Does God exist? (14 Viewers)

[Enteebee]

do you not suppose that if there was a God, he/she/it would also encourage adherence to right living? why is it that the majority of religious systems teach morals?

if that's the case, how can you possibly claim to be true to God?

haha

Inasero, how can you claim anything true while rejecting logic?

 

[Captin gay]

haha

not being religious = being immoral

 

[hj47]

God may or may not exist, it isn't up to anyone to say whether it/he/she does or not.

That's why Atheism/Fundamentalism blows, you have two extremes who constantly oppose each other and get no where, you need a balanced, systematic approach to god and religion if this world wants to progress.

Not that I'm religious, quite the contrary actually. I consider my self an Atheist/Agnostic, but I find my self frustrated at the shenanigans of such Atheists such as Dawkins, Hitchens etc.

 

[Kwayera]

Mmm i dont know Squeenie.
When i meet an full on atheist (im not talking the agnostic who lives as an atheist , im talking firey atheist) who has respect for others despite differing beliefs , then i might think religion-free ethics has a chance at being genuine -until then, full on atheists to me seem intolerant and atheism one of the worst ideologies.
The way so many of them talk... you can imagine them burning Christians at the stake as heretics, lol
History....

Well.. they're angry. We're angry. Wouldn't you be, if you had to put up with the kind of shit that religious people deal out to atheists? It's not because we're free of ethics as non-religious people (far from it, as has been debated ad nauseum - 'modern' human morality and ethics predate religion), but because we're angry, but rationally so.

You get sick of being told that you're not a real/complete/whole person without believing in God, that you're illogical, that you're immoral, etc.

 

[*TRUE*]

Well.. they're angry. We're angry. Wouldn't you be, if you had to put up with the kind of shit that religious people deal out to atheists? It's not because we're free of ethics as non-religious people (far from it, as has been debated ad nauseum - 'modern' human morality and ethics predate religion), but because we're angry, but rationally so.

You get sick of being told that you're not a real/complete/whole person without believing in God, that you're illogical, that you're immoral, etc.

Anger is a valid emotion Cat.
All emotions are, really - but i think it is what you DO with those emotions that count.
Perhaps religious people " get sick of being told that you're not a real/complete/whole person (because you believe) in God, that you're illogical, that you're immoral, etc"
Everyone hates to be judged.
Its so hard to have constructive debate , where we can explore our beliefs , challenge ourselves...even feel free to question our beliefs.
I think antagonism does nothing but make one arrogant and stubborn , whether one is antagonistic or on the receiving end of antagonism.

 

[KFunk]

Perhaps religious people " get sick of being told that you're not a real/complete/whole person (because you believe) in God, that you're illogical, that you're immoral, etc"

Perhaps illogical (though not in all cases - I do know a small number of people that I view as rational theists), but I certianly wouldn't argue or assert those other claims.

 

[*TRUE*]

Perhaps illogical (though not in all cases - I do know a small number of people that I view as rational theists), but I certianly wouldn't argue or assert those other claims.

Which is why you, and others similar- have my respect.

 

[Enteebee]

When i meet an full on atheist (im not talking the agnostic who lives as an atheist , im talking firey atheist) who has respect for others despite differing beliefs , then i might think religion-free ethics has a chance at being genuine -until then, full on atheists to me seem intolerant and atheism one of the worst ideologies.

I'm not an agnostic who lives as an atheist. I respect you, I do not respect your beliefs. Religion-free ethics exists in agnostics too incase you haven't considered that... I mean being an agnostic means whatever ethics you have are free from religion, right?

Perhaps religious people " get sick of being told that you're not a real/complete/whole person (because you believe) in God, that you're illogical, that you're immoral, etc"

I'm sorry but that just doesn't happen... very few atheists will say you're not a real/complete/whole person nor immoral because of your belief in God (though certain conceptions may be rather worrying. As for illogical, I'm afraid many of you simply are, when theists in this thread have found themselves backed up in a logical corner they've appealed to embracing a lack of logic.

 

[*TRUE*]

I'm not an agnostic who lives as an atheist. I respect you, I do not respect your beliefs. Religion-free ethics exists in agnostics too incase you haven't considered that... I mean being an agnostic means whatever ethics you have are free from religion, right?

Yes, absolutely.

 

[Garygaz]

Ok scientists, help me out a bit.

Back before time=0 (don't call me irrational, please), before our brand of time existed, how did the very first atom, in the infiniteness of space, come to exist. Is it assumed that it was just there? Also, I've read the theory of the Big Bang, I can't grasp the concept of non-living matter turning into living objects, that infinitely small particles have turned into a breeding, thinking, powerful living race. Don't any of you guys ever delve from the accepted truths of science and ask, isn't it a bit weird that a super-heated explosion of lifeless matter has created everything in humanity?

 

[*TRUE*]

I'm not an agnostic who lives as an atheist. I respect you, I do not respect your beliefs. Religion-free ethics exists in agnostics too incase you haven't considered that... I mean being an agnostic means whatever ethics you have are free from religion, right?



I'm sorry but that just doesn't happen... very few atheists will say you're not a real/complete/whole person nor immoral because of your belief in God (though certain conceptions may be rather worrying. As for illogical, I'm afraid many of you simply are, when theists in this thread have found themselves backed up in a logical corner they've appealed to embracing a lack of logic.

Enteebee, I was really only playfully parodying Kwayera.
Just making the point that it is not only atheists who become frustrated with feeling judged. Often very unfairly.
Logic can be applied in many situations , just because a person does not utilise it when it comes to their faith...does not mean they are illogical in general
EDIT: i am not saying that there are no religious people that employ elements of logic in their faith either.

 

[KFunk]

Ok scientists, help me out a bit.

Back before time=0 (don't call me irrational, please), before our brand of time existed, how did the very first atom, in the infiniteness of space, come to exist. Is it assumed that it was just there? Also, I've read the theory of the Big Bang, I can't grasp the concept of non-living matter turning into living objects, that infinitely small particles have turned into a breeding, thinking, powerful living race. Don't any of you guys ever delve from the accepted truths of science and ask, isn't it a bit weird that a super-heated explosion of lifeless matter has created everything in humanity?

You probably missed my post from a few pages back. Firstly, this is also a problem for some religious groups too (it is not unique to science). In particular, the Catholic church believes that god created the universe out of nothing.

Secondly, ponder the question Why is there something rather than nothing?, notably how difficult it is to answer, and then consider the following quote from Robert Nozick:

"The question appears impossible to answer. Any factor introduced to explain why there is something will itself be part of the something to be explained, so it (or anything utilizing it) could not explain all of the something--it could not explain why there is anything at all...Some writers conclude from this that the question is ill-formed and meangingless. But why do they cheerfully reject the question rather than despairingly observe that it demarcates a limit of what we can hope to understand?" (Nozick, Philosophical Explanations, start of Ch 2)

 

[Enteebee]

Back before time=0 (don't call me irrational, please), before our brand of time existed, how did the very first atom, in the infiniteness of space, come to exist. Is it assumed that it was just there?

To ask what 'came before' the begining of time is to ask what's north of the north pole, or before 'a' in the alphabet.

Also, I've read the theory of the Big Bang, I can't grasp the concept of non-living matter turning into living objects, that infinitely small particles have turned into a breeding, thinking, powerful living race. Don't any of you guys ever delve from the accepted truths of science and ask, isn't it a bit weird that a super-heated explosion of lifeless matter has created everything in humanity?

It's definitely weird... our universe is extremely weird and keeps me rather amazed the more I learn.

 

[Garygaz]

St. Thomas Aquinas, in the thirteenth century, formulated the famous "five ways" by which God's existence can be demonstrated philosophically:

* 1. The "unmoved mover" argument. We know that there is motion in the world; whatever is in motion is moved by another thing; this other thing also must be moved by something; to avoid an infinite regression, we must posit a "first mover," which is God.
* 2. The "nothing is caused by itself" argument. For example, a table is brought into being by a carpenter, who is caused by his parents. Again, we cannot go on to infinity, so there must be a first cause, which is God.
* 3. The cosmological argument. All physical things, even mountains, boulders, and rivers, come into being and go out of existence, no matter how long they last. Therefore, since time is infinite, there must be some time at which none of these things existed. But if there were nothing at that point in time, how could there be anything at all now, since nothing cannot cause anything? Thus, there must always have been at least one necessary thing that is eternal, which is God.
* 4. Objects in the world have differing degrees of qualities such as goodness. But speaking of more or less goodness makes sense only by comparison with what is the maximum goodness, which is God.
* 5. The teleological argument (argument from design). Things in the world move toward goals, just as the arrow does not move toward its goal except by the archer's directing it. Thus, there must be an intelligent designer who directs all things to their goals, and this is God.


This isn't my arguement, just thought I'd bring it to your attention. I found it quite interesting. Point number 2 is the argument that has most resonance to what I believe.

 

[Darnie]

philosophical

 

[KFunk]

St. Thomas Aquinas, in the thirteenth century, formulated the famous "five ways" by which God's existence can be demonstrated philosophically:

* 1. The "unmoved mover" argument. We know that there is motion in the world; whatever is in motion is moved by another thing; this other thing also must be moved by something; to avoid an infinite regression, we must posit a "first mover," which is God.
* 2. The "nothing is caused by itself" argument. For example, a table is brought into being by a carpenter, who is caused by his parents. Again, we cannot go on to infinity, so there must be a first cause, which is God.
* 3. The cosmological argument. All physical things, even mountains, boulders, and rivers, come into being and go out of existence, no matter how long they last. Therefore, since time is infinite, there must be some time at which none of these things existed. But if there were nothing at that point in time, how could there be anything at all now, since nothing cannot cause anything? Thus, there must always have been at least one necessary thing that is eternal, which is God.
* 4. Objects in the world have differing degrees of qualities such as goodness. But speaking of more or less goodness makes sense only by comparison with what is the maximum goodness, which is God.
* 5. The teleological argument (argument from design). Things in the world move toward goals, just as the arrow does not move toward its goal except by the archer's directing it. Thus, there must be an intelligent designer who directs all things to their goals, and this is God.


This isn't my arguement, just thought I'd bring it to your attention. I found it quite interesting. Point number 2 is the argument that has most resonance to what I believe.

On (2) - if the argument is sound it only demonstrates the need for a first cause. The argument is silent on the issue of what this cause is (prime matter? n-dimensional branes? a divine being?). The argument, in itself, shows only that a first cause is necessary, not that this cause must be god. See Ockham's razor. Arguments (1) and (3) are much the same and so suffer from the same shortcomings.

(4) --> 'goodness' is a social construct and the metaphysical concept of good (e.g. absolute, divine 'good', or Platonic pie-in-the sky 'good') is a load of bunk.

(5) See complexity theory and evolutionary theory.

 

[squeenie]

Mmm i dont know Squeenie.
When i meet an full on atheist (im not talking the agnostic who lives as an atheist , im talking firey atheist) who has respect for others despite differing beliefs , then i might think religion-free ethics has a chance at being genuine -until then, full on atheists to me seem intolerant and atheism one of the worst ideologies.
The way so many of them talk... you can imagine them burning Christians at the stake as heretics, lol
History....

I think a good justification for religion is that it gives you a sense of hope, especially in the world of uncertainty we live in, I suppose it would give a lot of reassurance that there's some kind of higher power watching over you, and that it will give you life after death/salvation and whatever else.

It works for some, but unfortunately, not for me. If I'm constantly looking to a higher power for reassurance, I would feel like my independence is being restricted.

Whether we like it or not, people are always going to be judged. It's something that we just have to learn to live with (now, usually this would be my cue to start singing "Everyone's A Little Bit Racist", but that doesn't really fit here...)

 

[Enteebee]

St. Thomas Aquinas, in the thirteenth century, formulated the famous "five ways" by which God's existence can be demonstrated philosophically:

* 1. The "unmoved mover" argument. We know that there is motion in the world; whatever is in motion is moved by another thing; this other thing also must be moved by something; to avoid an infinite regression, we must posit a "first mover," which is God.
* 2. The "nothing is caused by itself" argument. For example, a table is brought into being by a carpenter, who is caused by his parents. Again, we cannot go on to infinity, so there must be a first cause, which is God.
* 3. The cosmological argument. All physical things, even mountains, boulders, and rivers, come into being and go out of existence, no matter how long they last. Therefore, since time is infinite, there must be some time at which none of these things existed. But if there were nothing at that point in time, how could there be anything at all now, since nothing cannot cause anything? Thus, there must always have been at least one necessary thing that is eternal, which is God.
* 4. Objects in the world have differing degrees of qualities such as goodness. But speaking of more or less goodness makes sense only by comparison with what is the maximum goodness, which is God.
* 5. The teleological argument (argument from design). Things in the world move toward goals, just as the arrow does not move toward its goal except by the archer's directing it. Thus, there must be an intelligent designer who directs all things to their goals, and this is God.


This isn't my arguement, just thought I'd bring it to your attention. I found it quite interesting. Point number 2 is the argument that has most resonance to what I believe.

1+2+3: I would posit that our universe as we know it has always existed in some form and began taking shape about 13 billion years ago when the big bang occured, to ask what happened 'before' time=0 is to ask 'what is north of the north pole?' or 'what comes before a in the alphabet?' it is an illogical question... All these problems seem to only exist within a universe which has time as we know it.

4: I'd posit that goodness is a human construct... to one person there might be a lot of goodness in blowing up a building, to another there would be negative goodness.

5: Entirely flawed, we have evolution which shows that increasingly complex things can be formed from simpler things without a designer.

 

[KFunk]

Now, usually this would be my cue to start singing "Everyone's A Little Bit Racist", but that doesn't really fit here...

I saw Avenue Q on Broadway. It rocked my socks.

 

[KFunk]

1+2+3: I would posit that our universe as we know it has always existed in some form and began taking shape about 13 billion years ago when the big bang occured, to ask what happened 'before' time=0 is to ask 'what is north of the north pole?' or 'what comes before a in the alphabet?' it is an illogical question.

4: I'd posit that goodness is a human construct... to one person there might be a lot of goodness in blowing up a building, to another there would be negative goodness.

5: Entirely flawed, we have evolution which shows that increasingly complex things can be formed from simpler things without a designer.

Snap.