Does God exist? (11 Viewers)

[boris]

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23322261-2,00.html


ha.

 

[BradCube]

dont hate satan just because he hates you.

Was that in relation to something I said?

 

[BradCube]

A few things caught my eye in your responses here PwarYuex

I would personally never believe in any god or religious teachings if I felt like it required my participation or even belief. God may or may not exist, but I don't think it should rule your life in any way. If there is a god, it doesn't want you wasting time talking to it, converting people, killing people for it, or even believe in it, otherwise it wouldn't have given us the capacity to do otherwise. That is, unless it's restrained by something higher.

You seem to be talking here as if you have complete knowledge of what God would be like if in fact he did exist. I find it quite difficult to see how you can maintain this position knowing that you say you "neither know, care, nor will spend time trying to figure out whether god exists." If you have such a view point how can you possibley know so much about what he would be like if he did exist?

It seems to me that I'd rather go to hell than spend time in heaven with a God which required my prayers.

It would appear that you have a misunderstanding of the normal concepts relating to heaven and hell if you would choose hell over heaven. Also of interest is that you believe that God requires your prayers? What does belief this stem from? It seems pretty limiting for an omnipotent God.

2. I neither know, care, nor will spend time trying to figure out whether god exists. If a scientist -- natural or social -- figures it out, they can let me know.

I for the life of me cannot understand this. You don't care to try and figure out whether God exists? What do you feel is more important than working out the origins of absolutely everything in front of us?

It could be my personality so don't take this too much to heart. It would seem to me that every other question or time filler is rendered meaningless if in fact we have no answer to those biggest questions in life regarding our existence.

 

[boris]

You seem to be talking here as if you have complete knowledge of what God would be like if in fact he did exist. I find it quite difficult to see how you can maintain this position knowing that you say you "neither know, care, nor will spend time trying to figure out whether god exists." If you have such a view point how can you possibley know so much about what he would be like if he did exist?

I don't find his suggestion any more ridiculous than Christian's who claim to know what God wants. His is no more ridiculous than those who live their lives according to what they think God's plan for them is.
His is basically saying; If a God exists then this God probably doesn't want you people devoting every second of your live to pleasing him.
It's no different to saying "I have to live my way according to what God wants".

How do they know what God wants?

This then leads us back into an argument about the fallacy of the Bible.

 

[boris]

I for the life of me cannot understand this. You don't care to try and figure out whether God exists? What do you feel is more important than working out the origins of absolutely everything in front of us?

It could be my personality so don't take this too much to heart. It would seem to me that every other question or time filler is rendered meaningless if in fact we have no answer to those biggest questions in life regarding our existence.

Why is it so hard to comprehend that some people do not need to seek the answers to the meaning of life. Maybe they're content with believing we exist just because. Why does there have to be an alterior meaning to life?

I can think of several things more important than figuring out the origins of life, one of them is simply being content with knowing I am alive. I don't care about the how, why's and whens.

 

[BradCube]

I don't find his suggestion any more ridiculous than Christian's who claim to know what God wants. His is no more ridiculous than those who live their lives according to what they think God's plan for them is.
His is basically saying; If a God exists then this God probably doesn't want you people devoting every second of your live to pleasing him.
It's no different to saying "I have to live my way according to what God wants".

How do they know what God wants?

This then leads us back into an argument about the fallacy of the Bible.

In my opinion, this difference comes for a few reasons. The first is that the person believing in God (or Christian) has sought out this information or answers regarding a God rather than dismissing the whole case or not pursuing it at all.

The second is that, yes, any claim without reasons for it is ridiculous - this is why I pointed it out in the first place. This applies to both the skeptic and the theist. For either party to show validity they must show reasons for it. In some cases for the theist, this will mean going back to the bible but not necessarily since some aspects of God can be known based on the universe around us. (his timelessness, non-physical nature etc)

I would be quite happy to have a discussion regarding the fallacy of the Bible. Last time the point as brought up, I thought that I provided a reasonable explanation for most points of contention.

Why is it so hard to comprehend that some people do not need to seek the answers to the meaning of life. Maybe they're content with believing we exist just because. Why does there have to be an alterior meaning to life?

I find it hard to comprehend since "just because" is hardly an explanation to the cause of our existence. It's on the same level as saying there is no cause or reason.

I can think of several things more important than figuring out the origins of life, one of them is simply being content with knowing I am alive. I don't care about the how, why's and whens.

Why is being content with knowing you're alive more important than figuring out the origins of everything before us? As far as I can tell, you depend upon the origins of the universe to even make such a philosophic statement.

 

[boris]

In my opinion, this difference comes for a few reasons. The first is that the person believing in God (or Christian) has sought out this information or answers regarding a God rather than dismissing the whole case or not pursuing it at all.

The second is that, yes, any claim without reasons for it is ridiculous - this is why I pointed it out in the first place. This applies to both the skeptic and the theist. For either party to show validity they must show reasons for it. In some cases for the theist, this will mean going back to the bible but not necessarily.

I would be quite happy to have a discussion regarding the fallacy of the Bible. Last time the point as brought up, I thought that I provided a reasonable explanation for most points of contention.

And this is where I take exception to your argument.
Is it the belief of most Christians that those who reject God simply haven't searched hard enough for the answers? That those who reject the idea of a God are dismissing it on a whim?

I find it hard to comprehend since "just because" is hardly an explanation to the cause of our existence. It's on the same level as saying there is no cause or reason.

I don't believe in the just because option myself, but I don't find it any less of a valid option. If somebody is content with knowing life is life just because, then I don't think their belief is any less valid than somebody who believes they've gone to the effort to seek the answers.

I myself believe in science. It provides me with the answers to life. Tangible answers.

Why is being content with knowing you're alive more important than figuring out the origins of everything before us? As far as I can tell, you depend upon the origins of the universe to even make such a philosophic statement.

I didn't say it was more important, I was implying that it isn't any less valid than figuring out the origins.

 

[BradCube]

And this is where I take exception to your argument.
Is it the belief of most Christians that those who reject God simply haven't searched hard enough for the answers? That those who reject the idea of a God are dismissing it on a whim?

No, not at all. However, in this case PwarYuex has openly admitted to not caring about searching for answers.

I don't believe in the just because option myself, but I don't find it any less of a valid option. If somebody is content with knowing life is life just because, then I don't think their belief is any less valid than somebody who believes they've gone to the effort to seek the answers.

Again, it must be a personality issue more than anything. Even still though, I don't know how someone arrives at the conclusion of "just because" unless it is a choice to just ignore the question. It only valid in the sense that they are able to believe this, but it's not valid in the sense that it is provable or true.

I myself believe in science. It provides me with the answers to life. Tangible answers.

You believe only in science to gain knowledge? What about areas that are not testable by science, or areas that do not have scientific answers? What do you say in those situations?

I didn't say it was more important, I was implying that it isn't any less valid than figuring out the origins.

Ok, so even if you are saying they are of equal importance, I would like to see how you maintain this belief when that very belief relies upon your own existence. Am I missing something?

 

[boris]

Ok, so even if you are saying they are of equal importance, I would like to see how you maintain this belief when that very belief relies upon your own existence. Am I missing something?

I don't understand why they cannot be mutally inclusive?
Person A is content with the belief that he/she exists purely because he/she does.
There is no point for this person to find out the origins of their own existence when they're content with the knowledge that they do just exist.

I don't think it's hard to believe that there is no higher being. I know I am quite content with dismissing the idea of a God, and I don't feel like I have to justify my existence on this earth by searching for answers that don't exist.

You believe only in science to gain knowledge? What about areas that are not testable by science, or areas that do not have scientific answers. What do you say in those situations?

I believe everything has a cause and effect. Give me a scenario of an area that canot be tested by science and I will explain how I would approach it.

 

[BradCube]

I don't understand why they cannot be mutally inclusive?
Person A is content with the belief that he/she exists purely because he/she does.
There is no point for this person to find out the origins of their own existence when they're content with the knowledge that they do just exist.

I don't think it's hard to believe that there is no higher being. I know I am quite content with dismissing the idea of a God, and I don't feel like I have to justify my existence on this earth by searching for answers that don't exist.

Ok, cool. It's definitely a personality issue then. Where person A is happy to not seek and person B wants to seek answers. The problem lies in when person A says that persons B's views are wrong simply because they have there own views or vice-versa. Beliefs within themselves have no bearing upon the accuracy of those beliefs.

I believe everything has a cause and effect. Give me a scenario of an area that canot be tested by science and I will explain how I would approach it.

Well lets use part of your own statement. Explain how you would approach "I believe everything has a cause and effect". At some stage you must revert to some sort of philosophical argument or conclusion since science can only test empirical data.

 

[boris]

Well lets use part of your own statement. Explain how you would approach "I believe everything has a cause and effect". At some stage you must revert to some sort of philosophical argument or conclusion since science can only test empirical data.

You're not giving me a scenario, you're giving me a statement. I need a scenario, an every day scenario where cause and effect (a basic scientific principle) cannot explain what has occured.

Statements are words. They can be easily refuted by other words because they have no meaning.

We can sit here and throw idle banter into the ring about philosophical questions and answers, but thats like arguing over how long is a piece of string?

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

1. He sees no reason to believe in ghosts; the presence of ghosts do not explain anything that he has observed,
2. he sees a reason to believe in god; the presence of God explains things that he has observed the same way a scientist may say 'I observe x, but I cannot explain it. There must be a reason for it to happen.'.

I don't think it's quite the same. There are a myriad of things we don't understand which occur in our lives which imo could potentially be explained by an appeal to some form of the supernatural... Whether it's using God to explain why the ground quakes or Ghosts to explain some unidentified sound I don't see how someone could justify one appeal to the supernatural over the other.

This is quite different to postulating either a natural but as yet unproven phenomenon or at the very least an explanation which borrows many similar characteristics to other natural explanations.

 

[Kwayera]

I find it hard to comprehend since "just because" is hardly an explanation to the cause of our existence. It's on the same level as saying there is no cause or reason.

Of course it is. Why should there be a reason?

No really - why are we so important that there has to be a meaning, a purpose for our existence?

We're not that special, and to think we are, to that extent, I find extremely arrogant.

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

I would be quite happy to have a discussion regarding the fallacy of the Bible. Last time the point as brought up, I thought that I provided a reasonable explanation for most points of contention.

My argument the entire way along was that no matter what comes up you (and any one else who can be bothered) will have an out, this makes the bible a LESS reliable text and not a MORE reliable one. The fact is that no matter what you say you cannot know the will of God, nor can you disprove that the bible was written by Satan, so why play these bible games anyway?

 

[BradCube]

You're not giving me a scenario, you're giving me a statement. I need a scenario, an every day scenario where cause and effect (a basic scientific principle) cannot explain what has occured.

Of course you need a scenario with cause and effect because this is all that science can test - hence my original point that science cannot test and prove everything. With that in mind I would be interested to find out how you would tackle the cause of the existence of the universe, and how that universe has come to support life.

Statements are words. They can be easily refuted by other words because they have no meaning.

If you truly believed this then there would be no reason for even expressing it since it has no meaning. Similarly any scientific findings could not be presented meaningfully since they are reliant upon a language in which to express those findings.

We can sit here and throw idle banter into the ring about philosophical questions and answers, but thats like arguing over how long is a piece of string?

I would argue that philosophical sensibilities are just as valid as any scientific findings.

 

[BradCube]

Of course it is. Why should there be a reason?

No really - why are we so important that there has to be a meaning, a purpose for our existence?

We're not that special, and to think we are, to that extent, I find extremely arrogant.

Ahh, but take note Kwayera, I am not currently addressing whether there is meaning and purpose behind the universes existence. I am talking about whether there is reason or cause for it's existence in the first place.

Any purpose or meaning behind the universes existence is external to this issue.

 

[boris]

\
Of course you need a scenario with cause and effect because this is all that science can test - hence my original point that science cannot test and prove everything. With that in mind I would be interested to find out how you would tackle the cause of the existence of the universe, and how that universe has come to support life.

But if there is no tangible scenario that can be tested, then said scenario doesn't exist. It comes a hypothetical, a rhetoric. Therefore science doesn't need to be tested to support this hypothetical because it doesn't exist.

My point was that for every tangible scenario or situation that humans face on earth the cause and effect has a scientific explanation.

I would argue that philosophical sensibilities are just as valid as any scientific findings.

I don't know if they're as valid, I haven't decided.

If you truly believed this then there would be no reason for even expressing it since it has no meaning. Similarly any scientific findings could not be presented meaningfully since they are reliant upon a language in which to express those findings.

I say the cat is black.
You say the cat is brown.
Neither of us are wrong because which cat are we describing? In this way, words are meaningless because they rely on the context and social construct of the person saying it.

It's the same for the argument over the existence of God.
You say people can't just believe that they exist because to believe you exist you have to believe a theroy about the origin of life.
I say why can't you just believe you exist. If you believe you exist just because you do, then you've already answered the question about the origin of life. You now don't need to find any proof, or evidence because you're content in knowing that life is life becaue it is.

There is no evidence to support the existence of God, nor is there any to disprove the existence. If there was substantial evidence for either argument we wouldn't be having this discussion.

There is however enough 'evidence' for one to convince themselves of the outcome of either scenario.

I've decided there is enough proof in science for it to be impossible for me to accept the existence of a God.

I don't know how the the universe came into existence. All I have are scientific theories which to me make more sense than blind faith in a higher being. If I knew how the universe came into existence I would be a very rich woman.

 

[BradCube]

My argument the entire way along was that no matter what comes up you (and any one else who can be bothered) will have an out, this makes the bible a LESS reliable text and not a MORE reliable one.

Come again? If I have an opt out (I take this to mean reason for belief?) the Bible is less reliable? You may have to give an example of how you feel I would opt out in a way that is illogical or invalid.

The fact is that no matter what you say you cannot know the will of God, nor can you disprove that the bible was written by Satan, so why play these bible games anyway?

The reason to play these Bible games is to see whether I have good reason to believe that the bible is divinely inspired. If it is then I also have good reason to believe that it describes God will.

While yes, I agree that it may not be possible for me alone to know what God's entire will is, if the bible describes his will (and is divinely inspired) than I can infer what his will is for situations I find myself in.

 

[toadstooltown]

There is no point discussing this as God, by definition, is a concept that can not be proven or dis-proven and should have no bearing on one's morals or behavior.

 

[BradCube]

But if there is no tangible scenario that can be tested, then said scenario doesn't exist. It comes a hypothetical, a rhetoric. Therefore science doesn't need to be tested to support this hypothetical because it doesn't exist.

So philosophical problems, emotional problems and any other problems outside of tangible testable scenarios do not exist? Therefore they should be ignored or disregarded entirely?

My point was that for every tangible scenario or situation that humans face on earth the cause and effect has a scientific explanation.

And my point is that tangible scenarios and situations are not the only scenarios and situations humans face on earth.

I say the cat is black.
You say the cat is brown.
Neither of us are wrong because which cat are we describing? In this way, words are meaningless because they rely on the context and social construct of the person saying it.

It's the same for the argument over the existence of God.

It's no where near the same argument over the existence for God. For one thing we know that we are both describing or discussing the same thing (or cat in the previous example). Secondly it is simple to show whether a cat is brown or black by objectively testing. Such tests cannot be applied to a being which is beyond our natural realm however.

You say people can't just believe that they exist because to believe you exist you have to believe a theroy about the origin of life.
I say why can't you just believe you exist. If you believe you exist just because you do, then you've already answered the question about the origin of life. You now don't need to find any proof, or evidence because you're content in knowing that life is life because it is.

The problem lies in that it is logically flawed to believe that you came into existence uncaused since we know that everything which begins to exist must have a cause. It seems that you affirm this position because you believe every effect has a cause. With that belief in mind you cannot say that the effect of your existence simply "just is" and is uncaused.

I've decided there is enough proof in science for it to be impossible for me to accept the existence of a God.

Would you mind sharing what those proofs are?

I don't know how the the universe came into existence. All I have are scientific theories which to me make more sense than blind faith in a higher being.

So again we come to the blind faith in God vs Blind faith in science. I see neither as being more valid than the other. At least blind faith in God can be disproved, blind faith in science on the other hand, will continue to exist regardless of whether answers are found or not.