Does God exist? (1 Viewer)

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

BTW to the theists out there... I'm interested in what your reasons are for believing in your God over any other, rather than just some general reasons for belief in God.

 

[KFunk]

So what is the rule for sufficient evidence? Where does it end? I know these sort of rules will be complex and you might (like me) often find yourself weaving through a need for a practical belief and the ultimate truth, but I think this sort of an investigation is necessary to show why a position of atheism with regard to any supernatural...

I don't think any clear cut principle is going to emerge here. It normally seems that huge books are required to deal with this issue (of sufficient evidence) adequately. Roughly, however, I would use a smattering of the following: logic and abstract reasoning, sense data, consistency amongst sense data and something akin to the scientific method.

For a possible reason why I cannot offer you any clear-cut principle consider the possible evolutionary origins of such faculties. The senses did not all arise at once, or even for the same ends. Smell might have been primarily directed at finding food, sight may have been directed at detecting the location of the sun and other organisms (you get my drift). In any case, there is no guarantee that our various faculties that work together to give us a sense of evidence/justification necessarily do so in perfect unison or using the same rules. Human brain processing my be surprisingly chaotic despite its ordered appearance.

Oh well I agree that agnosticists in practice act a lot like atheists (I'm afraid some of my 'in practice' talk earlier was with regard to a sort of ... 'practical philosophy vs philosophical philosophy' comment) but this, I only think is true, because a lot of agnostics are really atheists just pressing a philosophical point (that most atheists ultimately agree with anyway).

Of course if we took your example and replaced God with say A new flu vaxxine that may kill people, uncertainty leads to the agnostics acting entirely different.

I geuss my suggestion was that they act similar not because agnostics secretely hold (2) - they believe that god does not exist - but rather because both parties hold (3) - neither the atheist or the agnostic believes that god exists. This is partly a logical hunch, but I suspect that the lack of a positive belief (positive in the sense that it does not involve negation and so makes a belief variation on a positive existential claim) is more likely to yield the important practical consequences (this last sentence is speculation though, so don't give it too much creedence). Much of the religious life is practiced as the result of a belief in god. Without that belief (i.e. when one holds (3) - I don't believe that Gx) it seems unlikely that atheists or agnostics will take part in this religious life. As there is no significant non-religious life (like there is no significant non-lawyer life) I think you will find a lot of similarity.

In the case of the flu vaccine I see it as even more important to take what I view as the more 'intellectually honest' agnostic position. I really don't think you can just decide the vaccine is harmful (or safe) on a whim, in the absence of evidence. Either position is potentially dangerous to the population in question since you may inadvertently harm them - either by poisoning them with a bad vaccine or by failing to vaccinate them thus leading to increased morality rates for the given disease(s). This stuff doesn't matter quite so much with god because I don't think that much rides on whether you are an atheist or an agnostic, but in cases of clear practical consequence like that of the vaccine there is perhaps an even stronger argument for the agnostic case.

The 'lets play make believe and act as atheists for practical reasons' approach works fine for imaginary friends, god and santa claus since they are of questionable practical importance in the first place (so there isn't a great deal of difference between the respective positions). However, once we get to a case like the vaccine which potentially has a far greater practical import I think the agnostic stance emerges as an important intellectual position.

 

[KFunk]

BTW to the theists out there... I'm interested in what your reasons are for believing in your God over any other, rather than just some general reasons for belief in God.

Nothing beats the justificatory powers of a holy text...

 

[HalcyonSky]

3) the gospels were written 70-100 years after jesus's death and most non-christian experts agree they were written by anonymous authors, so there is no need to explain what is written in them because its all pipe dream bullshit.

 

[Citizen]

The existance of God is not a tangable question in fact, due to opinions being like butts....everyone has one but no-one wants it shoved in their face.

God is a common expression to explain the uttermost unexplained question which is "what came before life?"

Considering that cultures from all walks of life refer to a "God" type answer for that question shows the question was asked by someone initially.

The fact that that question was answered begs the question "do you trust that source?"

The fact all cultures use the answer to that begs the question "Is God a way of explaining the unexplained enough to allow focus on more present issues like - WHERE"S ME DINNER WOMAN or SHUT THOSE KIDS UP, i'M TRYING TO TAN SKINS HERE!!!"

Chineese whispers proves how far a simple piece of information can be distorted via the way the mind perceives the information irrespective of the informations simplicity.

One thing does stand out though, most religions worship their God as if it the only one and will defend their views via warfare...in fact it can be argued that religion (opinion) is the main cause of warfare dating back to very primative times before text was implemented.

Does religion only exist when text was applied...if not we must assume that information must have been handed down until that time and hence the chinese whisper theory can have some fun in this too.

To believe that God spoke to someone and said - "hey dude - this is the way it is....tell everyone about it" begs the situation that 1 man (or human) recieved that information and relayed that to many as the truth. Smart people would have asked "how do you know this to be true" and if the answer is intangible and unexplainable then guess who got born....God

The fact that the Bible is a conglomeration of stories that most of which were written centuries after the events begs the question "Was religion based on a present social mindset using distorted tales to prove its existance?"

There is no question that people who follow the 10 comandments can have a better quality of life as opposed to those who have no religion or beliefs simply by training the mind to expect and believe that all good will come in the end will in fact improve this quality of life purley by a positive attitude.

But how does one defend or prove that this is a good way to go in the face of resistance....by 2 ways


1. stating that it cannot be argued against as a higher being made this text, a being that is in its own quality pure, honest, forgiving and Kind....(dammit...father xmas is all that and more but i dont see a religion based around him)

and/or

2. by eliminating the resistance to further spread the word.

Both techniques were used by many religions to secure their following.

So now its a case of "Is religion a form of social policing" and the answer would have to be yes due to the differences of religions, based on the owning cultures trends, which is inatley a common theme - "The way to live in our presence" - that is socialy driven and not heavenly driven.

The 1 comandment they broke in the way they spread their word shows that not even the basic level of ethics are adhered to the spread their own belief/view/opinion/social belief/ take on things.


In conclusion - the Bible is real because it is a tangable item...the stories it contains are merley a way to show why the "message from our God" is true. The implementation of a social structure taught through such a way is consistant to the human desire to understand due to open ended questions like who, why, how, where and "please explain?"...onya paulie for adding to the rich culture of Australian literature.

The stories are more than likley as a result of messages or morals so in essence is based on imagination and not fact ...

or

Are actual events that in time were distorted to include or prove their modern social thinking.

Remeber that the samrtest people in the world concluded that the sun revolved around the earth and in that time with their knowledge that was a true statement but false in its basis.



If there is a (one..1) God, why does he dress differently and say different things to cultures at a time when cultures had no awareness of other cultures...he is either the devil is disguise and having fun at our expense or a product of imagination to further prove someones theories at the time that that theory could gain weight.

No - there is no God as we explain it in modern times.

Yes - beliving in a God or belief may increase quality of life due to a positive attitude.

No - the bible is nothing more than a tabloid constucted document to just prove or reinforce their current social standings.

Yes - by following the bibles message one can have a better quality of life.



My take is we are our own Gods and we have responsibilities to this earth and the universe we share - to actually think an entity will come in the darkest hour and save us from our fate - seems to be less likely due to people destroying the very planet we need to survive so fast. God just might miss the boat.

If we worship ourselves and view life as God - then the path is really easy to see.

And I belive the 10 comandmenst to be an intelligent set of statements that when applied is the closest we will ever get to total euphoria but to mix God in that is actually a negative to the mix.

God is based on opinions as every culture has its own opinion as to who or what God is. (and thats before we had telephones guys 8P)......

Cheers - I wish you all well

 

[veloc1ty]

Whilst no argument is perfect nor conclusive the above gives a semi-reasonable coverage of god as presented in Abrahamic religions. However, a greater variety of gods (/god-like entities) can be thought up which differ in enough respects to render themselves immune to such arguments. Indeed, some theologians make a career of backtracking in order to insulate their god from any logical assault. This is partly why I find it hard to accept a blanket position of 'atheist'. While my intuition tells me that god does not exist I still lack a knock down argument which is all-encompasing enough to knock down all conceptions of god (there are some interesting, though perhaps dubious, arguments suggesting that it is likely that our world is just a simulation being played out on a super-powerful computer - perhaps some kind of meta-moderator is looking over us?). While it might not strike you as a solid position, my agnostic indifference seems to get me by just fine.

That is fair enough, though I wonder where the 'god' definition ends and a more abstract concept begins. As you and youBROKEmyLIFE were talking about before it also comes down to the practical/philosophical divide.

Yes - beliving in a God or belief may increase quality of life due to a positive attitude.

Who is to say you have a negative attitude if you don't believe in a god/belief though?

Yes - by following the bibles message one can have a better quality of life.

If you pick and choose the 'good' verses, perhaps. If Jesus ever existed, I am doubtful that the Bible truly captures his teachings as he meant them.

There is no question that people who follow the 10 comandments can have a better quality of life as opposed to those who have no religion or beliefs simply by training the mind to expect and believe that all good will come in the end will in fact improve this quality of life purley by a positive attitude.

...

And I belive the 10 comandmenst to be an intelligent set of statements that when applied is the closest we will ever get to total euphoria but to mix God in that is actually a negative to the mix

It's worth reading this essay in full for a different perspective on the 10 commandments.

That post was rather hard to read, I'm not sure what you were trying to say...

 

[KFunk]

im interested to know about why the disciples believed jesus was god:

1) how many of the disciples went on to die for their beliefs? did they actually think jesus was god?

or

did they lie about jesus' miracles (eg. seeing jesus walk on water) and then die knowing its for a lie?

2) was jesus just crazy thinking he was god? why then does a crazy man have such "wise words", and is also able to delude his disciples (who claim he did many miracles)?

what is the best explanation for this?

There are two quite different approaches we could take to that question:

• What is the best explanation for the events of the bible if we accept them as, for the most part, true? (I geuss this could involve 'filling in the narrative' or something similar)
• What is the best explanation for the 'reports' which constitute the bible without making assumptions about their truth/falsity?

I don't have much interest in the first question, but on the second my personal opinion is that the best explanation is probably that, while roughly rooted in facts, much of the bible is probably fiction. Notably, Jesus fits nicely into an archetypal 'hero' structure written about by Lord Raglan. Raglan's hero criteria and some sample scores of famous heroes are as follows:

1. Hero’s mother is a royal virgin;
2. His father is a king, and
3. Often a near relative of his mother, but
4. The circumstances of his conception are unusual, and
5. He is also reputed to be the son of a god.
6. At birth an attempt is made, usually by his father or his maternal grand father to kill him, but
7. He is spirited away, and
8. Reared by foster -parents in a far country.
9. We are told nothing of his childhood, but
10. On reaching manhood he returns or goes to his future Kingdom.
11. After a victory over the king and/or a giant, dragon, or wild beast,
12. He marries a princess, often the daughter of his predecessor and
13. And becomes king.
14. For a time he reigns uneventfully and
15. Prescribes laws, but
16. Later he loses favor with the gods and/or his subjects, and
17. Is driven from the throne and city, after which
18. He meets with a mysterious death,
19. Often at the top of a hill,
20. His children, if any do not succeed him.
21. His body is not buried, but nevertheless
22. He has one or more holy sepulchres.

Scores:

(21) Krishna
(21) Oedipus
(20) Theseus
(20) Moses
(19) King Arthur
(19) Dinoysus
(18/19) Jesus of Nazareth
(18) Perseus
(17) Hercules
(17) Mohammad
(15) Beowulf
(15) Gilgamesh
(15) Buddha

 

[HalcyonSky]

Scores:

(21) Krishna
(21) Oedipus
(20) Theseus
(20) Moses
(19) King Arthur
(19) Dinoysus
(18/19) Jesus of Nazareth
(18) Perseus
(17) Hercules
(17) Mohammad
(15) Beowulf
(15) Gilgamesh
(15) Buddha

Thats a good comparison.. There's plenty of examples throughout history where supernatural / hero attributes have been [falsely] attributed to real historical figures, and i dont see why Jesus is any different. Christians have a nice standard rebuttal for this though, its just frustrating trying to argue the point with them

 

[Citizen]

crap...point taken....I should have tried to remember the 3 1/2 times I was forced to read the bible at school instead of just do a chinese whisper number myself..8P

No..I dont believe the bible is full of good messages..in fact (from memory) there were a heap of things i totally disagreed with which furthers my belief that it is socially based and therefore liquid in design.

And yeah the 10 comandments are contaminated with suggestions of "the one god" for its self preservation but if looked at closely, would the advent of only 1 choice of God be ultimately better on the over all outcome than a plethera of Gods and demi-gods to choose from therefore promoting wider unity and a larger sence of belonging and also no real difference of opinion allowing the other comandments more creedance and ease to implement - eg. "no other God...cool no other people to slaughter for their opinions"?

I dont believe the 10 comandments were created with God in mind - I would more believe that a scholar came up a similar set of statements and then it was moulded to reflect the social standards of the time and/or included into the bible as another story of proof.

 

[lilwhicker1991]

You can not prove him to be real or not real. The great thing about religion is having faith in God, and believing he exists.

 

[HalcyonSky]

You can not prove him to be real or not real. The sad thing about religion is having faith in God, and believing he exists.

fixed

 

[dey-tuk-re-jobz]

You can not prove him to be real or not real. The great thing about religion is having faith in God, and believing he exists.

Fallacy number one that is central to Christianity.

 

[JayB]

another way to see the first commandment would be to remember that you aren't necessarily the most powerful or important person in the world, i.e. that there is something above you in stature. even if it isn't taken literally (i am the lord your god), taken as a suggestion of being humble it isn't a bad idea. which helps a li'l if you look at the secular invention idea.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

The existance of God is not a tangable question in fact, due to opinions being like butts....everyone has one but no-one wants it shoved in their face.

Of course it's a tangible question of fact, you just assert that it's not because we all know your beliefs are stupid if you admit it is

 

[HalcyonSky]

is there any historical evidence to suggest how and why any of the disciples died?

ur 320 pages too late. Most of us concur god doesnt exist, .'. nobody gives a shit about 'the disciples'

Of course it's a tangible question of fact, you just assert that it's not because we all know your beliefs are stupid if you admit it is

end of discussion

 

[Slidey]

ur 320 pages too late. Most of us concur god doesnt exist, .'. nobody gives a shit about 'the disciples'


end of discussion

Um... it's not really end of discussion. Just that most people who are religious are afraid to post here because people will jump down their throats, question their beliefs and treat them like idiots for daring to have hope there's a god.

I imagine most of the disciples died of old age (which was what, 50?) or were murdered, 3unitz.

 

[KFunk]

ur 320 pages too late. Most of us concur god doesnt exist, .'. nobody gives a shit about 'the disciples'

As I explained in previous posts, I lack a belief in the proposition 'god exists' without concurring with the proposition 'god does not exist'.

If you have a knock down argument against god then go for it. Otherwise, don't shut down the debate unnecessarily.

 

[HalcyonSky]

but for me, its end of discussion i have an exceptionally closed mind when it comes to god at this moment in my life

 

[KFunk]

I was reminded of another case of uncanny biblical resemblance today - Pandora's Box:

...In Greek mythology, Pandora was the first woman on earth. Zeus ordered Hephaestus, the god of craftsmanship, to create her and he did, using water and earth. The gods endowed her with many talents; Aphrodite gave her beauty, Apollo music, Hermes persuasion, and so forth. Hence her name: Pandora, "all-gifted".

Pandora had a jar which she was not to open under any circumstance. Impelled by her natural curiosity, Pandora opened the jar, and all evil contained escaped and spread over the earth. She hastened to close the lid, but the whole contents of the jar had escaped...

The first woman's curiosity and lack of fortitude lead her to commit a crime (relative to a divine command) which burdens humankind with the evils of the world... sound familiar?

 

[BradCube]

is there any historical evidence to suggest how and why any of the disciples died?

I'm not sure about historical evidence - but from what I can remember being told, all of them were murdered but one who died of natural causes.

Assuming the above is correct and that Jesus and disciples actually existed, this is one reason that adds to a belief that Jesus was who he said he was. ie - if the disciples knew that what they were believing was a lie, why die in defense of it?

In the next few weeks I will be reading a book that deals with these historical issues surrounding Christ, so I may be able to answer you're question more thoroughly then.

Um... it's not really end of discussion. Just that most people who are religious are afraid to post here because people will jump down their throats, question their beliefs and treat them like idiots for daring to have hope there's a god.

I can attest to that. I rarely post on BOS forums because I feel like I am slaughtered every time I ask a question or speak of my beliefs.