Does God exist? (2 Viewers)

[littlewing69]

Has it ever occured to you that God created space and the boundary of science itself where we've been striving to come closer with absolutely no proportion to?

Why does your god hide himself past the 'boundary of science'? Does this mean God recedes with every passing year?

So if you don't think God exists is a bit like saying that science is frutile. Although, this is arguable in your case. Since you obviously think science is a natural phenomenon.

Why would anyone think science is a 'natural phenomenon'? It's neither.

The last thing I just want to briefly bring out is the lack of information and source regarding why we're here. I'm going to collect some readings for people to look at later.

Must there be a meaning? IMHO, 'God made us' is just as meaningless/meaningful as 'Natural mechanisms made us'.

 

[The Logical One]

Except:

1.) You can't even come close to calculating odds on the existence of God vis a vis the Drake equation.

2.) I don't think anyone lives their lives differently based on the supposed existence of ET life.

3.) Belief in God or aliens is very different to subscribing to a certain UFO abduction conspiracy theory or religion. That sort of belief takes some serious mind-bleach to swallow, if one posseses a critical intelligence of any sort.

The Drake equation isn't perfect either. It assumes that life takes on certain qualities and is dependant on certain substances.

I can come pretty close to calculating the odds of gods existance with proper understanding of the inevitability of an involvement of the creation of the universe by a supernatural entity.

I don't want to get into details about the creation of the universe because it is all theory, but basically we know that certain things must have happened in the creation of the universe (just like the creation of life on earth). As I said, I don't want to go into detail right now but because the laws which govern our universe are self-supporting and bilateral nature of all the laws in our universe it is inevitable that one law existed before all others. It also suggests that this law predated anything else which exists in our universe. This means that the universe (through the first law) was created by a supernatural entity.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

If you truly believe this, then all emotions are non-existant, since you can't test them.

With reguard to emotions, I cannot know whether others feel emotions however I can know that I do. So I do know that emotions exist, or at least something that I call an emotion and it isn't that hard to then accept other people when they claim they feel emotions. With reguard to the 'God' emotion, I accept that you may feel some overwhelming awe when you think of God - That doesn't mean that God exists.

You cannot fall in love, because it cannot be proven that you are in love.

No, If I feel an emotion that I call 'love' then who's to say I'm not in love? Sure, they can't know that I am, they can't prove I'm in love and I can't prove it to them, but I'm saying I am and since love doesn't prove anything beyond the emotion its-self (as opposed to your claim with the 'god feeling') I see no reason why I can't be accepted.

But if you have never fallen deeply in love with someone, or experienced deep grief to the point of despising life, then I understand.

k.

*sigh* For hundreds of years people believed in the soul. Then science comes along and cannot find it, so we give up on the notion.

Well maybe a soul does exist, but I see no reason to imagine that it does without any evidence.

If you are interested, I can recommend you a book or two by a psychologist (so you'll understand the scientific language ) that would most likely make you think twice about believing in only what science can prove. Also remember that some of the greatest scientific minds have been mystics (Einstein, Jung, etc).

Einstein a mystic? Anyway, I really don't care.

The depth of it is lost in explanations. Beyond this I won't argue about it.

No that's not it at all, there just is no explanation because there is no greater meaning.

I don't think you want to say that, because it eliminates the potential to create theory for which science can elaborate on.

No it doesn't... it just means that such a theory will not be ACCEPTED before science 'elaborates' on it.

There is no way to prove that alien life exists. There is no way to prove that there have been ancient civilisations. There is no way to prove that we evolved from a common homonoid species as apes did.

No way to prove things 100% objectively, but as i've said before we can create probable truths which we can accept as truth, at least for the time being, based off our best current knowledge.

Some references are in quite detail. However, I agree to the difficulty of reading proverbs and false predictions. Science can test the accuracy of the claims.

Some are reciting things that were already known, some are just abstract proverbs that have their meaning inserted after-the-fact, none of them are predictive.

Generally they do. I don't think that most theists and you have similar belief as to why they exist. They believe god put them here, and you believe you're the result of a natural process.

However even believing that God put them here, doesn't give them meaning about the future, just fills in the gaps of their past.

 

[KFunk]

I can come pretty close to calculating the odds of gods existance with proper understanding of the inevitability of an involvement of the creation of the universe by a supernatural entity.

I have serious doubts that you have this 'proper understanding' or that a person could ever calculate the odds of gods existence. You might come to a statement like "it is unlikely/likely" but do you really think you would be able to quantify such a statement? On the other hand, I may simply be ignorant with regards to the knowledge you possess. Enlighten me - what, if anything, makes the existence of god 'inevitable'?

 

[gerhard]

some christian professor guy wrote a book where he tried to come up with the probability of the christian god existing. i read it on some newswire, and it said one of the things he used was that the probability of their being a god being 50%, as there either is a god, or there isnt a god. Upon reading this I went into a coma for 9 days, and upon waking up wished to be comatose again.

Ill see if I can find the link

edit:http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/sciences/story/0,12243,1164894,00.html

 

[KFunk]

His initial 50/50 assumption is extremely dodgy - I could take the 50/50 'neutral' perspective on any rediculous proposition such as 'Free will was created by extra-dimensional dragons', 'after death we exist as beings of energy in a hyperbolic sphere', 'we are brains in vats, fed experiences by a computer' etc. Can we really accept an argument that would attribute a 50% probability to such propositions, regardless of their absurdity? His argument is based on assumption and faith, not mathematics.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

He has to factor in the odds that 50:50 is possible.

 

[The Logical One]

He has to factor in the odds that 50:50 is possible.

It's much greater then that when you taken into account all information that we know and the information that we don't know in this particular situation.

An example is when somebody claimed they communicated or felt the presence of god, immediately you disregarded that claim as a chemical reaction in the brain. However by doing so you prove that you don't understand his judgement in this matter. In his belief an example of personal empiricism which took place is a reason for him as a person to believe that he understands correctly.

Lets take you and I for example. You don't know whether God exists, yet you don't believe he exists. Using moores paradox, you know nothing on this issue. You criticise others for holding beliefs when they are more justified then your beliefs. In this argument you have little 'knowledge' because you don't fully understand what knowledge consists of.

For you to actually know or think god does not exist (without it being an irrational belief) these certain rules must be met.
-God must not exist.
-You must believe that God does not exist.
-You must be justified in believing that God does not exist.

So, even if God didn't exist, you would still only be holding a weak "belief" and no knowledge whatsoever as you're not justified in believing that God does not exist.

We have discussed the creation of the Universe and in the theories which I have modelled and you have contributed to (by questioning it), It was obviously more plausible that a Deity was involved in the creation of the universe. I would be more knowledge and infact correct at this moment in time in believing that a Deity exists. (Regardless of it being Omnipresent, Omniscient and Omnipotent) or not.

Do you understand my argument? If I was to come to a conclusion and a percentage of whether or not God exists. (Using know science, and the models of the creation of the Universe) I am 'more' accurate in saying, I know god exists. (51% or more)

Read up on Epistemology.

 

[littlewing69]

Read up on Epistemology.

Read up on Smug.

 

[The Logical One]

Read up on Smug.

Lol, I've been called worse then that buddy.
Infact "Not That Bright" called me a narcissistic. He actually had quite a convincing argument, claiming I had Narcissistic personality disorder. But, how does that effect this argument?

 

[littlewing69]

Lol, I've been called worse then that buddy.
Infact "Not That Bright" called me a narcissistic. He actually had quite a convincing argument, claiming I had Narcissistic personality disorder. But, how does that effect this argument?

It's poor form to assume your opponent is ignorant or uninformed, especially when they have regularly shown themselves to be otherwise. It reflects badly on you, and detracts from your argument. Right now I can't remember a damn thing you said, only the tone you said it in.

EDIT: I read your actual argument. It doesn't make sense to me and I don't see your point. NTB has already acknowledged that he is in a sense 'agnostic' about God, just as he is with pink unicorns et al. That's a fair epistemological position, IMHO. You need to show us all your model of God and your 'calculations' rather than just claim to know these things. I highly doubt anyone can truly know that God exists, so feel free to rock my world.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

An example is when somebody claimed they communicated or felt the presence of god, immediately you disregarded that claim as a chemical reaction in the brain.

I didn't claim it was a 'chemical reaction' necessarily, just that any feeling you may have does not mean God exists, just that you have the feeling.

However by doing so you prove that you don't understand his judgement in this matter. In his belief an example of personal empiricism which took place is a reason for him as a person to believe that he understands correctly.

I understand what he did. My only point there is that it's wrong to go beyond what you have felt to make further conclusions.

Using moores paradox, you know nothing on this issue.

Explain how you came to that conclusion.

You criticise others for holding beliefs when they are more justified then your beliefs.

I don't think their beliefs are more justified and even if they are more justified than mine I can still criticize them, I don't see the issue.

In this argument you have little 'knowledge' because you don't fully understand what knowledge consists of.

lol

For you to actually know or think god does not exist (without it being an irrational belief) these certain rules must be met.
-God must not exist.
-You must believe that God does not exist.
-You must be justified in believing that God does not exist.

Errr... how am I not justified? I believe I am, explain how I'm not before you go on claiming so. It's a big unexplained premise

We have discussed the creation of the Universe and in the theories which I have modelled and you have contributed to (by questioning it), It was obviously more plausible that a Deity was involved in the creation of the universe.

No it wasn't and you didn't really provide a definition of 'diety' that I would accept anyway, it'd basically just be 'creator' which ....yea in a sense I guess the universe likely was created. You essentially just talk rubbish the entire time.

I would be more knowledge and infact correct at this moment in time in believing that a Deity exists. (Regardless of it being Omnipresent, Omniscient and Omnipotent) or not.

Er no.

- Perhaps the diety no longer exists.
- Perhaps the diety is not a conscious thing and therefore I wouldn't even call it a diety.
- Your 'model' could not be more wrong, it makes huge assumptions that you cannot justify.

Do you understand my argument? If I was to come to a conclusion and a percentage of whether or not God exists. (Using know science, and the models of the creation of the Universe) I am 'more' accurate in saying, I know god exists. (51% or more)

You haven't made that argument, just stated it.

Read up on Epistemology.

Is there an "Epistemology for Dummies" ?

 

[KFunk]

It's much greater then that when you taken into account all information that we know and the information that we don't know in this particular situation.

An example is when somebody claimed they communicated or felt the presence of god, immediately you disregarded that claim as a chemical reaction in the brain. However by doing so you prove that you don't understand his judgement in this matter. In his belief an example of personal empiricism which took place is a reason for him as a person to believe that he understands correctly.

Lets take you and I for example. You don't know whether God exists, yet you don't believe he exists. Using moores paradox, you know nothing on this issue. You criticise others for holding beliefs when they are more justified then your beliefs. In this argument you have little 'knowledge' because you don't fully understand what knowledge consists of.

For you to actually know or think god does not exist (without it being an irrational belief) these certain rules must be met.
-God must not exist.
-You must believe that God does not exist.
-You must be justified in believing that God does not exist.

So, even if God didn't exist, you would still only be holding a weak "belief" and no knowledge whatsoever as you're not justified in believing that God does not exist.

We have discussed the creation of the Universe and in the theories which I have modelled and you have contributed to (by questioning it), It was obviously more plausible that a Deity was involved in the creation of the universe. I would be more knowledge and infact correct at this moment in time in believing that a Deity exists. (Regardless of it being Omnipresent, Omniscient and Omnipotent) or not.

Do you understand my argument? If I was to come to a conclusion and a percentage of whether or not God exists. (Using know science, and the models of the creation of the Universe) I am 'more' accurate in saying, I know god exists. (51% or more)

Read up on Epistemology.

I disagree. I would argue that to disregard the experiences of god's presence as brain chemistry does not show a lack of understanding of how such an experience could lead someone to believe in god. One can understand another's reasoning while disagreeing with it. The existence of god is a possible explanation of 'divine' experience but there are infinitely many other 'possibilities'. I cannot see any good reason why the 'god' option should be chosen other than for the sake of socially conditioned mystical sentiment.

It's silly to introduce your criteria for knowledge into this argument. This thread is about showing that god does (/does not) exist, not whether somone has true knowledge about god's existence. To determine whether or not someone has such knowledge we must first determine whether god exists - the matter being dealt with in this thread. Bringing in epistemology adds too many layers to an argument which belongs in the realm of metaphysics. We need two things in this thread:
1. Valid Arguments
2. True Premises (or at least ones which are relatively uncontroversial)

Once again, I would like someone to put forth the properties they think god possesses should they exist, e.g. are they good? are they all knowing? are they all powerful? are they the cause of all other existence? A great many conceptions of god possess some degree of internal inconsistency. It's all well and good to claim that certain events suggest the existence of god, but this isn't much help when god's existence leads to contradiction.

 

[The Logical One]

It's silly to introduce your criteria for knowledge into this argument. This thread is about showing that god does (/does not) exist, not whether somone has true knowledge about god's existence. To determine whether or not someone has such knowledge we must first determine whether god exists - the matter being dealt with in this thread. Bringing in epistemology adds too many layers to an argument which belongs in the realm of metaphysics. We need two things in this thread:
1. Valid Arguments
2. True Premises (or at least ones which are relatively uncontroversial).

I don't think you understand why I introduced epistemology into this argument. It was because NTB was assigning the burdon of proof to people who believe that a deity exists. I can already prove using an ontological argument and using epoistemology (combined with physics on the creation of the universe) to almost very accurately say that, "Yes, God exists AT this moment of time". (using modal logic)

In this argument at this time it is more plausible that god exists, because people believe god exists and because it is 'more correct' that atleast one process in the creation of the worldis more likely the cause of a 'creator'.

The creator of the universe will then be accepted as 'God' therefore 'God' exists.

- Perhaps the diety no longer exists.
- Perhaps the diety is not a conscious thing and therefore I wouldn't even call it a diety.
- Your 'model' could not be more wrong, it makes huge assumptions that you cannot justify.

Perhaps it doesn't, but we have no proof that it ceased to exist and no reason to believe it did. But it is possible.

Regardless of wheter or not the Deity is conscious or not doesn't take away it's role as the creator.

My 'model' is just a model, and is not based on assumptions. It's based on observations. The universe 'does' have self supporting, bilateral laws by which it is governed. This 'does' mean that that there was a law which came first. This law is a law which governs energy. Matter didn't exist prior to energy. Therefore the first law of our universe predated everything in our universe. Our universe before the law is non-existant (as the 'ENTIRETY' of our universe, in it's infinate depth is governed by these laws). This means our universe was created by the first law, and because it is bilateral it is the result of a creator not from this universe. As opposed to chaotic laws which may come to existance in another more complicated unrelated way. (In which the deity may have come into existance.)

Do you understand?

 

[KFunk]

I don't think you understand why I introduced epistemology into this argument. It was because NTB was assigning the burdon of proof to people who believe that a deity exists. I can already prove using an ontological argument and using epoistemology (combined with physics on the creation of the universe) to almost very accurately say that, "Yes, God exists AT this moment of time". (using modal logic)

In this argument at this time it is more plausible that god exists, because people believe god exists and because it is 'more correct' that atleast one process in the creation of the worldis more likely the cause of a 'creator'.

The creator of the universe will then be accepted as 'God' therefore 'God' exists.

Perhaps I missed this proof when you provided it. Could you either type the proof up or direct me to it - using modal logical as well if you can (I assume you're trying to show that god is a necessary truth).



EDIT: Assuming that this quote plays I part in your argument I feel that I should comment -

I belief that alien life exists without ever needing proof but only the conditions for which we exist. Substitute us with the universe and the aliens with god and you have a perfect analogy for the belief in God.

I take issue with your claim that the analogy is perfect. There is a very large and important difference between the two cases. The fact that our world exists (with us in it) is irrefutable proof that it is possible for life to exist. We have no such evidence showing that it is possible for god to exist (at least not through such an analogy). As I mentioned above, many conceptions of god lead to the logical statement that 'it is necessarily the case that not G'. We know, as well as one can know, that life exists on our planet and through science we have an understanding of the conditions needed for life and how they might plausibly come about. We have no such proof, that I know of, of a possible god, which brings me back to the qualities possessed by god.

It is crucial that people define the qualities of the god they are trying to show exists, otherwise their argument doesn't make sense. If someone says 'god exists', which god do they describe? Is it hindu or aztec? are they omnipotent? etc. If I make the claim 'John exists' you might reasonably ask 'which John do you speak of?' If John is a space goblin you might doubt my assertion, whereas if he is a friend who lives down the road, and has no qualities that seem to conflict with reality, then you may well accept the claim.

 

[littlewing69]

I don't think you understand why I introduced epistemology into this argument. It was because NTB was assigning the burdon of proof to people who believe that a deity exists.

The burden of proof should be on those making a positive claim.

I can already prove using an ontological argument and using epoistemology (combined with physics on the creation of the universe) to almost very accurately say that, "Yes, God exists AT this moment of time". (using modal logic)

This is going to revolutionise the world, so lets hear it....

 

[Not-That-Bright]

It was because NTB was assigning the burdon of proof to people who believe that a deity exists.

Eh not necessarily, It's just that I think the initial burden of proof for claiming something doesn't exist is that there's no evidence of its existance.

I can already prove using an ontological argument and using epoistemology (combined with physics on the creation of the universe) to almost very accurately say that, "Yes, God exists AT this moment of time". (using modal logic)

lol you get nuttier every day.

- I've never seen you make an ontological argument, maybe I missed it, but either way... please just don't.
- Your 'physics' is just wrong, relying on assumptions that you HAVE NOT proven.
- You still refuse to explain to me exactly what is wrong with what I say, you just say 'Using epistemology I am right', it's like you've just discovered new, big words.

 

[gerhard]

lol seriously give up ontological arguments.

 

[T-mac01]

Why does your god hide himself past the 'boundary of science'? Does this mean God recedes with every passing year?



Why would anyone think science is a 'natural phenomenon'? It's neither.



Must there be a meaning? IMHO, 'God made us' is just as meaningless/meaningful as 'Natural mechanisms made us'.

I'm pointing this out to give people a different perspective about science. The last dude which I have replied to thinks our level of science advancement is supreme. It's not! Why, because if we have reached to a stage where our technologies can be considered supreme, there wouldn't still be diseases that are untreatable or natural disasters that can be prevented by tools created from science. We are still stupid in a why that we are unable to make good collection of natural resources. I'm not talking about coals, etc, rather the sources of energy that are yet unknown by the average human being. Especially those that are directly affecting our method of energy usage and new findings of science theories.

So what you were saying about the meanings and natural mechanisms. What I can say is that God created this environment for us to bare is not meaningless. There are reasons and purposes of why we are here. I'm not going to tell you why because you wouldn't accept it. Conversely, natural mechanisms would be meaningless as there is no one single purpose, just cluttered particles coincide in space. I guess this is as far as our science can bring us, this one three-dimension space.

It's a fair thought to believe in Aliens and disregard God. After all, they could be easily mistaken as figures of God either by people from the past and the present. This is really beyond the scope of my ability to explain the background knowledge I have gathered to pass it onto you in a way that is acceptable without being ridiculed. However, what I can say about Aliens is that they are beings that are not as divine as humans. Their influences has corrupted our principles.

The last thing about "God hiding". Humans are on the bottom level of divinity. However, not all of us are divine. Again, I'm not going to talk about my statement as it is very controversial. Like I'd briefly mentioned earlier, some of us are here with a purpose and some ended up here because of other reasons. Only closing all our dimensional-vision (don't really know what it's callled but kinda close or more colloquilly the third eye) would test that purpose and thus help us to fullfil that purpose. So this is kinda why we can't see God. Btw, I am really hesitant to use that word. I prefer higher beings. The other reason I think would be because we are not "good enough" to see God.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

The last dude which I have replied to thinks our level of science advancement is supreme. It's not! Why, because if we have reached to a stage where our technologies can be considered supreme, there wouldn't still be diseases that are untreatable or natural disasters that can be prevented by tools created from science.

'Supreme' to what? what is the criteria? This whole argument seems to be nothing but rhetoric.

We are still stupid in a why that we are unable to make good collection of natural resources. I'm not talking about coals, etc, rather the sources of energy that are yet unknown by the average human being.

Such as?

I guess this is as far as our science can bring us, this one three-dimension space.

lol proof beyond?

However, what I can say about Aliens is that they are beings that are not as divine as humans. Their influences has corrupted our principles.

Divine? Aliens? WTH?

Like I'd briefly mentioned earlier, some of us are here with a purpose and some ended up here because of other reasons

To go to hell or something?

Only closing all our dimensional-vision (don't really know what it's callled but kinda close or more colloquilly the third eye) would test that purpose and thus help us to fullfil that purpose.

Proof of a 'third eye'? Proof of these 'other dimensions (whatever the hell they mean)' ?

So this is kinda why we can't see God.

Because God exists on a dimension that we can only 'see' via our 'third eye'? That might be a good theory if it wasn't just trash.

Btw, I am really hesitant to use that word. I prefer higher beings.

Do they have beings higher than them also?

The other reason I think would be because we are not "good enough" to see God.

How convenient for the faithful.