Does God exist? (13 Viewers)

[Iron]

It is a philosophy Iron- and the nature of philosophy is that it needs to be critically analysed. What critic would I be if I brought sympathy and hence bias into the mix.

Also, thank you, it is very much just a book. With a mixed message of love, hate and superstition. These messages have been written down since humanity's inception. Since the only primary message you want to emphasise is love; I'm arguing that there are greater books out there then the Bible with this message and don't see what is at all special about it.

Idc m8. Youre only listing the failures and fractious problems encountered by any common Prot who has the arrogance to believe that they themselves can interpret the Word without any guidance but their own

 

[Riet]

Belief that there must be a god because such things are so complex is but ego on behalf of hummanity.

 

[Cookie182]

Idc m8. Youre only listing the failures and fractious problems encountered by any common Prot who has the arrogance to believe that they themselves can interpret the Word without any guidance but their own

Oh true, I prefer Catholics over Prot's (I am Catholic afterall)

But dude, you know I just argue for fun. But its true- you can believe in God until your blue in the face, but the Bible is a crappy, crappy source for this purpose.

And seriously, when you look into arguments from non-cognitivism, the argument I just posted, several teleogical arguments, the framework for materialistic apologetics etc etc any theist is just blown out of the water and I've never met a common theist who can even comprehend the philosophical depths of these arguments, let alone respond.

That's before getting into the specific of Christianity, the Biblical contradictions, the self-refuting nature of Choice, an atheistic + apathetic God paradox, arguments on the legitimacy of Christ, the problem of evil, ....

combine that with no viable evidence and the remarkable evidence science has found so far in support of neo-darwinian theory, modern geological views on Earth's history + Big Bang, there really is not much support for believing in God. IMO the only viable option is to call "God" our higher consciousness, these propositions I'm interested in.

 

[Iron]

Belief that there must be a god because such things are so complex is but ego on behalf of hummanity.

Lol I like this, but belief shouldnt be any retreat - on the contrary! It gives you something that you didnt have before and bestows ethical development, good works and love with a new kind of urgency which was never there before. The true believer takes up a new resolve to understand the world and discover more fully scientific truth for the good of the world and all humanity.

Faith is the ultimate sustenance

 

[Iron]

Oh true, I prefer Catholics over Prot's (I am Catholic afterall)

But dude, you know I just argue for fun. But its true- you can believe in God until your blue in the face, but the Bible is a crappy, crappy source for this purpose.

And seriously, when you look into arguments from non-cognitivism, the argument I just posted, several teleogical arguments, the framework for materialistic apologetics etc etc any theist is just blown out of the water and I've never met a common theist who can even comprehend the philosophical depths of these arguments, let alone respond.

That's before getting into the specific of Christianity, the Biblical contradictions, the self-refuting nature of Choice, an atheistic + apathetic God paradox, arguments on the legitimacy of Christ, the problem of evil, ....

combine that with no viable evidence and the remarkable evidence science has found so far in support of neo-darwinian theory, modern geological views on Earth's history + Big Bang, there really is not much support for believing in God. IMO the only viable option is to call "God" our higher consciousness, these propositions I'm interested in.

Good luck to you. But as a Catholic, youd know that we match the word with Church authority and tradition. If youre just going to make the same irrelevant criticisms that I constantly deal with about 'scientific evidence', good day.

 

[Aquawhite]

It's far too subjective to really get into it.

And WOWZA at all the friggin spam on this page.

 

[Cookie182]

Good luck to you. But as a Catholic, youd know that we match the word with Church authority and tradition. If youre just going to make the same irrelevant criticisms that I constantly deal with about 'scientific evidence', good day.

Google each of those arguments, most of them are actually rational discourse concerning the very logical (or illogical nature of theology). Arguments from scientific evidence are not conclusive enough to support atheism, they only help to add weight. The true killers to any kind of theistic doctrine is approaching it from a framework of non-cognitivism and materalistic apologetics. See Geroge Smiths "The Case Against God" a great starter IMO for your road to truth.

 

[Garygaz]

Fuck. I don't see why people try to say that the big bang theory and modern science help disprove god. We are using logic and science to try and determine the existence of an entity which apparently is infinitely intelligent and powerful, can no one see the massive logic fail in that? It's like an insect trying to understand how the human race works. It's complete arrogance to believe that 'oh lol science pwnt god'.

Though, in saying this, you can't say that there is any undeniable proof that a god exists. The human brain cannot determine the existence of an infinitely intelligent/powerful being.

 

[Omie Jay]

angels and demons - dan brown.

good read.

 

[moll.]

Fuck. I don't see why people try to say that the big bang theory and modern science help disprove god. We are using logic and science to try and determine the existence of an entity which apparently is infinitely intelligent and powerful, can no one see the massive logic fail in that? It's like an insect trying to understand how the human race works. It's complete arrogance to believe that 'oh lol science pwnt god'.

Though, in saying this, you can't say that there is any undeniable proof that a god exists. The human brain cannot determine the existence of an infinitely intelligent/powerful being.

Few atheists would dare have the gall to say that modern science and philosophy have definatively disproved the existence of God. You're right in saying that it really hasn't.
That said, however, most atheists, agnostics and even a few theists do believe that modern science, technology and philosophy have indeed demolished the shroud of details which obscures that omnipotent figure in the middle. That is, they believe that the organised religions have been largely discredited by the age of science.

 

[SylviaB]

Fuck. I don't see why people try to say that the big bang theory and modern science help disprove god.

They obviously HELP disprove god's existence, by demonstrating that god is pretty much redundant, or at the least grossly incompetent.

 

[Riet]

Fuck. I don't see why people try to say that the big bang theory and modern science help disprove god. We are using logic and science to try and determine the existence of an entity which apparently is infinitely intelligent and powerful, can no one see the massive logic fail in that? It's like an insect trying to understand how the human race works. It's complete arrogance to believe that 'oh lol science pwnt god'.

Though, in saying this, you can't say that there is any undeniable proof that a god exists. The human brain cannot determine the existence of an infinitely intelligent/powerful being.

An omnipotent and omniscient leads to the contradiction of religion being redundant anyway, since god already knows what we will do.

 

[Aquawhite]

An omnipotent and omniscient leads to the contradiction of religion being redundant anyway, since god already knows what we will do.

God is Santa.

 

[Cookie182]

An omnipotent and omniscient leads to the contradiction of religion being redundant anyway, since god already knows what we will do.

Furthermore, both these qualities are mutually exclusive.

Any absolute knowledge of the future is at odds with free will, even God's own free will (as everything is predestined).

Take for example:

1) God is omniscient. He knows that he will do X.

2) God is omnipotent. He can do both X and not X.

3) Therefore, God could do "not X".

4) His omniscience implied that he was doing X.

5) His omniscience was incorrect.

6) He is not omniscient.

Also, being omnipotent, God by definition has no limits. Without limits, needs do not arise. In this case, with infinite knowledge and no limits, this would transgress naturally to infinite apathy. There would be no motivating factor to create the universe, man etc never lone listen to individual prayers, have a son...

Motivation arises under the framework of needs (emotional, physical, intellectual etc) due to limits we have (the economic problem stems from this). Infinite sources of emotions would exist within God- everything ever-containing already holds for eternity, therefore with ultimate apathy, creation would not occur. This is revered as the Apathetic God Paradox. The more you try and define God, give him qualities, the quicker you explain him away yourselves.

 

[Riet]

There's some bullshit claim though that "god chooses not to know the outcome of certain choices so as to preserve free-will", but to determine which choices in life he would have to ignore he has to know what they will lead to.

 

[Cookie182]

There's some bullshit claim though that "god chooses not to know the outcome of certain choices so as to preserve free-will", but to determine which choices in life he would have to ignore he has to know what they will lead to.

Yea I have heard that weak rebuttal and you just effectively destroyed it.

There's no escaping. If your a theist and you attempt to give God qualities, your gonna screw up in the logic department, very quickly...

 

[Riet]

Any god that man knows of shall surely be as flawed as he who has desrcibed him.

 

[Garygaz]

They obviously HELP disprove god's existence, by demonstrating that god is pretty much redundant, or at the least grossly incompetent.

?

So you're saying the human races' petty intelligence in comparison to what potentially is the most powerful thing that ever will exist, stating certain theories about how they think the universe was created disproves this entity?

 

[Riet]

if its so powerful how come it has never done anything in the entire universes history, ever?

 

[Cookie182]

?

So you're saying the human races' petty intelligence in comparison to what potentially is the most powerful thing that ever will exist, stating certain theories about how they think the universe was created disproves this entity?

Offer up an opinion to the contrary