness because you have no ability to believe in anything?

 

[cheesman]

i reckon that the fact that throughout the ages many ppl have come to a belief in a god, some by their own conclusions, may seem to suggest that a creator god would have perhaps made humanity with this inclination so that they might turn to them.
as black dragon said, "its in our psyche"
a god may have made us like this to make it easier to believe or as a headstart....its just a thought and i hope u guys see where im coming from
i think its too much of a coincedence for soo many ppl throughout history to naturally believe in the afterlife, god, etc..

 

[cheesman]

so black dragon..
you believe that this whole life, every life that has every existed, has existed due to complete chance and despite everything ever done, it all amounts to nothing?
so, u can live ur life in happiness, but it wont mean anything in the end. everything is meaningless.
so ur telling me.. things like 9/11 happened for no reason at all, everything is in vain for in the end, we have no purpose in existence. but if u do believe we have no purpose in existence, why do we exist at all? why isnt there nothing instead?

 

[littlewing69]

so black dragon..
you believe that this whole life, every life that has every existed, has existed due to complete chance and despite everything ever done, it all amounts to nothing?
so, u can live ur life in happiness, but it wont mean anything in the end. everything is meaningless.
so ur telling me.. things like 9/11 happened for no reason at all, everything is in vain for in the end, we have no purpose in existence. but if u do believe we have no purpose in existence, why do we exist at all? why isnt there nothing instead?

You're projecting an insecure human emotional need for an abstract concept of "meaning" onto the universe.....

Furthermore, I fail to see how a God gives the Universe more 'meaning'.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Tests of what? Like, what is there to test? The authenticity of my feeling/awareness in relation to my faith? Whether I am mad and hallucinating, or sane? If you want to prove God's existence, how could you possibly go about it?

If it cannot be tested then there's no reason to believe it. I would also believe I am going crazy before I believed that I had some magic feeling within me telling me that god exists, the first to me actually has some basis, alot of people go crazy. There is no way to prove God's existance, or the existance of anything with supernatural qualities (the best we can do is debunk claims such as "I can do X")... so there's no reason to believe. For me, this leaves me in a position of disbelief, while of course there can also be no proof that God, the supernatural DOESN'T exist, for everything else in my reality I generally accept it as not existing before there is proof. I.e. "There are no blue giraffes."

Remember, you doubted the validity of the woman who recieved the stigmata and was healed of it within hours. If you cannot accept this, what will you accept?

It's a pretty wild thing to accept to be honest.

"With all your science can you tell how it is, and whence it is, that light comes into the soul?"

- Thoreau

No, science cannot test vague references to things that have no evidence of even existing.

Furthermore, I fail to see how a God gives the Universe more 'meaning'.

Haha I agree. I've asked it many times, what 'meaning' do these people get in their lives that they always go on about? From what I see theists create the same sort of meaning in their lives generally as I do in mine.

 

[MikiRei]

wow - 200+ pages...nah - I'm not gonna read

Ummm - interesting question. I, for one, am NOT religious but here's what I have to say:

Personally, I dun really care whether God exists or not. It'll make no particular impact on me either way. Why? Well, really, if you think about it, the ORIGINAL (I emphasise this for a reason) point of religion is for people to have faith on SOMETHING. When people have faith, they have some sorta mental support and when people have mental support, they're able to live through life just a little more enthusiastically/happy/positively etc.etc. Basically, it gives people a better positive outlook in life. So it doesn't really matter whether you believe in God or Allah (who are essentially the same diving being - lol) or just your own morale and principles that you've set for yourself (which is essentially Buddhism - no, Buddhism isn't a religion - well, it's not religion as in you have some divine being whom you worship to - well, ok, current Buddists do but they SHOULDN'T - what Buddha did originally was setting you 8 principles for which you should thrive to achieve in order to become a better person - or as Buddha said it - release you from reincarnation) You can even just believe in this one phrase that some important inspirational mentor of your life gave you and that'll be forever your mental support.

Religion, as it is now, sucks (at least in my opinion), NOT b/c religion originally is flawed - but b/c of the people who preach it, use it to their advantage. It is the people who use them as petty execuses for means of propaganda. HUMAN themselves screwed religion up - and not the other way around.

Anywayz - that's just getting off topic. Do God exist? Lol - who cares really. (at least in my opinion)

But here's something wierd I've been thinking about and let's see what people think:

We have Judaism - which then branched off to Christianity - which then branched off to other stuff (Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, Protestan etc.etc. - see? HUMANS were the one that screwed religion up) Speaking of which, I remember getting preached by Mormans (another branch off from Christianity) and they said some American dude (unless I remembered it wrong) was appoitned by God to become his prophet. Sounds familiar? Well, yes. Moses (amongst others) were appointed by God to be his prophet. Mohammad himself was also appointed by God (well, it was the Angel Gabriel that told Mohammad that he was appointed).

Anywayz - the point I'm getting is, why is there SO MANY of these religions - all started 'cause of one guy claiming he was appointed by God - worshiping essentially the SAME divine being? And many of them started at different places during different eras. Anywayz, what I'm trying to say is, maybe there IS a God who's randomly appointing so many of these people to start off all these numerous religions just to worship him? And if so, WHY? Why create all these religions, united by worshipping the same divine being but divided due to different FORMS of belief?

Anywayz, enuff blubbering tonight. And btw, I probably haven't got A LOT of the facts of the mentioned religions right so don't kill me - you can correct me - but be gentle *hides head*