Does God Exist? (1 Viewer)

[dark_angel]

I'm startled by your proof. It makes me reconsider my position entirely. When you put it like that, it makes me reflect in disgust on my previous dogma. If only I could have such insight.

dude what are u talking about, or more specifically who are u refering to?

 

[Pace Setter]

dude what are u talking about, or more specifically who are u refering to?

He was clearly referring to the einstein reincarnate who, through exhaustive research and evidence, had proven to one and all the impossibility of the existence of a god/creator.

 

[dark_angel]

It works both ways (i.e., a god may not exist, so you cannot say that it does exist). As I said, nobody can claim any sort of authority with the 'prove it' line.

perhaps, but there would be a breach in epistemology anyways.

hmmm so i think that may lead the arguement to work in both ways, but we cant really trust our senses.

hmmmmmmm i cant think of anything then, other than personal opinion.

but this is expected anyways, i have some evidence that god may exist, but like any other evidence, it was and will be refuted.

i dont think we can solve this issue, perhaps the only way to solve it is to beleive in god

but as i said before, it depends on each persons beliefs.

saying that, you must remember that science is not absolute, there epistemology will always get in the way.

 

[budj]

THe proof of the existence of a god lies pureley and simply on the nesecisty of humanity to define the causaloty for their actions. I think...therefore I am...

 

[Armani]

it was their time, as pre-ordained by god.

no mortal has any say in this

Yes, God pre-ordained that 60,000+ people should all die in one, sudden, swift flick of his wrist and many more from the perceived threat of cholera, malaria and other diseases. Now let us all close our eyes, bow our heads and say grace over a nice well cooked dinner and thank the almighty God the merciful for sparing our pitiful lives.

 

[Kierkegaard]

Guys, get over the Descartes bullshit. Ontological arguments wont fly in an intelligent crowd.
dark_angel, you're putting some whacked cleavage between analytic and synthetic truths. That's just plain wrong.

If God exists possibly, God exists necessarily, ergo God exists. That's the modal ontological argument without the steps of working. It's utter bullshit. If you don't accept the conclusion, you wont accept the premise. What results is a circular argument, that only serves in making me mad and a lot of well-informed atheists extremely angry. dark_angel, quit with the rationalism, it's not going to help your cause; it's a dead theory of epistemology.

 

[dark_angel]

Yes, God pre-ordained that 60,000+ people should all die in one, sudden, swift flick of his wrist and many more from the perceived threat of cholera, malaria and other diseases. Now let us all close our eyes, bow our heads and say grace over a nice well cooked dinner and thank the almighty God the merciful for sparing our pitiful lives.

exactly i'm so glad you understand!!!!

 

[dark_angel]

Guys, get over the Descartes bullshit. Ontological arguments wont fly in an intelligent crowd.
dark_angel, you're putting some whacked cleavage between analytic and synthetic truths. That's just plain wrong.

If God exists possibly, God exists necessarily, ergo God exists. That's the modal ontological argument without the steps of working. It's utter bullshit. If you don't accept the conclusion, you wont accept the premise. What results is a circular argument, that only serves in making me mad and a lot of well-informed atheists extremely angry. dark_angel, quit with the rationalism, it's not going to help your cause; it's a dead theory of epistemology.

thats not what i said, i did not say god exists necissarily, i just said that u cant say that he dosent exist.

perhaps this may be turned around also, but it is still valid, and hence a possibility.

i dont really give a shit about you or some atheist getting angry, because it will only make me happier. so i suggest you keep your cool and read my previous posts (way way back)

 

[acmilan]

I dont mind when people strongly defend their beliefs but when someone says "It's utter bullshit" thats crossing the line.

 

[katie_tully]

I watched this documentary today about Jesus. In it, they found a manuscript written by St Thomas, that wasnt included in the new testament, even though it was written just before/around the same time.
In it, it says that Jesus himself never proclaimed to be the messiah, and that he wasn't born to a virgin which leads Christian scholars to believe that this was all added later, in the 4th century AD.

 

[Rafy]

Waves of destruction wash away belief in God's benevolence



Compassion is the best response when humanity faces the problem of evil, writes Edward Spence.

"Why did you do this to us, God? What did we do to upset you?" asked a woman in India this week, a heart-wrenching question asked in common these past few days by Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and Christians. Nothing could have prepared us for what happened when the tsunami unleashed its terror. So we seek answers where answers are hard to come by, in either secular or sacred realms.

Traditionally, the Judeo-Christian God, considered the most supreme and perfect being in the universe, has been ascribed the following necessary attributes: omniscience (all-knowing), omnipresence (present everywhere at all times and at once), omnipotence (almighty and powerful) and benevolence (all good and caring).

How, then, did a God as powerful and benevolent as this allow such a thing to happen? If he is benevolent then he cannot also be omnipotent, for a God who has both these attributes would have wanted to, cared to and been able to prevent such a catastrophe.

Perhaps, though omnipotent, He is not benevolent. That might explain why, although it was within His power to stop the tsunami, He simply chose not to: God has His own reasons and we are not to ask why. However, this answer will not suffice since by definition God is perfect. Being perfect, He must of necessity not merely be omnipotent but benevolent as well.

A possible solution to this problem, traditionally known as the problem of evil, was offered by the heretical Manicheans, who believed not in one supreme being but two: one good God responsible for all the good things in life and another bad God, Satan, responsible for all the evil in the world.

St Augustine, a follower in his early 20s, became an ardent critic of this doctrine, thinking a weak God powerless to defeat Satan was not worth worshipping.

Philosophically, if God is perfect, then there can be only one perfect God, not two. In any case, evil is an imperfection and thus not a characteristic that can be attributed to God.

If the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune are at play and the deaths caused by the tsunami are a cosmic payback in the form of karma, does that offer a solution, albeit a philosophical one, to the problem of evil? I think not. For how can children, some as young as a few months, who had not yet lived their lives, deserve to be punished so cruelly for their past sins - especially when they have not been offered the promised divine opportunity to atone for those sins through another life?

Even if solutions are forthcoming to these philosophical conundrums, humanely speaking they make little sense. Perhaps that is why some people remain sceptical about the presence of any divine providence ruling over us.

A compromise solution, between secular scepticism and a psychological need for the sacred, was offered by the Greek philosopher Epicurus. Although believing in gods, he claimed these divine beings would not want to diminish their heavenly happiness by mingling in the sordid affairs of mortals. For Epicurus, the gods were not crazy but simply indifferent to both human joys and sorrows. When it comes to social or natural evils, we are all alone.

But if natural disasters are merely random events caused by the uncaring and blind forces of nature, does this offer us any comfort or meaning in the face of the apocalyptic events on Boxing Day?

Even if our heads offer us such solutions, our hearts refuse to follow. For the problem of evil is an existential problem that confronts our own individual mortality and vulnerability to unknown and unexpected disasters.

Ultimately, heartfelt tears shed in earnest and with compassion, with offerings of charity for those who have suffered, are more meaningful than any theological and philosophical treatise on the problem of evil. Especially at Christmas when, according to the gospels, love is the single core message.

Perhaps this is the essence, if the legend is true, of what God learnt from us when He walked and suffered as a man among us. Ultimately, the problem of evil confronts us not as a puzzle to be solved but as a mystery to be experienced. And as Jesus and Plato before him indicated, the meaning of the mystery of life can be found only by experiencing another great mystery - the mystery of love.

 

[acmilan]

I watched this documentary today about Jesus. In it, they found a manuscript written by St Thomas, that wasnt included in the new testament, even though it was written just before/around the same time.
In it, it says that Jesus himself never proclaimed to be the messiah, and that he wasn't born to a virgin which leads Christian scholars to believe that this was all added later, in the 4th century AD.

Ive read the Gospel of Thomas, which was discovered after the Bible was formed, and it doesnt say anything like that at all. In fact its sacred sayings that Jesus said and was recorded in the manuscript.

 

[katie_tully]

Ive read the Gospel of Thomas, which was discovered after the Bible was formed, and it doesnt say anything like that at all. In fact its sacred sayings that Jesus said and was recorded in the manuscript.

What they were infering from the script was that the concept that Jesus was the messiah came some time after his death, and that he never claimed to be the Messiah. Nor in St Thomas was there any documentation or recount of his supposed birth to a "virgin"

 

[acmilan]

Like most things, that comes down to interpretation. St Thomas' gospel is a little different to other gospels as it is not an actual recount of Jesus' life but rather just a list of some sayings that he said about God and Heaven

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Well, no. The whole point is that the issue of God does not matter, as the issue of God has no bearing on the world of phenomena: consciousness of being. As opposed to the noumena, which is entirely predetermined and beyond human control. All other acts create your essence (thus making them important), but thinking about God is utterly frivolous. I guess I can afford to be a little frivolous, so I'll entreat you and engage in some form of debate on the issue of God.

Thinking about God does indeed affect the way humans behave, and THAT is important. Lifestyles and ideologies that make up social norms and political goals will be influenced by what we believe about God. Likewise our neighbours will live out their lives according to their beliefs.

Additionally, some would argue that while the existence of God has no bearing on our world of phenomena (arguably), it may effect our existence beyond this world, in times to come.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Well it comes down to whether you would say the word "good" is either

a. relative to experience
b. a universal constant

A murderer who kills a million people has a reason. Perhaps those million people were the murderers of millions of his countrymen. Perhaps they burned down his home. Perhaps the leader of the million people were responsible for torturing him to unimaginable lengths. Either way, the murderer has a reason, and for him/her, relative to his/her experience, the death of the million people would have been "good." There are many other examples. A population of antelope will consider lions, their predators, as "not good." For their own sake, the only "good" thing that can happen is that they find a shelter in the desert where they are protected against lions. However, the good of the antelope directly conflicts with the lion, as the complete safety of antelope also leads to no food for the lions, and consequently, starvation.

A newspaper firm would find it "good" for plain paper to be cheaper, in order to increase the amount of capital within the company. That of course, is virtually impossible unless there is more paper available-i.e more trees are cut down-which isn't the best option for the animals within the forests and perhaps the health of the planet. So I would say the use of the word "good" is relative to experience, which is directly related to goals and ambition. The question I've raised is, how could any of these versions of "good" be the one that god has preferred, assuming that there is one.

This to me all comes down to the mistaken definition of god. If there is a god, then any human being's version of "good," any human's "plan," would exist after the existence of god's plan. The phrases "evil god," "arrogant god," "graceful god" are oxymorons. Again, the use of any of these phrases were only ever designed to be used to described entities that have been sensed or experienced. Apologies for the repetition, but would you agree with that last sentence?

You assert that good is relative to experience, ie. subjective. However there can be objective norms created from subjectivity, such as Kant's catergorical imperative or rule Utilitarianism. Good therefore can be defined under and objective light when looking at the overarching effect of all subjective definitions of good.

Taking this as an example, "thinking/arguing about god" requires looking at a monitor, touching your keyboard (and touching any of the rubbish that gets on there-which include germs, bacteria, water, etc) utilising/improving typing technique, as well as the the movement of at least a couple of million electrons around your head at an astonishing speed. How does that differ from washing your clothes?

Why, if "who cares, we live, we die," does the act of keeping your clothes clean matter, when the every action you've taken in the process of washing your clothes is vastly similar to having this discussion on god, barring a relative increase or decrease in the number of these actions that have been performed, and stimuli that have been encountered?

I would say that washing your clothes has little influence on the way you will live your life, your beliefs on God however will.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Atheism is a dogma initself. At the fundamental level, atheists are at odds with the gnosticism of theism, yet they themselves profess to hold this same gnosticism, but in a converse manner. It's utter hypocrisy. I would have you all recognise that it is necessary for any (non-omniscient) entity with free-will to be agnostic. To profess gnosticism is to deny having doubts, and to doubt is to think. An imperfect, rational being doubts.

Pace Setter, I refer you to Jean-Paul Sartre's 'Being and Nothingness'. I think you'll find that if you are willing to accept that your existence precedes your essence, you are willing to accept that this debate is unnecessary. Not pointless, just unnecessary.

Yes I would align myself with that. However, some considerations are to be noted: we draw many conclusions without 100% total understanding and think of them as truths. Every elephant in the world we've ever seen cannot fly. Yet can we be sure no elephants can fly? Can you really say that the possibility does not exist? You may be 99.999% sure but you will never be absolutely sure.

Yet through a very solid inductive reasoning process we make the inference that in fact elephants on Earth cannot fly. This may extend to Gods -- however I draw the line here because the possibility I see as far too large to draw any informed conclusion from.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

I'm startled by your proof. It makes me reconsider my position entirely. When you put it like that, it makes me reflect in disgust on my previous dogma. If only I could have such insight.

bahaha

I too seek Kleaver's profound wisdom

 

[budj]

Kierkergaard, i think Descartes was profoundly correct in his statement, "I think, therefore I am", which does entail the fact that a god exissts to the mind who beleives it does (ie a psychological mask created to dampen any consequentious effects), or it dosent, to those who can live without the comfort of an all knowing being...

But can a god exst and not exist at the same time? Perhaps a function of relativity then?

Anotherthing, Kierkergaard, u should get over yourself man, like Acmillan said, strongly beleiving a viewpoint is indeed worhy of respect, but draw the line at that.

 

[Kierkegaard]

How do you know that you think? It's an axiomatic statement, which is exactly what Descartes was trying to avoid--he failed.

Ok, I do apologise for being far too assertive in some previous posts. I'm in the wrong forums. I keep thinking that I'm in the philosophy forums. Sorry.