Does God exist? (38 Viewers)

[HalcyonSky]

thread just keeps on going backwards

 

[Will Shakespear]

Only a fool would look around and suggest that a place earth just 'happens' to exist, there is no way life could be sustained without a greater desgin... where did the "massive rock" come from, how did the life start, where did the universe start, try thinking outside of your own immediate context, or you coud just try swear some more, maybe then people will listen

but life is sustained without a great design

look
hello
:wave:

yay baseless statements

 

[Dis Amrahs]

That bitch kills wolves and polar bears! A question to religious people, this isnt specifically to Christians, but why is there such an emphasis on ritual in religion? I mean does god want us to be good people or does he want us to worship him? I understand that some of the rules have a brilliant moral value but why is there such an emphasis on the dogma?

 

[Garygaz]

but life is sustained without a great design

look
hello
:wave:

yay baseless statements

Ignorance is bliss.

 

[HalcyonSky]

Ignorance is bliss.

how many cones u smashed down today bro?

 

[Garygaz]

how many cones u smashed down today bro?

Well considering I have 5 exams next week, even one would be a bad idea.

I was agreeing with Shakespear, I was saying that to danpayne, not him : /

 

[Garygaz]

That bitch kills wolves and polar bears! A question to religious people, this isnt specifically to Christians, but why is there such an emphasis on ritual in religion? I mean does god want us to be good people or does he want us to worship him? I understand that some of the rules have a brilliant moral value but why is there such an emphasis on the dogma?

I've thought about this, though in the end, if there is a God, I don't think we could use logic to understand why things are the way they are. If God created the universe, his level of thinking would be beyond our understanding, therefore if he wished for us to worship him, then using our basic level of logic to try and understand why is futile.

 

[moll.]

That bitch kills wolves and polar bears! A question to religious people, this isnt specifically to Christians, but why is there such an emphasis on ritual in religion? I mean does god want us to be good people or does he want us to worship him? I understand that some of the rules have a brilliant moral value but why is there such an emphasis on the dogma?

It makes them easier to control.

 

[KFunk]

Why does anything exist? I cannot either fully accept that there is or is not a God. Why does matter, why do atoms, why does energy, and for that matter, why does even open empty space exist? Sure, science can explain how everything happened, but cannot state why energy exists or why anything exists? Look around you in the room you are in, your computer, your friends, emotions, everything, ask yourself why do they exist, not how they came to exist.

If you go back infinite amount of time, everything had to begin with something, and why did that something cause everything? Why did that something even exist? Personally, I think someone is quite closed minded to either be blatantly religious or athiest.

Why is there something rather than nothing?: I love and hate this question at the same time. Heidegger refers to it as "the first of all questions". It's certainly represents the peak of armchair metaphysics, but at the same time it seems to hit a central nerve running through our existential core.

If you are interested in this question I would recommend reading chapter 2 of Robert Nozick's Philosophical Explanations (for the interested, Nozick is one of the big names of Libertarian political philosophy who wrote in response to Rawls' liberalism). Nozick is a great writer and a fairly measured thinker who avoids making overly strong pronouncements. An extract from the start of the chapter:

"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 utilized by it) could not explain all of the something - it could not explain why there is anything at all. Explanation proceeds by explaining some things in terms of others, but this question seems to preclude introducing anything else, any explanatory factors. Some writers conclude from this that the question is ill-formed and meaningless. But why do they cheerfully reject the question rather than desparingly observe that it demarcates a limit of what we can hope to understand?

...

My aim is not to assert one of these answers as correct; the aim, rather, is to loosen our feeling of being trapped by a question with no possible answer - one impossible answer yet inescapable. (So that one feels the only thing to do is to gesture at a Mark Rothko painting). The quesiton cuts so deep, however, that any approach that stands a chance of yielding an answer will look extremely weird. Someone who proposes a non-strange answer shows he didn't understand this question."

Not a catalyst in so much as a reason, but a how. Energy creating everything we see, think, hear and know. Energy has always existed. But for energy to always exist it in itself is breaking the law of every other scientific property. Maybe energy is God?

Aye, I am inclined to think that the fact that we are here suggests that there has always been something, whatever form that something may take.

One possible route to take, when considering the something/vs/nothing quesiton, is to suggest that all possible worlds exist --> i.e. that everything that is possible is (I apologise, the verb 'to be' becomes awkward). In this case you get a somewhat humorous outcome, as put by Nozick (see if you can spot holes in this candidate solution):

"Why is there something rather than nothing? There isn't. There's both."

 

[Dis Amrahs]

One possible route to take, when considering the something/vs/nothing quesiton, is to suggest that all possible worlds exist --> i.e. that everything that is possible is (I apologise, the verb 'to be' becomes awkward). In this case you get a somewhat humorous outcome, as put by Nozick (see if you can spot holes in this candidate solution):

"Why is there something rather than nothing? There isn't. There's both."

It reminds me of a book i read once by a guy called R. M. Pirsig. He said that any classical dillema affords not two but three classic refutations. Personifying the dilemma in the greek sense as a bull, 'he could take the left horn, or he could take the right horn or he could go between the horns for the eyes and deny that there are only two choices.' All possible worlds exist, theres a god for those who believe in him and no god for those who dont and energy for the people in between. But isn't the concept of 'god' one that relies on absolutism? I'm no philosopher, just confused. What did you mean to say?

 

[Garygaz]

Aye, I am inclined to think that the fact that we are here suggests that there has always been something, whatever form that something may take.

One possible route to take, when considering the something/vs/nothing quesiton, is to suggest that all possible worlds exist --> i.e. that everything that is possible is (I apologise, the verb 'to be' becomes awkward). In this case you get a somewhat humorous outcome, as put by Nozick (see if you can spot holes in this candidate solution):

"Why is there something rather than nothing? There isn't. There's both."

I believe there has always been something. It's hard to fathom, though. Mind blowing.

Something always existing pretty much breaks every the chain of everything else in the universe. I was thinking today, God is often described as omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient.

Omnipotence (Omni Potens: "all power") is unlimited power.

Energy was said to have created matter, which was the catalyst for the most powerful scientific reaction ever (big bang). It, therefore, is the most powerful thing known to man. It is omnipotent

Omnipresence is the ability to be present in every place at any, and/or every, time; unbounded or universal presence. It is related to the concept of ubiquity, the ability to be everywhere at a certain point in time.

Energy is everywhere, if I am not mistaken. It existed before the big-bang, therefore it is present in every time. It essentially fits the definition of omnipresence.

Omniscience (IPA: /ɒm'nɪsɪəns/)[1] (or Omniscient Point-of-View in writing) is the capacity to know everything infinitely

This one is a little more harder to comment on. Though, the very thing that created everything essentially IS us. It is essentially the medium through which we, and everything else, are derived. Therefore, its capacity to know everything infinitely is bound within its very make up.

I just found it interesting that the idea of energy in science actually perfectly (to an extent) fits the definition of God. I'm not saying it's a God as in the guy in the clouds who watches us all day, but just simply, a powerful presence, a higher power in our Universe.

P.s: Kfunk, what do you plan to do with yourself after uni?

 

[ktinn]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster


Nuff said.

/thread.

 

[KFunk]

It reminds me of a book i read once by a guy called R. M. Pirsig. He said that any classical dillema affords not two but three classic refutations. Personifying the dilemma in the greek sense as a bull, 'he could take the left horn, or he could take the right horn or he could go between the horns for the eyes and deny that there are only two choices.' All possible worlds exist, theres a god for those who believe in him and no god for those who dont and energy for the people in between. But isn't the concept of 'god' one that relies on absolutism? I'm no philosopher, just confused. What did you mean to say?

Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance I assume? It's a fun book. I agree that a lot of dilemmas deserve to be challenged head on. A lot of philosophy consists of unasking bad questions (though too often some of the really hard, fundamental questions get brushed over).

Also, your god comment highlights one of the potential difficulties of a many-worlds approach. It brings to mind Alvin Plantinga's revised ontological argument for the existence of god. He uses modal logic along with the premise that god exists neccessarily, that is, if god exists at all. What he means here is that if god exists at one possible world, then god must then exist at all possible worlds (on account of the nature of god etc... along the lines of the 'absolutism' you made reference to). Therefore if god is so much as possible, then god exists across all worlds. How to assess this possibility is problematic of course.

 

[KFunk]

I believe there has always been something. It's hard to fathom, though. Mind blowing.

...

I just found it interesting that the idea of energy in science actually perfectly (to an extent) fits the definition of God. I'm not saying it's a God as in the guy in the clouds who watches us all day, but just simply, a powerful presence, a higher power in our Universe.

P.s: Kfunk, what do you plan to do with yourself after uni?

You seem to be going for a naturalistic pantheism, which is fair enough. I do wonder, though, whether we need to retain the label 'god' in this instance - versus universe/multiverse/reality/etc. Also, on omniscience, mightn't there be limitations on what can be known preventing god/reality from fully demonstrating omniscience? In particular, what if some facts about reality simply cannot be discovered through observations made by sentient beings?

Post-university plans: I'll probably try to enter training in either psychiatry or paediatrics (or both!?) in Australia or the USA. The unnatainable, unrealistic ideal at this point would be to score a clinical academic post (w/ a mix of research and clinical work) while somehow finding time to purse philosophy, music and interests in developing world health. I expect that time will not be on my side (Says the godhead: 'Time I am, the great destroyer of worlds').

 

[Dis Amrahs]

Garygaz, I'm kind of with you here. The very earliest attempts to reconcile with the fact that we cant control everything led to religions that were for the most part, animastic.. that energy manifests itself in matter and gives it vitality. Whether you call that energy 'god' or not, the constructs that are now conventional came afterwards - at least in my part of the world they did.

I was bought up in a hindu context and though i definatly wouldnt call myself or most my family 'hindu,' the term was originally a geographical denomination bought with the greeks. Some of the earliest scriptures, mainly the 'Upanishads,' dont refer to gods but to energy and wisdom through experience. In my understanding and experience, thats where alot of the strange, sexual, drug and experiential related inferences in early 'Hindu scripture' come from. There are different ways to try and expereince thought and emotion. In india's context, the status quo, (largely urban middle class) is so fucking conservative were stuck with (for the most part) a 'religion' based on idolotry and fearful reverence of god. India is has been stuck in the kind of reactionary conservatism, religious economic and cultural to an extent, that America was going through in the 50s.

Spending some time in Banares (AKA Varanasi, the oldest city and apparently the spiritual centre of india just south of Nepal) and in the Himalayas in Ladakh, i did feel part of something but all the insane smoking religious 'hindu' mystics up there really only worship energy. They are disciples of a 'god' called shiva, but to them hes not a god but a sage. They follow his way of life (Getting high and meditating to basically feel energy) as his disciples but dont worship him as such. At least the few that i met. The India that i'm constantly told about by my parents is not what i experienced up there with my cousin (who is doing a masters in Anthropology and researching the caste system) but my parents, while very liberal, are still from the conservative middle india crop. So are their moral and religious values conventionally modern 'hindu.' So basically i dont think 'God' exits but will kind of back Garygaz in the matter. Thats my 2 cents with a little context. To all you cynics, dont bite me.. i'm a fully functioning member of western society.. not a hippy


Yeh the book was Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. I originally bought it because i thought it was about motorcycles In two weeks i will be free from the shackles of the HSC, have you got any advice on reading?

 

[moll.]

Yeh the book was Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. I originally bought it because i thought it was about motorcycles In two weeks i will be free from the shackles of the HSC, have you got any advice on reading?

I'm nowhere near as wise and well-read as KFunk, but i recommend Basement Books in Railway Square (assuming you live in Sydney). They have shitloads of everything, and all of it is at like a minimum 50% discount off the RRP cos of scratches and ink stains etc. I finish this Wednesday and plan on going straight there, taking $200 and buying whatever look interesting. Although $200 might not cover it...

 

[Dis Amrahs]

Cheers moll. i'll check it out. I haven't read for leisure in ages.

 

[moll.]

Cheers moll. i'll check it out. I haven't read for leisure in ages.

I should probably add that if you're after a specific books, then Basement probably isn't the right store. It's more of an impulse-buy place. Unless the book you're after is published by Penguin Classics, because there's a whole section of them.

 

[xJoshxhc]

I gotta say, this whole thread was filled with a lotta hate, from both sides.. that is until the philosophers started. hate in this kinda discussion has, clouded judgement and clearness of argument, and probably caused everyone to close their minds and hold on to their preexisting beliefs, instead of encourage open mindedness, which was probably the aim of this thread.

Yea anyway well as a christian, my belief is that god exists and has a personal relationship with me, which i can't really describe to anyone who is seeking "mathematical proof", or is closed to any theistic view. But now that i have this relationship i have meaning to my life, but I all preconceived ideas about God and his nature have been removed. God is no longer, to me, a theistic religion based on rules and punishments, or about anything written in the Bible. I still read it but, i have a new perspective on it: to take from it what will benefit my life and relationship with this amazing God.

Talk of evidence and mathematical proof, and even some philosophy is pointless in encouraging others spirituality. the only thing that I have ever witnessed, that brings people to god, are displays of his love and grace, sometimes through people. Because the bible tells us that God is Love and i realise that Love is God, even though we dont always call it that.

 

[Dis Amrahs]

Well xJoshxhc, what i guess my question is to most theists, is that like you.. religion can be a spiritual affirmation of personal morals and an adherence to them. My 'aethist' view is... I dont believe a tangible manifestation of God prompted you in your religious values. I just reckon that it was your own desire to pursue a morally conscious path rather than 'God's spur.'

I guess im trying to see whether God exists as a figment of our conscience in which case im arguing against the notion of god as a 'sentient being' watching and guiding us. I guess this works with Kfunk's inference that God exists in all possible worlds. It also brings forth the question that can all possible worlds exist in our minds.

Does human spirituality transcends the notion of 'god'

basically, what necessitates the need of a 'God' to prompt our puruit of 'morals'?

Why must religion orbit God?