Does God exist? (16 Viewers)

[studymon]

You've forgotten to ask the second big question to this 'watchmaker argument'...if the watch was made by the watchmaker, and the 'something' was made by God...then who made God???

It is true that science can not explain everything (well at least not now)...but it seems that religion can not explain even more...

To believers God seems to be the answer to everything. Most tend to accept this, at most times forgetting to question: is it?

However, i believe that a man feels greater happiness and content when he believes in a greater being...i guess you could say that it is a kind of a dependency that he adopts through religion.
He can not live without it, and it can not live without him...

I speak this mainly on the basis of the existence of an 'after-life' (i.e. heaven) for religion...for us, atheists, death is merely a physical thing...once we die, we decay...the end.
However, for people with religions, they see death as just another beginning to life, i guess you could say: a spiritual life followed by a spiritual death.

In that sense, religion does allow one to maintain a positive view upon death for it does not scare them.

However, i believe that religion fails when it tries to limit people's thinkings such as in the theory of evolution. It seems quite absurd as to how religion argues that the universe was created in such a short period of time.

Moreover, it seems quite absurd that religion portrays God as a man; for women, they should be asking: 'why should a perfect being be a man? And not a woman?' It seems quite sexist. Furthermore, why should God be perfect and still be a human being; perfection can not come out from imperfection. Now that is a contradiction...

Other than that, i sit on the fence when it comes to religion.

 

[Stevo.]

Why does there need to be a reason for being? Why can't we just exist? Why can't we just find our own reason?

 

[Iron]

Why does there need to be a reason for being? Why can't we just exist? Why can't we just find our own reason?

Because that's the very individualism which rejects any purpose greater than yourself. Never mind losing faith in God, we've lost faith in community.
The crux of this recent tangent is that reason is found in various scientific models of experimentation. But we really just have models of understanding for these things, not ultimate truth. There is no good reason why we shouldnt have the same faith in God as we have in scientific method. To reject one for the other is to not fully understand either.

 

[KFunk]

The point is, without resolving the question of where we came from, as a community, then nothing is right. There can be no truth. Without God, there is no ultimate reason .

(On personal searches for meaning) Because that's the very individualism which rejects any purpose greater than yourself. Never mind losing faith in God, we've lost faith in community.

I think that god is unnecessary when it comes to seeking ultimate reason/truth. As studymon points out above, the existence of god itself still requires explaining and leaves questions unanswered. As it stands, modern neo-darwinian evolutionary theory appears to have the tools needed to explain (for the most part) how we got here 'as a community' in your terms. Reasonable hypotheses about the beggining of our universe have been provided and scientists have found possible ways in which self replicating molecules could arise. We understand many mechanisms through which organisms can develop greater structural and functional complexity. Furthermore, we are getting a handle on the evolution of language, culture and other social structures (the evolution of the 'community' that you speak of).

Undoubtedly many holes exist in our present explanation, but there is definite promise that a bottom-up picture of existence (and perhaps even meaning! - in one sense of the word) will be provided. As Daniel Dennett points out, in the aforementioned book, there is a long tradition of thinkers who believed that meaning must be handed down from 'above' via 'skyhooks' in (Dennett's terms). This is where the strong relevance of existential questions a la 'how can we construct meaning for ourselves?' takes hold. Sure, one can quibble about whether such searches are ultimately profitable/beneficial (terms which are already couched in preconceptions of meaning in the first place!) but, ultimately, either meaning is 'handed down from above' or it is not. If it is not, as would be possible in a neo-Darwinian universe, then meaning needs to be constructed by us as beings, either individually or collectively (or both).

Also, I think it can be dangerous to allow morality/emotion too much hold on questions of truth and existence. Iron, you say that 'without resolving the question of where we came from, as a community, then nothing is right' (Is this your perspective or the pope's?). This suggests to me that even when such a question is, in principle, unresolvable (by us as humans) we should nonetheless try to fudge up an answer because otherwise 'nothing is right'. Certainly, there are useful fictions (take, for example, the use of 'imperfect' Newtonian physics for bridge building) but I think we should hesitate before rejecting 'candidate truths' for the sake of moral or aesthetic concerns. Worth considering is also whether the fiction of god is even useful in this sense - it is hard to judge whether something as all pervasive as god/religion yields a net positive effect (yet again, something which is very difficult - impossible perhaps - to judge without first accepting some account of meaning/morality).

 

[Iron]

I like your criticisms Kfunk, and I agree that religion should never surplant a temporary void in knowledge. But my concern is the ultimate problem of creation, which (discounting a literal interpretation of the Bible) necessarily cannot be resolved.

Science shouldnt grudgingly admit that 'there's more to be done but we're heading in the right direction'. The problem of creation will always exist and must be confronted with tools outside the scope of narrow, uncertain models of scientific understanding.

I strongly agree with a bottom-up approach to knowledge, but the peak must always be the God question. And I think that individuals cant hope to appreciate this if they leave it to themselves to figure out, based on personal experience and a cheap handful of tacky misguided slogans.

The morality/emotion you speak of is nothing less than the human spirit and should never be denied.

 

[pattii]

then who made God???

All atheisist refrence this Q, there is no god, and we belive in the big bang and evolutions(in which i do).
What we are told that god is a higher entity, and he made us all, right? The fact that he is not human means that, we cannot limit his abilities to human restrictions. Yes in science we are told everything is already here and nothing cna be made of nothing. But keep in mind that god is clearly not abiding by physics/biology/chemistry and therefore we can not even grasp the fact that he IS A HIGHER ENTITY/SPIRT/WTF EVER.

It is true that science can not explain everything (well at least not now)...but it seems that religion can not explain even more...

Science does contribute to the numerous questions about religion/god..

Think about it people in 200BC didn't question their gods, now fastforward to 2007 we belive in astrophysics, biology, chemistry, physics, and generally science. Science has allowed people to question religion, the big bang theory further allows more questions to where did all the basic elements come from to produce the implosion/explosion.

To believers God seems to be the answer to everything.

Yes, religious belivers will full heartedly support this but, think about it science give us reason not to belive in god as the answer to everything, if it wasn't for science, we would still belive god is the answer.

However, i believe that a man feels greater happiness and content when he believes in a greater being...i guess you could say that it is a kind of a dependency that he adopts through religion.
He can not live without it, and it can not live without him...

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

I do not believe that people are capable of rational thought when it comes to making decisions in their own lives. People believe they are behaving rationally and have thought things out, of course, but when major decisions are made - who to marry, where to live, what career to pursue, what college to attend, people's minds simply cannot cope with the complexity. When they try to rationally analyze potential options, their unconscious, emotional thoughts take over and make the choice for them.
Richard Dawkins
Evolutionary biologist, Oxford University; author, "The Ancestor's Tale"

In that sense, religion does allow one to maintain a positive view upon death for it does not scare them.

Everyone fears death, it;s all talk, its human nature, the sight of death makes eveyrthing we experience more painful/pleasurable.

Moreover, it seems quite absurd that religion portrays God as a man; for women, they should be asking: 'why should a perfect being be a man? And not a woman?' It seems quite sexist. Furthermore, why should God be perfect and still be a human being; perfection can not come out from imperfection. Now that is a contradiction...

In catholicism god is seen as the holy spirt, god and jesus,
that the son and the father are one.

It seems a contradiction but again you cannot hold god to human limits. As a human a father obviously can't be a son at the same time as the son has haploid genes form the father which has diploip genes, and it is biologcally and physically impossible unless you had a clone, while i doubt that because only recently like 200ish we made dolly, thinking a clone could be made 2000 yrs ago would be absurd.
It's like saying; god the creator of all, jumped of a cliff and he would of course die because many people have dont that and have not survived.

Same with god being everywhere at anytime, god is god, again god cannot be resrticted to human qualities.

God can be portrayed as a male, personally I think that is due to society back int he days. Males had authority, power and more resposibility, and they see fit god the creator of all to be able to be catogorised into a male form.

+god made man an image of himself,

• photocopy something.. is it perfect? is it exactly the same as the original. how about cheap versions of oreos or something. The original is always better.

so we can 'say ' god may be perfect and we are a result of that, and our imperfections are undeniable and unaviodable.

Therefore leave it at the fact that there may/or not be a higher enity, which remains/origin and who he/she is unknown.



EDIT: I'm atheisist

 

[KFunk]

Iron, I've actually had this 'ultimate problem of creation [/existence]' at the back of my mind lately. As someone who knows very little about theoretical physics (and the like) I can't comment much on what science can and can't offer us regarding such fundamental questions of existence. I recently borrowed an aptly named library book by an old Oxford don called 'why there is something rather than nothing'. At present I can't offer much more on this issue than extremely broad speculations but after having a look through some of that book I should have a few ideas to contribute to this thread. While it may be possible that the problem 'why does anything exist?' is necessarily unsolveable (by science, or philosophy, or theology) I'm not quite ready to make this assertion yet. A proof of intractability is a pretty big feat in itself - it's always worth considering, instead, whether we merely lack the requisit mental tools at present.

On the bottom-up approach: I would question whether the issue of 'god' needs to be dealt with at all from this perspective. To me, the notion of a creator seems to be a historical hang up, inherited from influential thinkers who asserted the need for meaning/existence 'handed down from above'. God (of whatever form) only really fits into a true bottom-up approach insofar as they are generated by more basic structures, eliminating their role as a source of 'ultimate explanation'. (Certainly, once created a god could create things, just as human beings do, but they would nonetheless forfeit their privaleged role in existence/creation - of the sort attributed to god by many religions).

 

[pattii]

Question.. If schools were to teach creationism, in what subject would they teach it in. Obviously not science..

 

[black eagle]

i think that it is perfectly fine to be a christian and yet not uphold the principles of 'creationism'. if you were to open up a bible and read the the account of creation, you would notice that before God created the world, it was "empty and formless". what does God do? he gives it form (light, seperates sky from water, land from water, vegetation) and it fills it (sun moon stars, birds fish, animals, humans). for me (because everything will always come down to personal opinion), that sounds more like a poem than a report. and if its a poem and not a factual report, what are you supposed to get out of it? in my opinion, not that God created the world in 6 days and that fossils were created in the flood etc. instead i think that the point is that God created the world. the way he did it is unimportant - i mean, he's God and i reckon that he could've done it in any way that he wanted to.

note that i'm not trying to prove that God exists or not or whether he created it or not - i'm only saying that the idea that by being a christian means that you have to accept creationism and that by even considering evolution automatically makes you not a christian.

i think that it boils down to the fact that its never going to be able to be completely scientifically proven. you can see some of the evidence but not all of it, you can understand some of it but certainly not all of it, you can experience some of it but never all of it. but that's why its called faith.

 

[sthcross.dude]

Question.. If schools were to teach creationism, in what subject would they teach it in. Obviously not science..

english. its creative writting.

 

[volition]

black eagle, I'm curious as to what it is about the bible that allows people to "take some of it and not all it" literally. Most of the time, it becomes an exercise in trying to pick some arbitrary values that you think God+Jesus epitomize and then looking for those values. But then what you're really doing is, you're not "using the bible to guide you", you're using those other arbitrary principles to guide you.

And that leaves the question: If you're able to find some other principles OUTSIDE of the bible to use, then why not just ignore the bible and use those principles instead? Clearly they must be of a greater moral standing than the bible if you are using those to barr off certain parts of the bible and accept others...

 

[volition]

Because they understand the place of a religious text as part of an adaptive theory of theology and morality in a changing world?

But what about it is adaptive? Where does the "adaptive-ness" come from? I'm betting its coming more from their own mind than from the bible.

I'm more convinced that morality doesn't change. If murder was wrong 1000 years ago, why would it have changed now?

 

[volition]

Women were property 1000 years ago.

Yes, and women should never have been property. That was always wrong! It didn't only "become wrong" when we banned slavery.

 

[volition]

Murder is still "wrong" because a majority of the people come from a religious background where murder is frowned upon:-

"Thou shalt not kill"

We don't need religion to tell us that. People are increasing becoming atheist from what I've seen anyway.

You are looking at it in retrospect. Sure, we can say it is wrong now, but no-one dare say it back then, until feminism became all the rage with the suffragettes, Pankhurst for instance. Then some people decided to take notice. And as no-one bar the women who were being treated would say it was wrong, how can we know whether morality was changed or not?

I think what you're looking is at is what some people believed to be right or wrong, as opposed to what actually is wrong.

I'm saying that it's just objectively wrong that somebody can own another person because it doesn't make any logical sense, therefore to submit it as a moral theory that somebody can own another is demonstrably false.

 

[ur_inner_child]

Yes, but the moral of not murdering others has come from religion. This was set many moons ago, and is yet to change.

We are a caring and empathetic species and that's how we've been able to survive all these years. I would say that the idea that "murder is wrong" was the simplest form of empathy possible, and a value that we had to hold in order to survive. It could be from many reasons; we need to survive as a group of numbers, we are an incredibly social species, and death was something quite real, and probably common.

You don't need religion to tell you that murder is wrong. Simple but logical thought could tell us this.

Despite whether religion is man-made or not, a religion may tell us we should not wear pants, ever. In order for that value to be accepted, we need to make logical sense of it. We agree with "murder is wrong" because we can see reasoning for this, and it suits the values we already hold.

I can say, though, that religion helps people along to hold onto certain values, but I totally disagree that religion is the cause of our social morals.

That's the best as I can articulate it. :/

 

[volition]

Yes, but the moral of not murdering others has come from religion. This was set many moons ago, and is yet to change.

It would exist regardless of religion.

And what defines wrong or right?

There are ways of objectively showing that something is true. Such as property rights in your own body.

As long as you agree with these:
- Any human ethic must allow the survival of the human race
- All humans are moral equals
- Any moral theory that claims to be a law, must apply universally and equally

Lack of logic makes something wrong?

As far as moral theories go, we can only accept a theory that makes logical sense. The only moral theory that makes logical sense regarding ownership, is that everybody owns their own body.

eg. If it were possible to own another human being, this would create 2 different classes, and seeing as all moral laws must apply universally to all humans, this doesn't make sense.

 

[nathan71088]

We are a caring and empathetic species and that's how we've been able to survive all these years. I would say that the idea that "murder is wrong" was the simplest form of empathy possible, and a value that we had to hold in order to survive. It could be from many reasons; we need to survive as a group of numbers, we are an incredibly social species, and death was something quite real, and probably common.

You don't need religion to tell you that murder is wrong. Simple but logical thought could tell us this.

Despite whether religion is man-made or not, a religion may tell us we should not wear pants, ever. In order for that value to be accepted, we need to make logical sense of it. We agree with "murder is wrong" because we can see reasoning for this, and it suits the values we already hold.

I can say, though, that religion helps people along to hold onto certain values, but I totally disagree that religion is the cause of our social morals.

That's the best as I can articulate it. :/

I would say that the idea that "murder is wrong" was the simplest form of empathy possible, and a value that we had to hold in order to survive. It could be from many reasons; we need to survive as a group of numbers, we are an incredibly social species, and death was something quite real, and probably common.

You don't need religion to tell you that murder is wrong. Simple but logical thought could tell us this.

Death, murder and killing are all part of nature. No animal species would think, to their capacity, twice about killing, sometimes this includes killing family members. So, I believe that the notion of humans figuring out that "murder is wrong" is not an instinctive thing, not something that just came naturally and was figured out. If anything it is a product of evolution in terms of society and, yes, a method of survival. I personally believe that this not killing someone would not be figured out unless it had been come to by a communal agreement. The question is why would such a society come to this agreement.


The big thing with religion is that death no longer stops at the conclusion of the body functioning. According to religion, death leads to an eternity based on what you have done in life. Now murder seems more daunting doesn't it.
Murder is REALLY bad. So if you murder you have problems regarding death, according to religion.

BUT, I have commited a fallacy of reasoning. I have said that murderis bad and therefore because it is bad religion is what influences our thoughts on morality. BUT infact murder is itself categorised as "bad"/"evil" by religion. So the big question: Can there be morality without religion?

 

[KFunk]

So the big question: Can there be morality without religion?

Yes. Of course, the answer is not as simple as that (it never is!). Nonetheless, a great deal has been written on how reciprocity/altruism, etc might develop as a result of natural selection and/or self-interest. I have attached a decent review article (below) on this topic if you are interested in seeing how the arguments tend to flow. Have a read and see if you find the proposed style of explanation plausible.

 

[katie_tully]

So the big question: Can there be morality without religion?

I asked that question ages ago. Nobody really answered and those that did were religious and seemed to think that morals not based on religion are inferior.

 

[Enteebee]

Death, murder and killing are all part of nature. No animal species would think, to their capacity, twice about killing, sometimes this includes killing family members. So, I believe that the notion of humans figuring out that "murder is wrong" is not an instinctive thing, not something that just came naturally and was figured out. If anything it is a product of evolution in terms of society and, yes, a method of survival. I personally believe that this not killing someone would not be figured out unless it had been come to by a communal agreement. The question is why would such a society come to this agreement.

She gave a reasoned response and you seem to have provided no retort to it... to restate the point: A species which looks after each other is more likely to survive/prosper than one which kills each other, therefore those with genes which have a predesposition towards such empathy will be more likely to survive...

Tell me which part of that you disagree with.