Does God exist? (15 Viewers)

[EraserDust]

Hey Not-That-Bright, I admit that I did edit my previous post after some consideration (before reading your post, but have since edited it back now). Anyways I accept the flaws in my reasoning, since for me to claim otherwise would be blatantly hypocritical.

I can essentially just invent any fanciful idea in my head to explain away anything.

Sure, but why you'd choose to do so would be one question (in this case, to prove your own point), and whether you can honestly believe such a notion is another (using doublethink to deceive yourself).

Another problem is that if you're simply believing in order to reap some reward, according to most religions I imagine God won't be happy.

True (that is why intent is such a distinct factor), it is between me and God whether He knows that I honestly believe in Him through faith, out of my love for him. Here logic suggests delusion, and absurd faith suggests reality, I accept the latter.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Sure, but why you'd choose to do so would be one question (in this case, to prove your own point), and whether you can honestly believe such a notion is another (using doublethink to deceive yourself).

It doesn't matter why I did so or whether I honestly believe it. Whatever bullshit I come up with, even if it's just to prove my own point and I don't believe it, is still equally as good as something that you found out through vigorous research and honestly believe.

 

[EraserDust]

It doesn't matter why I did so or whether I honestly believe it. Whatever bullshit I come up with, even if it's just to prove my own point and I don't believe it, is still equally as good as something that you found out through vigorous research and honestly believe.

Well to me it does, see your propositional attitude is not the same as mine.

In your mind it is may be equally as good, yet in mine it is not. I'm not saying that it is entirely relative with no relevance to reality at all, but it should be clear that we both disagree on that point of intent and honesty within belief as a necessity.

Still to your mind I could have come up with this post just to reason my point whilst not actually honestly believing in it myself, supporting my own false veracity. Partially my purpose is procrastination from HSC study, but mostly because it would be truly cowardly of me to not let my belief be confronted.

So is it safe to assume that we agree logically God would not exist from lack of evidence? Even though I am a confident Christian I honestly agree with one of your posts from ages back (quite bizarre of me actually), that there is no absolute logical evidence for God.

 

[The Logical One]

It doesn't matter why I did so or whether I honestly believe it. Whatever bullshit I come up with, even if it's just to prove my own point and I don't believe it, is still equally as good as something that you found out through vigorous research and honestly believe.

I agree.
But, see it depends what you define as natural. I could say that a bottle of Pepsi is supernatural. It doesn't exist in nature and does not naturally come into creation. But then I'm assuming intelligence is supernatural. Therefore, humans are supernatural.

But wait, that can't be right. So, what is natural and what is supernatural? Could Superman be supernatural? Well we know Superman doesn't exist because he is the result of someones Imagination. Oh snap, once again something which man creates becomes supernatural. But, how can something natural create something which is supernatural? Would that make humans supernatural?

If I said that the creation of this universe was a perfectly "natural process", by a natural entity. (an entity not from this universe), would that be a supernatural process? and therefore be as likely as something which you created in your mind?

Then how did this universe come into existance?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Well to me it does, see your propositional attitude is not the same as mine.

The reasoning behind claiming that both are equal claims should be pretty obvious, but I've yet to see yours to explain why it is that because I honestly believe in something supernatural it's more likely to be true than something supernatural I've just made up? I need more than 'to my mind', you have to explain your thinking to me or I really have nothing to work with.

So is it safe to assume that we agree logically God would not exist from lack of evidence?

Not sure if I quite understand the question... but lack of evidence or not it doesn't really affect whether or not God exists. God either exists or doesn't, all that evidence gives us is clues to form our opinion about which is true, it doesn't change the state of existance.

But, see it depends what you define as natural. I could say that a bottle of Pepsi is supernatural. It doesn't exist in nature and does not naturally come into creation. But then I'm assuming intelligence is supernatural. Therefore, humans are supernatural.

All you need is a dictionary.

The supernatural (Latin:super- "exceeding"+nature) comprises forces and phenomena that cannot be perceived by natural or empirical senses, and whose understanding may be said to lie with religious, magical, or otherwise mysterious explanation —yet remains firmly outside of the realm of science

Could Superman be supernatural?

If superman existed, could fly, and we could not explain it using science... then yes, that would be supernatural.

Well we know Superman doesn't exist because he is the result of someones Imagination.

So if someone imagined up a God that would mean God doesn't exist? I'm sorry but you can't prove superman doesn't exist any better than I can prove God doesn't exist.

Oh snap, once again something which man creates becomes supernatural.

Man didn't 'create' superman (as in an actual being with super powers), man merely came up with the idea.

But, how can something natural create something which is supernatural?

It didn't, it just imagined it.

Would that make humans supernatural?

No... thought processes/imagination are understood to be natural things.

If I said that the creation of this universe was a perfectly "natural process", by a natural entity. (an entity not from this universe), would that be a supernatural process?

If you said that, but then could not go on to explain using science explain how this creature did this, then it would be supernatural still... you can't just claim it's natural you have to prove it.

Then how did this universe come into existance?

I don't know man.

 

[The Logical One]

I can use a dictionary, I asked what does it mean to 'you' because there are other definitions of 'supernatural'. What I was saying is the entity is perfectly 'natural' and not the creation of someones imagination.

Then how did this universe come into existance?

I don't know man.

Here is a part of the cosmological argument in our universe which is true. Do you disagree?
1. Every effect has a cause(s).
3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
4. Therefore, there must be a first cause; or, there must be something which is not an effect.

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

ofcourse god exist. i mean if he didnt exist, how would this world come about, this world wasnt created by humans lol. but seriously look around you, look at nature. who would create such beautiful things. um the answer to that is god.

Why is is that we can have pages of intelligent discusision, from both sides of the argument, as well as a lot of discussion of semantics that sometimes fly over my head, and then we have someone popping up to bring up a point discussed at the beginning of the thead? Please don't start your sentences with 'um'...it's bad enough to do that in conversation but in typing it is ridiculous.

We have been discussing how the world was created, as well as the assumption that you make that a creator necessarily equals the Christian God. What if the creator was one of the Hindu Gods? What if Ahuramazda created the world? The fact that the world exists does not prove that God created it, and it does not prove that the Christian God created it.

Beauty is subjective. Beauty, as well as ugliness, are human constructs.

 

[The Logical One]

Why is is that we can have pages of intelligent discusision, from both sides of the argument, as well as a lot of discussion of semantics that sometimes fly over my head, and then we have someone popping up to bring up a point discussed at the beginning of the thead? Please don't start your sentences with 'um'...it's bad enough to do that in conversation but in typing it is ridiculous.

We have been discussing how the world was created, as well as the assumption that you make that a creator necessarily equals the Christian God. What if the creator was one of the Hindu Gods? What if Ahuramazda created the world? The fact that the world exists does not prove that God created it, and it does not prove that the Christian God created it.

Beauty is subjective. Beauty, as well as ugliness, are human constructs.

That's a troll used to emphasise the stupidity of one side of the argument. I employed this important characters in expressing the fallacy of a particular point of view. I believe it is the VOLT GUY.

 

[EraserDust]

The reasoning behind claiming that both are equal claims should be pretty obvious, but I've yet to see yours to explain why it is that because I honestly believe in something supernatural it's more likely to be true than something supernatural I've just made up? I need more than 'to my mind', you have to explain your thinking to me or I really have nothing to work with.

I'll clarify. I never said that honestly believing it makes it any more true in an absolute sense. Honestly believing it makes it relatively true to the self. They are equal in reality since they are not real, but that does not give them equal truth bearing (or actual relevance to veracity).

Sorry if I did not make it clear enough. A propositional attitude explores your mental state in regard to intentional propositions such as belief or hope. Why you believe and whether you honestly believe are fundamental questions in distinguishing true belief from false belief.

I hold that to believe in a concept, the belief has to be honest and intended to reveal truth, otherwise it is not a real belief. If it is not honest then it is a lie, if it is not intended to reveal truth then it is a decpetion.

To honestly believe in something supernatural has more truth bearing to the empirical self than something supernatural "made up". Whilst the supernatural may not exist, the truth bearing to reality could potentially be the same (or null), whilst the truth bearing to the self is greater.

Of cource the potential exists to truly believe in the reality of a fallacy (that God exists or doesn't exist), which is why it is logical to remain skeptical of everything. In an absurd sense, the lack of absolute proof could be considered a motive to believe in God.

Hopefully that clears a few things up (honestly I hope it does).

Not sure if I quite understand the question... but lack of evidence or not it doesn't really affect whether or not God exists. God either exists or doesn't, all that evidence gives us is clues to form our opinion about which is true, it doesn't change the state of existance.

Well, one person believes that God does exist, another doesn't. This belief has no bearing on reality. I've stated that logically God would not exist due to lack of proof, yet I hold that God defies logic so logically He can exist in essence (I am using logic to rationalise my understanding in a way that can be expressed within language, I am not attempting to use it to prove God's existence). This is my belief, drawn from self intuition. In a manner of speaking, one has faith, another doesn't.

I'll clarify this too. I was originally asking whether you agree that logically, since there is no absolute proof for God's existence, one can rationally form the opinion that God does not exist (at least within the confines of logical reality).

 

[KFunk]

Well, one person believes that God does exist, another doesn't. This belief has no bearing on reality. I've stated that logically God would not exist due to lack of proof, yet I hold that God defies logic so logically He can exist in essence (I am using logic to rationalise my understanding in a way that can be expressed within language, I am not attempting to use it to prove God's existence). This is my belief, drawn from self intuition. In a manner of speaking, one has faith, another doesn't.

I'll clarify this too. I was originally asking whether you agree that logically, since there is no absolute proof for God's existence, one can rationally form the opinion that God does not exist (at least within the confines of logical reality).

A couple things:

1. A lack of proof for some proposition 'X' does not imply 'not X'. In fact, you could prove that it is impossible to construct a proof of god's existence and you still would not have proven that god does not exist. This is not too distant from Godel's Incompletness Theorem which, roughly, asserts that in a formal system (such as that of Principia Mathematica) propositions can be formed which cannot be proved true or false within that system, i.e. in such systems you can have unproveable truths.

2. As soon as you maintain the position that 'god defies logic' the argument should end. You can't make that kind of claim if you want to debate god's existence in a logical, rational way (EDIT: Unless, of course, you wish to make a case for agnosticism as c_james points out below).

 

[c_james]

If what someone believes is bizarre by another's reason, then why should they claim otherwise? Human reason has its limits within the subjective mind. Your interpretation of the world is certainly not flawless (nor prominately objective). Neither is mine. BA Philosophy will allow you to rationally investigate such matters, but towards what meaning apart from the love of wisdom?

...


Assumedly the spiritual aspect of God is fully entwined with that of the intellectual one. Separate them and you are no longer discussing God as a whole concept, you are instead discussing your personal mental image of God on an intellectual basis (which by all understanding could be a contradictory image such as a toaster, just waiting for you to debase it using your prime intellect). Fair enough it was an analogy.

But that's a flawed argument, because when you introduce spirituality into the debate it renders the prospect of ever approaching a stance on God null and void. It's like saying "all our views are different, yet they might all be correct, even if they're fundamentally opposed". Spiritual justifications for the existence of God lead to nothing beyond themselves.

If you think the answer to God's existence is necessarily indeterminable, then you never will find a valid answer in opposition, since you've already settled on a fixed premise. Of course you only stated it as a potential, leaving possibility open, an agnostic stance.

That wasn't a premise, it was a conclusion. If God exists on an entirely different plane, a realm beyond our understanding (as many religions seem to suggest), then it would seem the only justifiable position one can take is agnosticism. Christianity presents us with a conundrum: God is beyond our understanding or comprehension, yet we are told to believe without doubt. If I were to believe in what I do not understand, I would merely have a belief in something completely arbitrary. This is where you might refer to Pascal's Wager, to which I'll reply with this: perhaps God is offended by the prospect of his subjects believing in Him simply out of fear or because it's the "safe option". The Wager assumes that God rewards blind belief.

O RLY? I'd assume you meant to include the words "wrong" or "insane" there.

It stands to reason.

 

[c_james]

I can use a dictionary, I asked what does it mean to 'you' because there are other definitions of 'supernatural'. What I was saying is the entity is perfectly 'natural' and not the creation of someones imagination.




Here is a part of the cosmological argument in our universe which is true. Do you disagree?
1. Every effect has a cause(s).
3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
4. Therefore, there must be a first cause; or, there must be something which is not an effect.

Please refer me to the part of that chain of 'logic' that states the first uncaused cause is necessarily an omnibenevolent, omniscient AND omnipotent God. Once you've done that, though, you still haven't proved God's existence without any holes, because you have to explain the origin of the uncaused cause (i.e. who created God). If you state in relation to that something about it "being beyond our understanding", we're just going around in circles.

 

[EraserDust]

1. A lack of proof for some proposition 'X' does not imply 'not X'.

In a pure logic system, the absence of input equates to a lack of existence. There lies the problem of using such an inference engine for a proposition, that the existence could potentially not be providing the input.

2. As soon as you maintain the position that 'god defies logic' the argument should end.

One could also claim that God defies our meager definitions, but that seems to achieve nothing in a discussion. That is why I am not arguing for the existence of God. It is absurd.

But that's a flawed argument, because when you introduce spirituality into the debate it renders the prospect of ever approaching a stance on God null and void.

It is flawed. No denying that. Though without the spirituality aspect of experiencing God considered, there is no empirical reasoning. Hold God's existence to the intellect alone and we are limiting Him to our understanding.

Spiritual justifications for the existence of God lead to nothing beyond themselves.

Agreed.

That wasn't a premise, it was a conclusion. If God exists on an entirely different plane, a realm beyond our understanding (as many religions seem to suggest), then it would seem the only justifiable position one can take is agnosticism.

Sorry for assuming incorrectly. Anyways we could limit God to our understanding. Apparently God defies understanding. That does not mean that we cannot partially understand Him should He choose to reveal Himself to us. Christians believe that He has.

perhaps God is offended by the prospect of his subjects believing in Him simply out of fear or because it's the "safe option".

Not-That-Bright already pointed this out. My response:

"True (that is why intent is such a distinct factor), it is between me and God whether He knows that I honestly believe in Him through faith, out of my love for him. Here logic suggests delusion, and absurd faith suggests reality, I accept the latter."

It stands to reason.

Never said otherwise.

 

[c_james]

*snip*

Then it seems you're taking a stance similar to that of Kierkegaard, who said that implicit in all belief in a supernatural entity was an irrational "leap of faith". That position is understandable enough to take (it's certainly preferable to arrogant theism), but is not immune to criticism.

 

[T-mac01]

I think the problem is that youre thinking this all happens in like 200 years or one generation, instead of over tens or hundreds of thousands of years. All having a straighter back has to do is give a slight advantage for it to be genetically favourable. If it gave primitive man an extra 1% chance of survival, then these primitive man would get to live longer and have more children, who would have some percentage chance of having this advantage, and those children which had the advantage would also have an extra 1% chance of survival and so on.

Also the idea is that some event has occurred which has meant that those apes which cannot reach higher have died out. eg maybe some other animal has come in and eaten all the food available at lower levels, maybe a natural disaster, whatever.



I If all the female apes (we are exchanging the word ape for primitive man here im assuming) want to mate with the straighter back ape, then the male will probably mate with all of them. This would increase the amount of straighter backed apes being born in the future. The children dont need to be all straighter backed, they just need to be have a chance of being so.




This is just embarrassing. If you have a point to make, say it. If you want to pretend you are superior to reasoned argument please do not post here.

Those are possibilities that needn't to be denied. But how would you explain ruins and underwater buildings built from past civilisations? These I mean the ones from scientific proven observations dates back from way way beyond the stone age. It even easily surpasses the dinasaurs' age.
There are status and preserved items that suggest those technologies they'd invented were practically same as ours if not more advanced.
You can't explain this with the ape theory. However, you can with the God's theory. It suggests that humans have been wiped out numerous times before, leaving a minority of humans that eventually restore to the population and civilisation such as now.
Of course, there are reasons for all these wipes.

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

Those are possibilities that needn't to be denied. But how would you explain ruins and underwater buildings built from past civilisations? These I mean the ones from scientific proven observations dates back from way way beyond the stone age. It even easily surpasses the dinasaurs' age.
There are status and preserved items that suggest those technologies they'd invented were practically same as ours if not more advanced.
You can't explain this with the ape theory. However, you can with the God's theory. It suggests that humans have been wiped out numerous times before, leaving a minority of humans that eventually restore to the population and civilisation such as now.
Of course, there are reasons for all these wipes.

What are these things you are talking about that date back from before the dinosaurs age? Source please?

And what possible reason could there be for the deliberate annahilation of the entire population of the planet? Can you really justify genocide? (I'd really to see you try)

 

[gerhard]

Those are possibilities that needn't to be denied. But how would you explain ruins and underwater buildings built from past civilisations? These I mean the ones from scientific proven observations dates back from way way beyond the stone age. It even easily surpasses the dinasaurs' age.
There are status and preserved items that suggest those technologies they'd invented were practically same as ours if not more advanced.

not true. simple as that. this never happened

 

[EraserDust]

Then it seems you're taking a stance similar to that of Kierkegaard, who said that implicit in all belief in a supernatural entity was an irrational "leap of faith". That position is understandable enough to take (it's certainly preferable to arrogant theism), but is not immune to criticism.

Well if you want to classify me into a group then Kierkegaard would probably be it, although I also hold to aspects from both Descartes and Kant, and naturally my view will consistently be open to criticism.

Still I'm fairly tired of this, and entertaining as it may be I do need to spend more time studying, but I've greatly appreciated your input to this discussion so far. I'll be candid, no intention to flatter, just being honest.

 

[T-mac01]

What are these things you are talking about that date back from before the dinosaurs age? Source please?

And what possible reason could there be for the deliberate annahilation of the entire population of the planet? Can you really justify genocide? (I'd really to see you try)

What are these things? Haven't I made it clear enough? I don't see how it's so hard to understand what "underwater ruins and buildings left behind from past civilisations" are.

Regarding the "possible reason".
Yes, there could be deliberate annihilation. In fact, according to some source, there have been. The matter of justifying it lies beneth what I've stated earlier. Some of these physical evidence have been collected from the deep sea. If it is true that these come from that long ago, it would suggest we are not the first civilisation to have advanced on Earth.

This fits to how the human race goes through three stages of development. By the last stage, humans would have developed into a society that is too complex and low in its moral standards. This requires a "deliberate annihilation" and geographical change on Earth. This cycle have been repeated numerous times. Which explains why things so advanced or details from evidence suggesting the source to be coming from a certain level of technologial advancement, can be found that long ago.

As to where the sources are coming from. Please save me the trouble of googling again. I just simply cbf. You can search for youself anyway.

 

[gerhard]

t-mac, seriously if you are going to proclaim absolutely ridiculous shit and refuse to back it up then dont post anymore

there are no underwater ruins and buildings from past civilisations from before the stone age or from before dinosaurs. the very idea is ludicrous. no credible evidence has ever been found to support this. your current ramblings destroy any credibility your arguments have ever had.