Does God exist? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter MoonlightSonata
- Start date
I'd just like to apologise for saying such a stupid comment about why 'rational' proof is irrelevant. I feel ashamed as a debating student for leaving myself open soo badly. Whoops
But my point still stands, you cannot prove God exists scientifically.
But that's not really surprising, science is the study of the natural world, God is basically asking if there is anything OTHER then nature. Ie Science is how things work while religion why things work. Which are completely different ball games. The evidence used in one area doesn't compute into another area.
Then there are angles to science that are flawed. Science is basically;
observation
hypothesis
experiment
conclusion
I'm sure this works most of the time, however just because the same thing happens in the observation/experiment 99 times does not mean on the 100th time that it'll act in the same way, the chances that it will work the same way are in your favour, but that still doesn't guaratee anything.
The problem with religion is that everyone has a different interpretation and mine is that humans make their own decisions while God sits by to be amused. If you personally do something nice that's you working and vice versa. God gave us all a conscience and its really up to us what we do with it, we'll have to answer when we die and since I know no one's come back to tell us what the big dude said.
True that, BUT, sounds a bit far fetched to many. We are provided with many explanations and many reasons why we might be on this earth. To me there is a reason and Christianity makes the most sense out of the other religions. However at the end of the day even if I am wrong I'd doubt I'd suffer for it, unlike a non believer who might end up in hell.
We're supposed to try and live a good life, believe in God and then be promoted to heaven when we die. Life is basically a test in which you pass or fail accordingly.
Why aren't we selfish then?? WHY don't we just have sex non stop and have as many kids as we can?! Who or what is stopping us.
give me one and the background it comes from
No I don't go around calling people on the street immoral for not believing in God. I'm asking you to question yourself on where the concepts of 'good' and 'bad' came from and who defines them. Animals seem to lack them it seems a quality left to humans. Why do we sympathise with all the people who died? Why do we think murder, rape and other violent crimes are bad?
I have one, my brother and I were in a car crash 3 weeks ago now. Front passenger seat of a taxi I was in the back. Our taxi didn't give way at sign drove into the middle of a highway where a car traveling at 100km/hr promptly smashed into our taxi and sent us underneath an apartment building/underground parking. First day doctors assured us that my brother was going to have major brain damage for the rest of his life. Somehow two days later he was flirting with nurses and whatnot. I think its a miracle he's a life, without brain damage that car hit his door at a 100 fucking km/hr so that's a personal miracle for ya.
Yet miracles are a very subjective thing too I guess, if you want to see if that's true we made the canberra times
but I'm sure if you tried hard enough you could explain it with science, but I prefer my miracle explanation thanks.Actually according to education.jlab.org/beamsactivity/6thgrade/vocabulary/
science is the study of the natural world
Why the world exists is a question for philosophers, not scientists.
Why am I wrong? I'm still waiting for your explanation of how the world and us came to be and why.
Not-That-Bright
Andrew Quah
Correct. He sits in the same world as unicorns, fuzzy pink elephants and pixies that make people fall in love.
Nothing is outside nature though, really. Even if it turns out a God exists and uses some sort of magical powers he'll just become a part of the natural world.
No I think you'll find science explains both the how and why pretty well. Religion on the other hand really serves the same purpose as philosophy.
Yes, we use inductive logic - so there is some faith there. I have no problem with saying that if something is never shown to happen or exist I'll just assume it doesn't exist.
You were claiming though without God there is no morals? Now you say we get our morals from our conscious... Are you saying without God such a thing does not exist?
Then explain away your reasoning.
What do you mean? If the aztecs turn out to be correct who do you think will be worse off? Those who worship nothing/admit they can never really know, or those who have professed belief in another god?
'live a good life' ?
Who or what is stopping us. [/quote]
- Some of us are selfish.
- If we were ALL selfish then such selfish people will gain no advantage as being selfish only generally works in an environment where other people are not selfish.
- A group of people all looking out for each other (at the very least their family/tribe) are more likely to survive than individuals trying to go it alone, not caring about each other.
Because having sex non stop wouldn't actually lead to the survival of the species... There's more to carrying on your genes then just pro-creation, it's just one key aspect.
Nothing is stopping us, we just naturally don't want to because our genetics has programmed us that way. Pick up a book on evolution, it's really quite an interesting subject and when you finally realise how it all works... it gives you a new perspective to approach almost any field of science from and is the key to biology.
Empathy. This comes from the fact that for humans, looking after each other has proven to be a more successful way to survive as a species (see more on this in my above comments).
The concepts of good and bad are for the most part (Imo) built on a foundation from our genes/our parents, which is further built upon by society/life experiences but which can be totally altered by ourselves as we are conscious, creative beings.
Really? They have the foundations imo of a basic moral code. For E.g. field mice/bears (many other mammals) will commit infantcide on others young, however they are programmed not to do the same in an area near where they have mated previously/with their own children.
Wow... such certain terms as that? Are you sure you're not re-writing history? Because that seems very unprofessional for a doctor to say if he's not really sure (i.e. there are no obvious physical signs). Of course he could have just been mistaken.
But I'm sure we could model a situation where that exact same thing happens and the exact same outcome is reached.... Therefore no outside magical intervention needed.
lol well that's fine, but don't try to offer it up as a miracle if you know it could be explained by science. It's like calling a 'new born baby' a miracle, sure it's an awesome thing that happened, but it's kinda disingenuous to claim that's evidence of God if you know it can be explained by natural means.
The world exists because X happened. The how can be the why. It's like asking 'Why do we feel empathy for each other?" - I explained why by explaining how it came to be.
Oh I don't really know or claim to know, but fortunately I don't think I need to posit another explaination to reject yours.
sam04u
Comrades, Comrades!
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2003
- Messages
- 2,867
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2006
I thought we resolved this a few pages back? I'll just point out various comments and comment.
------------------
It's just as simple as this. We don't know how the universe came to be. We attribute it to X. If there is no better explanation than X, then X is the most logical explanation. If we say "X has always existed, and X has the power to do anything." Then there are no questions left to how anything can come to be. Untill you can refute that, it's more logical that god exists than doesn't. Can you see that?
Your statement is fail. If I said I don't believe in evolution, does that mean that I didn't evolve from a common ancestor of the ape? No, It just means I don't recognise it, which is different form it not happening.
This statement is fail too. You can't prove it doesn't exist. You can't prove there is a more logical explanation to what God does. Therefore it's more likely than not. If love was a mysterious thing that we couldn't explain, then X which made people fall in love would be a more logical explanation than no explanation. Who is to say God isn't natural? Just because you can't prove something exists, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There could still be dinosaurs alive, there could be fuzzy pink elephants and there could be pixes.
That doesn't make it flawed. It works just fine that way, you see something, you make a guess, you test that guess, and you come to a conclusion. It doesn't mean you've proved it, but it can be used to show links and such. But, lets say I said that a magic pixie was the reason that Alcohol and Water boil and freeze at different temperatures, couldn't you better prove it was the structure of the atom? (through that method?)
------------------
It's just as simple as this. We don't know how the universe came to be. We attribute it to X. If there is no better explanation than X, then X is the most logical explanation. If we say "X has always existed, and X has the power to do anything." Then there are no questions left to how anything can come to be. Untill you can refute that, it's more logical that god exists than doesn't. Can you see that?
Last edited:
Not-That-Bright
Andrew Quah
No sam, you tried to provide a distinction and you failed.
No I can't, but I can say that Gods existance is in the same realm as all those other supernatural things.
Not only can't I (if you want to go back to the start of everything) but I don't think I need to. It doesn't matter if we don't have a more logical explanation, the chance of something being true which we cannot test is on par with every other thing which we cannot test - That's the crux of it. The fact that we now understand how tectonic plates work doesn't make the 'rumbling volcano god' hypothesis any more/less possible.
Also, if you want me to come up with supernatural explanations for other things we don't yet understand properly either, I can do that.
Well first I'd remove the term 'logical' because that's really going to fuzzy up what I'm about to say. It's true that if you posit a hypothesis that it's a better explanation than no explanation at all. However, that doesn't mean that a supernatural hypothesis with no other explanation is better than other supernatural hypothesis (even ones with other explanations).
If God exists then he is natural. I use the word supernatural as it describes something who's qualities are outside of nature as we know it.
Yes, I agree. If you want to accept (along with your God) the existance of all those things then I'd say you're holding a more logical position, even if doing so is probably going to make you go crazy.
For starters, as far as science goes (if you accept all of it) I think we can push God further back than the beginning of our universe with no problem. The question is where that begining came from and for that there's many possible hypothesis but they're all basically of equal merit.
The many worlds explanation though, tied in with it working with quantum quite well seems something more likely to me... but my knowledge of this is pathetic.
Ok now while it's true that God is a more logical explanation than nothing at all, that doesn't make it any better than using pixies to explain love.
I have major issues with this argument. Consider the fact that given the way you have phrased the above you can substitute any 'explanatory' argument into 'X'. You could say that Gamera created the universe, or that the unvierse was created as part of the flush of a cosmic urinal, and so forth. The problem with asserting that any explanation of a phenomenon is more logical than the previous lack of explanation is that the explanation itself may be logically inconsistent.sam04u said:
For example, you could posit that the universe was created by a being whose goal is to prevent the suffering of all living organisms and who possesses the power to stop/prevent such suffering. By your logic this theory is more logical than a lack of explanation. However, if we look at the world we live in we see that organisms do indeed suffer. Even if we wish to remain skeptical about the possibility of knowledge of other beings we can still affirm that we suffer from time to time ourselves.
What you probably noticed is that the current state of the world, i.e. one which includes suffering, generates a contradiction when taken in conjunction with the creator proposed in the previous paragraph - for if such a creator existed, then there would be no suffering. Naturally we can take the contrapositive and say that if there is suffering then such a creator does not exist, hence we have shown that my proposed theory in the above paragraph yields a contradiction. In my opinion we should reject such a theory on the basis that it is inconsistent with the observed/experienced world. Also, please keep in mind that the above is not a disproof of god as such, it is a disproof of a creator with the properties I ascribed to it in the second paragraph.
Most importantly - if an argument/theory is inconsistent that how can you claim it to be logical, or more logical than that which is consistent? Also, can you show that current conceptions of god are free of inconsistencies, e.g. considering the problem of evil which is analagous to the inconsistency I described above?
sam04u
Comrades, Comrades!
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2003
- Messages
- 2,867
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2006
I said thisKFunk said:
Wouldn't a better explanation be that the beings goal is to create suffering? That makes X not the most logical explanation. (by our own logic.)
Sounds just about right to me. If you could explain what pixies and such do first, and we can't find a better explanation, and it doesn't contradict itself (Like KFunk pointed out.) Then I'll except it to be true.Very-Bright said:
eg: A sock went missing in my washing machine, there is nothing besides a basket of clothes and a washing machine. I look inside the washing machine, and can't find it. I look around the washing machine, and can't find it. I open the washing machine, clog the drains and look everywhere for that sock. You tell me the magic pixie took it. I guess that makes more sense than anything else I can come up with. I guess I then believe it was that magic pixie.
Last edited:
What criteria do you use to judge which theory is the best? And what of the problem of picking between different logically consistent theories, given that an infinite number can probably be created?
I feel I should point out that consistency does not entail truth... it's merely a necessary condition which first needs to be met. At this point I think it might once more be appropriate to introduce a William Clifford passage illustrating the danger of false belief (which I have already quoted a couple times previously, my apologies to NTB and others who have been around long enough to see both):
"A shipowner was about to send to sea an emigrant-ship. He knew that she was old, and not overwell built at the first; that she had seen many seas and climes, and often had needed repairs. Doubts had been suggested to him that possibly she was not seaworthy. These doubts preyed upon his mind, and made him unhappy; he thought that perhaps he ought to have her thoroughly overhauled and and refitted, even though this should put him at great expense. Before the ship sailed, however, he succeeded in overcoming these melancholy reflections. He said to himself that she had gone safely through so many voyages and weathered so many storms that it was idle to suppose she would not come safely home from this trip also. He would put his trust in Providence, which could hardly fail to protect all these unhappy families that were leaving their fatherland to seek for better times elsewhere. He would dismiss from his mind all ungenerous suspicions about the honesty of builders and contractors. In such ways he acquired a sincere and comfortable conviction that his vessel was thoroughly safe and seaworthy; he watched her departure with a light heart, and benevolent wishes for the success of the exiles in their strange new home that was to be; and he got his insurance-money when she went down in mid-ocean and told no tales."
A similar modern day version, making use of reasoning analogous to sam04u's could be the following: A woman drives to and from work each day via the highway and is a very conservative driver, but more than that - she is a very nervous one. She is regularly worried about crashing and is baffled by the fact that she survives the trip day after day. Eventually she comes to the consistent conclusion that a an undetectable spirit is protecting her and her car when she is driving. This conclusion inspires confidence in her and so the next time she drives as fast as she can get away with and with very little concern for what is going on around her. She crashes and dies... along with her children in the back seat.
I feel I should point out that consistency does not entail truth... it's merely a necessary condition which first needs to be met. At this point I think it might once more be appropriate to introduce a William Clifford passage illustrating the danger of false belief (which I have already quoted a couple times previously, my apologies to NTB and others who have been around long enough to see both):
"A shipowner was about to send to sea an emigrant-ship. He knew that she was old, and not overwell built at the first; that she had seen many seas and climes, and often had needed repairs. Doubts had been suggested to him that possibly she was not seaworthy. These doubts preyed upon his mind, and made him unhappy; he thought that perhaps he ought to have her thoroughly overhauled and and refitted, even though this should put him at great expense. Before the ship sailed, however, he succeeded in overcoming these melancholy reflections. He said to himself that she had gone safely through so many voyages and weathered so many storms that it was idle to suppose she would not come safely home from this trip also. He would put his trust in Providence, which could hardly fail to protect all these unhappy families that were leaving their fatherland to seek for better times elsewhere. He would dismiss from his mind all ungenerous suspicions about the honesty of builders and contractors. In such ways he acquired a sincere and comfortable conviction that his vessel was thoroughly safe and seaworthy; he watched her departure with a light heart, and benevolent wishes for the success of the exiles in their strange new home that was to be; and he got his insurance-money when she went down in mid-ocean and told no tales."
A similar modern day version, making use of reasoning analogous to sam04u's could be the following: A woman drives to and from work each day via the highway and is a very conservative driver, but more than that - she is a very nervous one. She is regularly worried about crashing and is baffled by the fact that she survives the trip day after day. Eventually she comes to the consistent conclusion that a an undetectable spirit is protecting her and her car when she is driving. This conclusion inspires confidence in her and so the next time she drives as fast as she can get away with and with very little concern for what is going on around her. She crashes and dies... along with her children in the back seat.
See the thing with science is that it is based on foundations of knowledge of previously researched and tested theories and laws. God has none of these to back him up. We have searched for atoms, we have searched for what makes up atoms, we have searched for what these atoms do and what possibilities their functions hold for us. God is a baseless idea with nothing to back up his existence except anecdoctal evidence and fairy tales stories.
lordarthurxoxo
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2007
- Messages
- 15
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- N/A
God exists more potently in our minds.
Not-That-Bright
Andrew Quah
Wait, ok, but my point was to explain that it's no more rational to accept a supernatural explanation where there is no other explanation than it is to accept a supernatural explanation where there is another explanation. The naturalistic explanation doesn't falsify the supernatural one in any way, it's still as valid as it always was, all that another explanation gives us is another way of explaining how it happened.
More potently? Or is that the only place he exists?
sam04u
Comrades, Comrades!
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2003
- Messages
- 2,867
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2006
If an infinite number of consistant and logical theories can be created, then each is just as probable.KFunk said:
Unfortunately, there aren't an infinite ammount of logical answers which are rational and what. I can see people now pointing to the flying spaghetti monster, and I suppose it's just as possible. Ofcourse, it has qualities and then couldn't be omnipresent and so is slightly less possible. In the realm of probabilities everything is just as possible except for where there is no other possibility (which more or less is the situation with the 'creator' of the universe.) You can hypothesise all you want, and then you still would be at 50% margin. But, at this moment in time it's higher than 50%. If you can disprove that, you just go right ahead. (I wouldn't mind having a laugh.)
Are you disproving science or god? That hypothesis is flawed in that, there is a more logical explanation as to why she had never crashed.
A) She was a cautious driver.
B) She is conservative and has taken the same path.
In her own mind, she could not come up with a 'more' logical answer. Therefore, in her own mind it was the most logical explanation. She was wrong, and she died. Again, if you want to try and refute that it is more likely that 'god' exists than doesnt, then go ahead.
A) There is no better explanation.
B) There is no explanation at all, if I'm correct?
At this moment in time we're right to assume that something 'supernatural' was the cause for it all.
Alright, let's go back 10,000 years ago. Instead of all this technology all we have is basic equipment, and basic agriculture and such. We both look up at the sky and make these 3 observations.
A) For x ammount of time the sun is up and it's light.
B) For x ammount of time the moon is up and it's dark.
Now after these two observations, and not being able to explain what either the sun or the moon is, and why one brings light, and the other brings darkness (they would not be able to prove otherwise). What are they to assume these 2 things are? Is it more logical to assume they are natural? Nothing else is like them, what should they assume they are? Gods?
C) For x ammount of time both the moon and the sun are up, and sometimes the moon overlaps the sun.
What does that mean? Would it be logical to assume they were natural?
You decide on that one.
It depends what you assume nature is. As you read above, 10,000 years ago nature is what we could observe. Everything else (sun & moon) were thought to be supernatural. Who knows what would be apart of the 'natural' realm 10,000 years from now. I pose that god is perfectly natural, and logical. Can you disprove that?
Last edited:
Not-That-Bright
Andrew Quah
No, I don't think so. You're no more right to assume something supernatural was the cause when there's no other explanation than you are to assume something supernatural was the cause when there is another explanation. Reason being that another explanation doesn't in any way falsify the supernatural explanation.
Also, I use the term 'supernatural explanation' fairly loosely as I don't really think it explains anything at all. Being told 'God did it' just opens up a myriad of 'How?' questions which are unanswerable. So on that basis I would also contend that no answer is better than an answer which leads to further unanswerable mystery. This isn't to say that an answer which leads to further avenues of study is undesirable (i would argue the opposite) but an answer which leads to a brick wall of mystery is not.
--------------------------
Sam, I've already responded to this.
If he is perfectly natural, logical then can you please explain by what mechanism he created the universe?
Last edited:
UnIqUe_PrInCeSs
invading your mind
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2005
- Messages
- 1,296
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2006
I once prayed to god for a bike, but quickly found out he didnt work that way...so I stole a bike and prayed for his forgiveness
UnIqUe_PrInCeSs
invading your mind
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2005
- Messages
- 1,296
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2006
<3Exphate said:
sam04u
Comrades, Comrades!
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2003
- Messages
- 2,867
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2006
I can explain all I want but, I still can't prove it. It doesn't matter what explanation I come up with, it's all still more probable than no explanation at all. At the moment there are no other explanations.Not-That-Bright said:
I could pose that your prayers were answered in that you stole the bike, and thus got the bike. Who is to say that god didn't provide the opportunity for you to steal the bike?
Again, I try hard not to refer to God as 'he', because God is very likely a natural event/entity/process
Last edited:
Not-That-Bright
Andrew Quah
No, you can't explain a thing as to how God does what he does without envoking magic - It's terribly circular.
I've already responded to that in two ways:
While you may wish to say God is 'very likely a natural event etc' (if God exists he is by definition natural) but what you need to realise is whatever 'natural' thing god is, it is far from natural as we currently understand it... Thus, in our context, he is supernatural.
sam04u said:
And I suppose you can prove that there are no other possible explanations for the existence of our universe? The fact that you cannot think of any is not a proof, all that demonstrates is the limitations of the human mind.
UnIqUe_PrInCeSs
invading your mind
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2005
- Messages
- 1,296
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2006
Aww. I'm touchedlengy said:I love you more than ever right now.