Does God exist? (3 Viewers)

[financialwar]

god is dog spelt backwards.

 

[Amundies]

god is dog spelt backwards.

... Well at least you're not wrong

 

[Menomaths]

god is dog spelt backwards.

The fact that it's spelled backwards isn't helping your case (assuming you're an atheist).

 

[financialwar]

People who believe in god are too stupid to understand probability.

They always say stupid shit like "thank god I didn't do it'' or '' god bless you'', no dumbass it's just probability.

 

[Amundies]

People who believe in god are too stupid to understand probability.

They always say stupid shit like "thank god I didn't do it'' or '' god bless you'', no dumbass it's just probability.

Brah, did Advanced Stats. Maths fite me.

Also, so many people who don't believe in God say "Thank God I didn't do it" or "God bless you" or even "Oh my God". Or are you saying that anyone who says "Oh my God" or "OMG" believes in the existence of a God? And what exactly does someone sneezing, and then someone else replying with a "God bless you" have to do with probability?

 

[financialwar]

Well, god can suck my dick.

 

[Sy123]

The double dichotomy proof of God


1) A metaphysical dichotomy between the set of all possible all inclusive states of existence and no states of existence proves that no states of existence cannot be the case, because our universe is real.

2) A metaphysical dichotomy between the set of all possible all inclusive states of existence that can become real and the set of all possible all inclusive states of existence that cannot become real being those possible all inclusive states of existence that contain two logically possible but contradictory states proves that the set of all possible all inclusive states of existence that cannot become real cannot be the case, because our universe is real.

3) Because our universe had a beginning and does not need to be real, and because something must be real without our universe being real due to the fact that no states of existence cannot be real, then there must be something real without our universe being real proving that all inclusive states of existence that can become real must be possible in reality.

4) Because the set of all possible all inclusive states of existence that can become real is infinite because one can imagine any given universe with the addition of just one more thing ad infinitum, then there cannot be a probability for any given universe because the set is infinite.

5) But because the universe is real, then there must be something real which determines what becomes real among the infinite set of all possible all inclusive states of existence where said determination is not based on probability or random chance.

6) Because something can be real and our universe not be real, then there must be a power to create the real such as our universe, and as there is a power to create the real, then there must be a power to determine what is real based on an order of preference.

7) Because the set of all possible all inclusive states of existence that can become real is not inherently ordered, and because it is possible to determine based on preference which possible all inclusive states of existence come into reality, then there must be a real eternal constraint that determines through will and intellect to allow any or all of these possible all inclusive states of existence to become real.

8) Because the actualization of any or all possible all inclusive states of existence that can become real requires the constraint to actualize them, then the constraint cannot be made and therefore must be infinite pure act without moving parts.

9) Said constraint must have power over all possible all inclusive states of existence that can become real being omnipotent and omnipresent.

10) Said constraint must have knowledge of all possible all inclusive states of existence that can become real being omniscient.

11) Because the mind of the constraint is omnipresent and hence within all of us, our minds are contained within the mind of the constraint which calls all of us to be Sons of the constraint.

12) Hence, a single being exists who is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, is not made, and has a will and intellect and we call this being God.

Can you please expand on point (1) and point (2), and explain your terms?

It seems this argument can be translated into:



Or at least something like that, right, the argument's logic is not clear, so you might want to formalize the first argument better

 

[astroman]

no

 

[C20H25N3O]

no

Confirmed because astroman knows

 

[CanU_Not]

Well technically if we respect each and everybody's realities we could probably just argue that God exists only if you believe in him/her as, speaking from that individual's reality, God will exist. There is always the very real possibility that God does exist and has impacted humankind in one way or another. Personally, because there isn't a definite proof of existence, I do not believe that a superior being, if it exists, has anything to do with mankind.

If you think about it; it's a simple concept that lays much of the foundations of modern society that we take for granted.
Why is time 60 seconds, 60 minutes and 24 hours? They're just arbitrary numbers that we take as facts.
Do unicorns/ dragons exist? Could they ever exist? Can souls exist?

How did we establish morals? i.e cannibalism, murder etc. Aren't they just the arbitrary byproducts from an arbitrary "social contract"? Couldn't we simply just establish God exists and therefore he/she/it will? And on the flip side, couldn't we say that he/she/it doesn't and it won't? Meaning only arises when a sentient being wants to make some sense of a random piece of information and given that all individuals are fundamentally different, then whether God does exist or not simply equates to how the individual interprets such a meaning.

Debating over whether it can or cannot exist as a universal truth is frankly a little pointless considering there is a huge debate about whether or not I even know another human exists or is just a philosophical zombie. If society is a construct, then religion could be to. But if I don't even know whether society exists; given that the only information I will receive of the external world is through my senses, and my senses can be manipulated/ tricked; then why does it matter whether or not God exists?

Just my two cents haha.

 

[astroman]

so what r u trying to say?

 

[Sy123]

Let me show you the absurdity of your statements

Well technically if we respect each and everybody's realities we could probably just argue that God exists only if you believe in him/her as, speaking from that individual's reality, God will exist. There is always the very real possibility that God does exist and has impacted humankind in one way or another. Personally, because there isn't a definite proof of existence, I do not believe that a superior being - [1] , if it exists, has anything to do with mankind.

If you think about it; it's a simple concept that lays much of the foundations of modern society that we take for granted.
Why is time 60 seconds, 60 minutes and 24 hours? They're just arbitrary numbers that we take as facts.
Do unicorns/ dragons exist? Could they ever exist? Can souls exist?

How did we establish morals? i.e cannibalism, murder etc. Aren't they just the arbitrary byproducts from an arbitrary "social contract"? Couldn't we simply just establish God exists and therefore he/she/it will? And on the flip side, couldn't we say that he/she/it doesn't and it won't? Meaning only arises when a sentient being wants to make some sense of a random piece of information and given that all individuals are fundamentally different, then whether God does exist or not simply equates to how the individual interprets such a meaning.

Debating over whether it can or cannot exist as a universal truth is frankly a little pointless considering there is a huge debate about whether or not I even know another human exists or is just a philosophical zombie - [3]. If society is a construct, then religion could be to. But if I don't even know whether society exists; given that the only information I will receive of the external world is through my senses, and my senses can be manipulated/ tricked; - [4] then why does it matter whether or not God exists?

Just my two cents haha.

---------------------------------

1. You reject the existence of God since you find no definite proof for His existence

2. Therefore, you want definite proof of something before you believe in it (from 1, if you reject 2 and affirm 1 then your epistemology is inconsistent)

3. You have no definite proof that other human exists

4. You have no definite proof that the external world is real

5. So, by your epistemology, you should not believe that other humans exist, nor should you believe that the external world is real (2,3,4)

That being the case, you either consider me to be a real human being or you do not

If you consider me to be a real human being, then you are irrational
If you consider me a fake human being (or anyone else on this forum for that matter), then why the hell are you even wasting your time posting to no one?

-----------------------------------

Throughout your post you say stuff like:

"Couldn't we simply just establish God exists and therefore he/she/it will? "

"just argue that God exists only if you believe in him/her as, speaking from that individual's reality, God will exist. "

These are really useless sentences, this seems to be the main point of your post and in fact its an entirely irrelevant point, we are arguing about whether God exists, not whether God exists in the minds of those who believe Him, of course in that sense He exists, but who cares?

-----------------------------------

I could say more things I guess, about your assertions that you give no proof for (despite your want for definite proof for God), such as that meaning is only a subjective construct, you say that time is "60 seconds, 24 hours" etc. But that isn't true, that isn't what time *is*, that is simply a way people measure time.

Time is change, if there is change there is time

 

[Sy123]

If you don't understand any form of the cosmological argument, and resort to objections worthy of drunken apes, read this as an introduction

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com.au/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.html

or forever remain a

 

[peri24]

Never expected to see 50/50 on the voting poll. This question can never be answered correctly because we don't proof that he does exist or doesn't exist. But I believe in God.

 

[Sy123]

Yes we do have proof for the existence of God, everyone who believes in God must have proof for the existence of God, whether that proof is self-authenticating (i.e. you experience God, or it just seems obvious to you), or it is a rational proof is a different story

 

[tofusenpai]

Never expected to see 50/50 on the voting poll. This question can never be answered correctly because we don't proof that he does exist or doesn't exist. But I believe in God.

The proof that God exists is in the bible and the environment and things around us

 

[tofusenpai]

Well, god can suck my dick.

All talk for someone who doesn't have one

 

[jdennis]

The proof that God exists is in the bible and the environment and things around us

You can't use the bible as proof of God's existence, because it assumes that to be true in the first place.

As for our environment, most things have a scientific explanation that doesn't involve a God at all. While many things, such as the origin of life, do not, this does not mean we can say 'God did it' unless there is proof of that - which there's not, or scientists wouldn't still be trying to understand these things.

 

[Sy123]

As a preface, you should understand that you have very little idea about what you are talking about

You'll never be able to prove the existence of god.

This requires proof

At the same time, you will never be able to disprove the existence of god, either.

This requires proof

However, anything asserted without evidence, is, dismissed without evidence.

Do you have evidence for this claim?
If not, then we should reject it, according to your own statement

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Extraordinary is ill-defined, to some people certain claims are extraordinary, and to others it is not

In the eyes of objectivity, there is no difference between the tooth fairy and god.

This needs proof

Saying otherwise shows the manifestation of emotional bias.

Just because some people think that God exists but the tooth fairy does not, on the basis of emotional bias, does not make your claim any more true

What you can say with a very high degree of certainty is that god most probably does not exist.

This needs proof, also you spelled God incorrectly, its with a capital G.

Religions rise and fall. Just like they always have. You have Judaism, then Judaism 2.0 aka Christianity then Christianity 2.0 (aka Judaism 3.0 aka Islam) as the predominating abrahamic religions today. It's funny when you look at the data:

This demonstrates a misunderstanding of religion in a serious way, if, after all Islam was Christianity 2.0, then how did Islam come to reject core Christian tenets of belief, such as the rejection of the crucifixion and death and resurrection of Jesus the Christ, come to reject his divinity and also come to reject a triune God?

a) Religious adherence is nothing but geographic coincidence. Essentially, the country you are born into will, in the overwhelming majority of cases, determine your religion for the rest of your life.

That does not mean religion is wrong, it is illogical to make this argument, because:

1. Most people believe in the religion they are brought up in it
2. Therefore religion is false

(2) does not follow from (1), to say it does is to admit irrationality, and to admit irrationality is to suspend your own intellect, and thus suspend what makes you a human being

And even then I deny number (1), I think most people believe in a religion because they experience it to be true

b) Children are more likely to grow up in the religion they are bought up in.

See above

Here's the funny bit: Each and every person, belonging to a religion solely because of coincidence (and not a well-informed choice) thinks that they belong in the one true religion worshipping the one true god.

What about people who do investigate religion for themselves and then accept it?

Goes to show just how divine the power of god is... Except it isn't.

This statement does not follow from your above premises

Religion and the concept of god lives because of human narcissism. Thinking that, out there, there is someone looking over you. Someone listening to YOUR prayers. Someone saving YOU from death. Someone making YOU special. I'm sure those raped woman by the Taliban just didn't have enough faith. I'm sure the millions of jews (read: Night by Elie Wiesel) just didn't have enough faith. I'm sure the innocent children being bombed in the middle east just don't have much faith, either. Oh no, what's that you say "god has a plan for everyone?", but don't worry, YOU just sit down in comfort. It doesn't affect you.

Yeah bad things happen in the world, so what?

Your response to the statement, "God has a plan for everyone", is simply to try and guilt shame other people and say it doesn't affect you. But that is neither a response nor an argument, you are then admitting the theist's response.

This is more evidence of course of the fact that this is all an emotional diatribe

The theists arguments mentioned here are absolutely laughable. God doesn't exist because you defined him by definition to do so, that just negates the whole purpose of an arguement and every other arguement ever made (because fuck, if you can definine things into existence what is the point of anything else?)

No one makes this argument though?
No one says God exists because we defined Him into existence?

You didn't actually address any of the arguments for the existence of God

or, my favourite, the arguement from ignorance "God exists because I feel him so".

No one makes that argument?

Also if you're trying to argue against religious experience, then how about you characterise the argument properly?

Arguing from experience is simply to justify one's belief in God in one's experience, just as for example we experience the external world and believe that it actually exists, therefore we are justified in believing in it. After all, there is no demonstrative proof that the external world exists, we believe in it without evidence. Similarly, people experience God in the same way, it just seems so obvious to them that He exists, and as such these people are justified in believing in it.

Or the self-refuting "Everything has a cause. Therefore God. God doesn't require a cause (because we defined him like that, duh!)".

No one made that argument though, this is evidence of your complete ignorance of any arguments for the existence of God, if you had any knowledge at all of any argument for the existence of God, you will know that the argument you gave is given by no one

Some aforementioned arguements are so poor I even refuse to acknowledge their mere presence on this thread. I never expected much though.

Of course the above mentioned arguments are poor, that's because they are your arguments you shove down the mouth of the theist, i.e. its a strawman

If you want to believe, just believe. If it makes you a better, happier person, just believe.. But don't come here with your "proofs". It is insulting the word itself. Whatever "Proof" you may have conjured, please post it to a journal and I'd love to see it get ripped in piece. Specifically, I'm referring to /u/sy123. I'm sorry that your delusion is so far up your ass you can't see how preposterous you seem to be. When I had first seen you, I actually didn't think you'd last that long into whatever 'proof' you were buying to. Ignorance really is bliss.

The thing is though, you have not actually addressed any of the proofs I have given, you had instead gone on a big diatribe and made numerous logical leaps and errors as I have shown above

Modern ideas of whatever god complex you follow to are just so fucking stupid it blows my mind out of proportion. This is why you have shit today like mormonism, scientology and even mysticism. The type of 'ideas' that appeal to the level of intellect that makes Kim Kardashian's life seem like the story of a nobel laureate.

I don't know why you are mentioning a 'god complex', you know that is a psychological concept right?
So your entire point makes absolutely zero sense

---------------------

Conclusion, you are a:

And if jdennis agrees with your post, then he is also a

Either that, or he is illiterate and thus cannot read what sy37 actually said

 

[Red_of_Head]

1. You reject the existence of God since you find no definite proof for His existence

2. Therefore, you want definite proof of something before you believe in it (from 1, if you reject 2 and affirm 1 then your epistemology is inconsistent)

3. You have no definite proof that other human exists

4. You have no definite proof that the external world is real

5. So, by your epistemology, you should not believe that other humans exist, nor should you believe that the external world is real (2,3,4)

That being the case, you either consider me to be a real human being or you do not

If you consider me to be a real human being, then you are irrational
If you consider me a fake human being (or anyone else on this forum for that matter), then why the hell are you even wasting your time posting to no one?

If he believes he is the only thing that exists, what else would he do with his time? Assuming that he assumes he is the only thing that exists, the only things he can do are to continue existing or to cease to exist.