Does God exist? (3 Viewers)

[ubernuton]

i don't belive it matter weather or not he/she exist we have fuck over almost all our religions so much that i'm shore he would perfer if we didn't belive in him as most religion have been changed to profit there leader or the leaders of the time

 

[Tulipa]

i don't belive believeit matters weather whether or not he/she exists we have fucked over almost all of our religions so much that i'm shore sure he would perfer prefer if we didn't belive believe in him as most religions have been changed to profit there their leader or the leaders of the time

Now it is coherent.

 

[katie_tully]

lulz.
My new boss is the worlds biggest bible basher. Some of his finer moments included:
(To a patient); We can cut the black spot out of your tooth, but we cant cut it out of your heart. You need to find Jesus. He wants the best for you, you cant keep doing this to yourself. You need to find Jesus and take a look at yourself.

Or to some guy who had just come from the funeral of a 12 week old baby; 'We knew a couple who lost a child to SIDS. They were protective of the new baby, but we told them God is responsible for every breath that child takes. It is up to him if she lives or dies, no matter how much you watch over her'

I'm like...dude, whatever helps you sleep at night.

 

[katie_tully]

Yes. I will try.

 

[mr EaZy]

Something about you not being the son of God?
I don't think many people debate the existence of Jesus. I think that is pretty much a given. The circumstances regarding his life however? Like that little issue about being immaculately conceived, dying and then being alive again.

Maybe Arnold wanted to have a go at playing jesus by saying "i'll be back"

 

[mr EaZy]

My Christian friend was explaining fate to me. About God's plan and how God knew that I would be an atheist at this point in life.

I asked, "What if I am athiest from now on? Did God plan for me to go to hell then?"

He agreed and re-phrased my question as being "predestined to go to hell"

I asked him to think about it. I asked "Why did he choose for me to exist but pre-destined to go to hell? Why didn't he just simply let me not exist?"

He said it was beyond human logic. We had free will but it was predestined. He said that my existence still had a purpose.

I said "Think about it. I'm pre-destined to go to hell. My purpose is what? To hang around earth and keep Christians company? To be your best friend, help you when you're down, help others, be awesome, but nevertheless, despite my purpose to be here, I also pre-destined to go to hell? I'm merely a pawn in God's plan of the world and to be discarded once I am done?"

In which he replied "Yes".

And then we joked for a while. Interesting conversation though.

lol that last bit made me laugh

 

[mr EaZy]

just a point i was thinking about. i think the fact that there are 4 different versions of the gospel shows something about its truth, and the way it is written in the bible adds truth. Maybe you could put it as just a story if some guy just wrote it and we didnt know the author, but its written by 4 people who witnessed the events and by them writing it sends further meaning to the message in their gospels.

sorry about this, this was actually one of the few posts i could find with substance from what i skimmed

but check this clip out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpBuqC5aAWQ

quite a good speaker, no?

although i respect the christian faith, and i can find good morals in the bible, and my arabic teacher says that his favourite book is the bible (well he used to be a former methodist from the states) his article is here: http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/Jesus_and_Muhammad.htm

 

[mr EaZy]

The complexness and specialness? Look, I know I'm repeating myself, but that's really it. I look at life, I look at humans, I look at the universe, and it makes no sense to me that there is no true purpose or reason to it all; that it all exists because of a random coincidence.

I accept all of that, waf. I do believe in evolution and I'm aware of how adaptation works. I'm talking about the more philosophical view on life.

That's actually quite a world view, it shows that you believe that there's wisdom in creation/things around you and that you will no doubt go and seek them out!

i spoke with the dean of sci at my uni about that, he's like you can explain creation and evolution together without any contradiction, one being the process of the other

 

[mr EaZy]

Yes we know it 'makes no sense to you' but it's a non-sequitur to say that life is complex therefore god exists, I'm looking for the stuff in between (non-sequitur means "it doesn't follow"). There's also the problem of who designed the designer....


No it doesn't, explain how you come to that conclusion. The existance of the laws can be explained as a result of what is i.e. the anthropic principle.

Anthropic.

Non sequitur, unless you're willing to follow it up. Also, if it's more likely that intelligence created the universe then what created that intelligence? You run into the same problem.

you really like to use the non-sequitur defense a lot NTB
. The process of science is to discover what happened in between. REligion can provide guidance on that, and we can use that to tell whether or not the religion is worth looking into or not, or it may bear no relevance to religion whatsoever.

now with who created the creator. thats a question that doesnt have an answer because of the fact that you dont know what is the creator. you have assumed it to be like any other object you are familiar with. if we take a few principle definitions to start us off with:

that God is not created, God is eternal, God does not resemble creation, God is not in Creation

and if God had a creator, then we wouldnt consider God worthy of being worshiped.

12 pm already, try this: instead of asking D--> C ---> B --- A (GOD) try starting with God and then moving forwards and asking, is it possible or does it conflict with theology etc etc.

because if i was arguing for your case, id go with that and try to debate where there's conflict which would mean that the theology in which a religion is based is entirely flawed and u can strike off religions one by one- if your good enough, :wave:

 

[Enteebee]

you really like to use the non-sequitur defense a lot NTB

If you're making an argument where your points don't logically follow to reach your conclusion then I'll point it out. The fact that I 'use' it a lot (if I really do) just shows that a lot of people probably start off with a conclusion that they like then create a story in the hope of reaching that conclusion, not the other way around.

The process of science is to discover what happened in between. REligion can provide guidance on that, and we can use that to tell whether or not the religion is worth looking into or not, or it may bear no relevance to religion whatsoever.

What? Try to re-word that for me.

now with who created the creator. thats a question that doesnt have an answer because of the fact that you dont know what is the creator. you have assumed it to be like any other object you are familiar with. if we take a few principle definitions to start us off with:

that God is not created, God is eternal, God does not resemble creation, God is not in Creation

and if God had a creator, then we wouldnt consider God worthy of being worshiped.

The answer "God is just complex" is about as good as me saying "life is just complex".

12 pm already, try this: instead of asking D--> C ---> B --- A (GOD) try starting with God and then moving forwards and asking, is it possible or does it conflict with theology etc etc.

What are you saying... Start with the premise that God exists and then see if life being created logically follows? huh? What are these games you're trying to run me through?

because if i was arguing for your case, id go with that and try to debate where there's conflict which would mean that the theology in which a religion is based is entirely flawed and u can strike off religions one by one- if your good enough, :wave:

I don't want to bother striking off religions one by one because what is 'the religion' is so incredibly broad scoped I'll never accomplish anything (If the koran said grass is blue and I showed grass is green someone would show that it didn't really say grass is blue).

IMHO I can strike out the notion of God as something as fanciful as magical love pixies and that's good enough for me to not believe.

 

[nathan71088]

IMHO I can strike out the notion of God as something as fanciful as magical love pixies and that's good enough for me to not believe.

This notion of pixies seems to be an argument that comes up frequently. It is fallacious though. The link between pixies and god is constructed on the basis that we do not have proof that either exists. People feel comfortable making this comparison because the claim is that both have powers beyond those of humans. To base one's disbelief on something as shaky as that is questionable. I cannot prove that pixies do not exist. By societal standards I do not try to reason this, I simply sweep it under the carpet. You know why? Because no one cares whether pixies exist or not. If I have magical invisible intangible friends that live in my garden, whether they exist or not does not matter, both cases will leave me with the same situation. So I will not waste time looking into these pixies.
A comment must be made here. Pixies are, by definition, magical creatures. Say they DID exist. You still wouldn't be able to prove it. They have it within their power t o make it impossible to find them...
So it is clear that all though I would never go to lengths to find evidence on the subject, we cannot disprove the existence of pixies. So it is unwise to base something on such shaky premises.
Afterall there is much you cannot give evidence for and yet you so readily accept it: How do you know there are other minds in existence besides your own???....

 

[webby234]

This notion of pixies seems to be an argument that comes up frequently. It is fallacious though. The link between pixies and god is constructed on the basis that we do not have proof that either exists. People feel comfortable making this comparison because the claim is that both have powers beyond those of humans. To base one's disbelief on something as shaky as that is questionable. I cannot prove that pixies do not exist. By societal standards I do not try to reason this, I simply sweep it under the carpet. You know why? Because no one cares whether pixies exist or not. If I have magical invisible intangible friends that live in my garden, whether they exist or not does not matter, both cases will leave me with the same situation. So I will not waste time looking into these pixies.
A comment must be made here. Pixies are, by definition, magical creatures. Say they DID exist. You still wouldn't be able to prove it. They have it within their power t o make it impossible to find them...
So it is clear that all though I would never go to lengths to find evidence on the subject, we cannot disprove the existence of pixies. So it is unwise to base something on such shaky premises.
Afterall there is much you cannot give evidence for and yet you so readily accept it: How do you know there are other minds in existence besides your own???....

OK, so why don't you believe the world will suddenly end tomorrow? You can not disprove that either, and that matters to you.

We can only base what we believe upon what we observe - on our experience of the world. There may not be other minds in existence, but that I perceive there to be leads me to think and act in a certain way.

 

[katie_tully]

why don't you believe the world will suddenly end tomorrow

A null and void theory if you can't prove the world exists to begin with.

 

[Enteebee]

This notion of pixies seems to be an argument that comes up frequently. It is fallacious though. The link between pixies and god is constructed on the basis that we do not have proof that either exists.

No, merely that whatever 'proof' we have is of the same evidenciary value. Where's the fallacy?

People feel comfortable making this comparison because the claim is that both have powers beyond those of humans.

Yes, that's why it works... they're both essentially as provable/disprovable as one another. In order to be logically consistent you'll be forced to disbelieve in God IMHO.

To base one's disbelief on something as shaky as that is questionable. I cannot prove that pixies do not exist. By societal standards I do not try to reason this, I simply sweep it under the carpet. You know why? Because no one cares whether pixies exist or not.

It doesn't matter that no one cares unless you want to argue by majority opinion and commit a fallacy yourself?

If I have magical invisible intangible friends that live in my garden, whether they exist or not does not matter, both cases will leave me with the same situation. So I will not waste time looking into these pixies.

Not necessarily, you cannot know what possible effect they're having on you. There is so much grey in the world in which they could hide.

A comment must be made here. Pixies are, by definition, magical creatures. Say they DID exist. You still wouldn't be able to prove it. They have it within their power t o make it impossible to find them...
So it is clear that all though I would never go to lengths to find evidence on the subject, we cannot disprove the existence of pixies. So it is unwise to base something on such shaky premises.

Just as even if god DID exist we still wouldn't be able to prove it. The point is that in order to be logically consistent if you're going to disregard pixies you should disregard God.

Afterall there is much you cannot give evidence for and yet you so readily accept it: How do you know there are other minds in existence besides your own???....

Of course ultimately there is nothing (or very little) we know for certain, however I do think there are some things we accept as axioms because they provide us with what is a workable framework in our reality as we percieve it.

 

[jb_nc]

Richard Dawkins? Richard Dawkins. Richard Dawkins!

 

[nathan71088]

OK, so why don't you believe the world will suddenly end tomorrow? You can not disprove that either, and that matters to you.

We can only base what we believe upon what we observe - on our experience of the world. There may not be other minds in existence, but that I perceive there to be leads me to think and act in a certain way.

Ah, yes, you do act a certain way by what you believe...but I ask you this, say the world WAS going to end tomorow, say there WERE NO other minds but your own: would you act differently? Your answer should be obvious because you just said "
We can only base what we believe upon what we observe". People are strung up on proving there is no god. How would you act if there was/wasn't? Different?

 

[nathan71088]

Of course ultimately there is nothing (or very little) we know for certain, however I do think there are some things we accept as axioms because they provide us with what is a workable framework in our reality as we percieve it.

Your points are good. I would like to post responses to each but I believe you would have responses to those and I personally hate it when a thread degenrates into a tit-for-tat where people just go on forever so I want to respond to one major point of what you have written.

"however I do think there are some things we accept as axioms because they provide us with what is a workable framework in our reality as we percieve it."
These axioms are exceptions to the rule that sets pixies aside as fantastical. If you have these exceptions why do they have to stop there? My dwelling on pixies is like this: you cannot prove pixies do exist but you cannot prove they don't. We have an axiom that says on this basis that they do not exist because this provides us with what is a workable framework in our reality as we percieve it. So why stop with pixies? God can be included in the exception as well.

 

[Enteebee]

These axioms are exceptions to the rule that sets pixies aside as fantastical. If you have these exceptions why do they have to stop there? My dwelling on pixies is like this: you cannot prove pixies do exist but you cannot prove they don't. We have an axiom that says on this basis that they do not exist because this provides us with what is a workable framework in our reality as we percieve it. So why stop with pixies? God can be included in the exception as well.

No no, they don't set pixies aside as fantastical on their own... I think you're misunderstanding. These axioms merely allow us to say we exist, there are other things which exist, we can make observations about most of these things which exist. It's a matter of what is needed to begin any basic sort of investigation of anything and not to just fall into a completely nihilistic hole.

We have an axiom that says on this basis that they do not exist because this provides us with what is a workable framework in our reality as we percieve it.

There is no axiom saying that pixies do not exist... My point is merely that I'd argue for a simple framework within which to begin any examination of the world... This requires us to be able to make observations/inferences/inductions. I am merely trying to establish that there are some things all of us will accept/need to accept to begin any arguments or draw any understanding from our world (even if we also accept these may be ULTIMATELY flawed), belief in the existance of God is not one of these.

 

[nathan71088]

No no, they don't set pixies aside as fantastical on their own... I think you're misunderstanding. These axioms merely allow us to say we exist, there are other things which exist, we can make observations about most of these things which exist. It's a matter of what is needed to begin any basic sort of investigation of anything and not to just fall into a completely nihilistic hole.



There is no axiom saying that pixies do not exist... My point is merely that I'd argue for a simple framework within which to begin any examination of the world... This requires us to be able to make observations/inferences/inductions. I am merely trying to establish that there are some things all of us will accept/need to accept to begin any arguments or draw any understanding from our world (even if we also accept these may be ULTIMATELY flawed), belief in the existance of God is not one of these.

These axioms merely allow us to say we exist, there are other things which exist, we can make observations about most of these things which exist. It's a matter of what is needed to begin any basic sort of investigation of anything and not to just fall into a completely nihilistic hole.

I like your point here. I understand you to say here, in a simplified version for me: we can base existence on what we perceive. Please tell me if I am wrong in this understanding. If I am correct then here me out on this. Descartes sat down and 'took reality apart'. He looked at all his sensations, all that is physical, all that he perceived to know. He found that all this fell away until he came upon "I think therefore I am". Descartes, as a sceptic believed simply that one cannot simply base existence on the perceived (the philosophers among you may criticise me but hold it because I know that I do not know enough about scepticism). There are issues with such theories. But from a rational perspective this means that although we do not perceive god it does not mean god does not exist. Now you may very well say I do not believe or agree with scepticism. But this does not mean you have given grounds against god. Rather you have disagreed with a possible line of reasoning for god's existence. The pixie issue is definitely a challengable issue and that is why I said before, axiom or not, I think it is a weak basis to place one's belief or disbelif in god on.
I would also like to note that if you wish to go by axioms as a framework for existence you are identifying a singular system and foundation of rationality and existence that OTHERS may reject. I do not wish to debate humanity's current perception of reality and existence..I am not an existential revolutionary, but do keep that in mind.

I am merely trying to establish that there are some things all of us will accept/need to accept to begin any arguments or draw any understanding from our world (even if we also accept these may be ULTIMATELY flawed), belief in the existance of God is not one of these.

Once again you are correct... under your assumed basis of reason. Some may reject those axioms on the basis that axioms are relative for those who hold them valid and those who don't i.e. one may hold to a principal but the same principal may be perceived differently by someone else even though the different perceptions, even in contrast, can lead to a 'smoothly running' existence for both. But I think that I agree with you about these 'things' that people need to agree on. I would just like to also draw to your attention that in some cultures and contexts now and in centuries past, belief in god was one of those things. So maybe gods existence is a product of context. Maybe it just depends on to what extent society as a whole is willing to believe...

 

[Enteebee]

I like your point here. I understand you to say here, in a simplified version for me: we can base existence on what we perceive.

I'd prefer it worded, all we have to base our existence on is what we percieve. Whether or not our perceptions are real, we have no way of knowing so they're as "real" to us as anything ever will be.

Descartes sat down and 'took reality apart'. He looked at all his sensations, all that is physical, all that he perceived to know. He found that all this fell away until he came upon "I think therefore I am". Descartes, as a sceptic believed simply that one cannot simply base existence on the perceived (the philosophers among you may criticise me but hold it because I know that I do not know enough about scepticism).

I agree with this sort of a position in an ultimate sense, but I prefer to be willing to make some basic assumptions.

But from a rational perspective this means that although we do not perceive god it does not mean god does not exist.

I agree that ultimately not being able to percieve God and equally fairies does not mean that they do not exist, however I merely put it to people that you can't accept one without the other less you run into contradiction.

I would also like to note that if you wish to go by axioms as a framework for existence you are identifying a singular system and foundation of rationality and existence that OTHERS may reject. I do not wish to debate humanity's current perception of reality and existence..I am not an existential revolutionary, but do keep that in mind.

They may wish to reject them, but in my honest opinion with what I'm arguing for... their rejection would be purely academic and not reflect how their minds operate in reality.

I would just like to also draw to your attention that in some cultures and contexts now and in centuries past, belief in god was one of those things.

If I was debating "what is reality" or something of that nature, I don't think bringing in my axioms would be fair. When debating the existence of God, while I do think it's fair to bring in basic axioms for reasoning I don't think it'd be fair or logical to create an axiom saying "god exists" at the outset.