Does God exist? (16 Viewers)

[Salima]

i suggest you may wish to study ancient history then

obviously the ancient greeks had prophets because the word prophet is an ancient greek word. the most famous was the oracle at delphi. we have numerous accounts in ancient sources of leaders going to the oracle to find out whether they should partake a particular course of action, and numerous accounts of the oracle delivering prophecies of events which later turned out to be true.

Of course we had exaclty the same thing from the ancient romans.

The oracel of Delphi! That's no prpphet. Never in my readings was such a word used. the person...woman usually wasn't it!....saw into the future and gave good protents for battles nad such and told them when to sacrifice animals to their many gods. She was a futureteller, a weaver of mystery, a live horoscope if you may. Yes she may have predicted future events, adn gone the way she saw it. Came true I mean. I never believed one would have to be muslim or such to have such gifts. we all have a purpose, wehter it be to kill so it will casuse certainevents ot happen that will end up benifiting someone else in the world or what have you. But i nevre saw the spartan (all gay!) oracle of delphi as a prophet. Wasn't hte oracle like the dala lama, re-incarnated, a body withte h spirirt of a god like beign inside to do as she did!

 

[HotShot]

we dont talk about god and him being created because that is the thing we dont know the most.

as for who invented the term god, it may have been us, but we had to call him something right? and about us creating god, pagans created the gods which they worshipped, unlike the people of the book.

and about gods purpose, we need god, he doesnt need us. his power and bounties are everlasting and neverending. he could destroy us all and replace us with a more god fearing people, but maybe we are the group which has replaced the previous group because they werent as god fearing?

sasha, you beat me to it. i guess you can do most of our posting now

um, i could myself or anyone slese its isnt too difficult or i could even destroy the world does that mean i am god? i could create things, but we dont know if god created us, there is nothing that shows he has its a belief and not reality. we can believe in things that dont exist, but what is real will always be real.

 

[katie_tully]

I "loved" this thread, back in the day. Unfortunately I have neither the time, nor the inclination to debate it again. Until I become a uni student, then I'll have all the time in the world.

 

[Riqtay]

The simple arguments agianst the existence of God which states "I can't see it" or that a "creator requires a creator and thus the cycle continues indefinately" in my belief are very superficial.

For the first argument I would have to say that many things arn't evident to all of our sensory organs. Take hunger for example, you cannot see it but you can feel it. The same goes for God. No one has ever seen God, yet people can feel his presence as they believe that life has a greater purpose than just fulfilling our desires in this world. It may appear to be guised behing religious dogma, but ultimately it is pure logic.

For the second argument, people fail to acknowledge that God is in a dimension which is independant of this universe. People try to apply the laws of physics or causality to try to PROVE the existence of God. These people can never suceed in proving god through science as science only has answers to our universe but nothing external to it. Science cannot even answer some of our questions regarding the physical universe ( ie the graviton hasn't been proven to exist), let alone prove the existence of God.

 

[withoutaface]

The simple arguments agianst the existence of God which states "I can't see it" or that a "creator requires a creator and thus the cycle continues indefinately" in my belief are very superficial.

For the first argument I would have to say that many things arn't evident to all of our sensory organs. Take hunger for example, you cannot see it but you can feel it. The same goes for God. No one has ever seen God, yet people can feel his presence as they believe that life has a greater purpose than just fulfilling our desires in this world. It may appear to be guised behing religious dogma, but ultimately it is pure logic.

For the second argument, people fail to acknowledge that God is in a dimension which is independant of this universe. People try to apply the laws of physics or causality to try to PROVE the existence of God. These people can never suceed in proving god through science as science only has answers to our universe but nothing external to it. Science cannot even answer some of our questions regarding the physical universe ( ie the graviton hasn't been proven to exist), let alone prove the existence of God.

We can observe hunger through chemical impulses relying on sensors around the stomach.

Arguments relying on science's limited knowledge are bs, because who's to say we won't solve those mysteries in the future?

 

[Riqtay]

So are you saying that science will be able to prove the existence of God in the future?

 

[Riqtay]

Also you cannot 'see' hunger. You can feel it and hear it and to a certain extent taste but you cannot smell it. You cannot take a photograph of hunger.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

The simple arguments agianst the existence of God which states "I can't see it" or that a "creator requires a creator and thus the cycle continues indefinately" in my belief are very superficial.

For the first argument I would have to say that many things arn't evident to all of our sensory organs. Take hunger for example, you cannot see it but you can feel it. The same goes for God. No one has ever seen God, yet people can feel his presence as they believe that life has a greater purpose than just fulfilling our desires in this world. It may appear to be guised behing religious dogma, but ultimately it is pure logic.

That point was quashed previously, by me if I recall. You can measure hunger. Hunger is not some sort of invisible mysterious force, it is constituted by the state of chemicals in your brain and the state of your distestive system. Specifically, it is determined by the presence of a hormone called cholecytokinin (produced in the hypothalamus I believe). It gets released when food goes from your stomach into the small intestine. When you've eaten a meal, the cholecytokinin levels rise and you stop eating.

For the second argument, people fail to acknowledge that God is in a dimension which is independant of this universe. People try to apply the laws of physics or causality to try to PROVE the existence of God. These people can never suceed in proving god through science as science only has answers to our universe but nothing external to it. Science cannot even answer some of our questions regarding the physical universe ( ie the graviton hasn't been proven to exist), let alone prove the existence of God.

But that does not actually prove the existence of God, it only says "If this were the case, you could not prove that God exists or that God does not exist."

We do not know that a race of flying pink elephants live in an alternate universe that we cannot prove or measure. This does not mean that such beings exist, it only means that we cannot prove that beings living in such a place exist or prove that such beings do not exist.

 

[Riqtay]

You can obviously measure hunger. It is obvious that you have read many books on hunger and I believe you in that hunger can be measured. But you havn't provided any evidence of someone actually seeing hunger.

Hunger put simply cannot be seen. I am not disputing wheter hunger can be measured or not. You cannot take a photograph of hunger as I've said earlier. Hunger cannot be seen or smelt.

 

[Riqtay]

Also if you believe my argument doesn't prove the existence of God, then that is perfectly fine as it is your own opinion. Yet you cannot prove the non-existence of God.

 

[AntiHyper]

You cannot prove nothingness because it's just not there.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

You can obviously measure hunger. It is obvious that you have read many books on hunger and I believe you in that hunger can be measured. But you havn't provided any evidence of someone actually seeing hunger.

I do not need to. Material evidence comes in many forms, as well as logical inferences based on such evidence. You do not have to be able to see something directly using just your bare eyes to prove that it is there. So again, the analogy is not relevant.

(PS. I have not actually read books on hunger, though I did a psychobiology subject a few years ago.)

Hunger put simply cannot be seen. I am not disputing wheter hunger can be measured or not. You cannot take a photograph of hunger as I've said earlier. Hunger cannot be seen or smelt.

As I said, it does not matter that you cannot see it plainly with your eyes. You can prove that it exists using material evidence and logical inferences.

Also if you believe my argument doesn't prove the existence of God, then that is perfectly fine as it is your own opinion. Yet you cannot prove the non-existence of God.

I did not claim that God does not exist. I said that you cannot prove either way.

(Note that you can attempt to disprove certain conceptions of God, based on logic -- for example the argument that, should a God actually exist, it could not be all-good, all-powerful and all-knowing, since the reality of suffering on Earth would mean there is a contradiction.)

 

[veterandoggy]

buit the suffering on earth is a punishment for a sinning people, so that they may understand.

 

[Riqtay]

"You do not have to be able to see something directly using just your bare eyes to prove that it is there. So again, the analogy is not relevant".

"You can prove that it exists using material evidence and logical inferences".

Your views are consistent with my argument for the existence of God. You cannot see God, but logical inferences (ie a creation requires a creator) tell us that there is indeed a God. The concept of God is a being who is all powerful and thus his attributes are beyond our capacity to understand. If science could prove the existence of God, then God would attain the attributes of a physical object in our universe which would be contradictory to his supremacy.

Also as I have stated earlier that the arguments agianst this - ie if a creation requires the creator, then the creator too requires a creator and so on, are not relevant as God exists in a sphere which is independant of our universe. Science cannot prove the existence of God, along with many other things, because some things that require proof are beyond the grasp of humans.

 

[Riqtay]

Just because there is suffering on this Earth does not mean its because of God's incompetence or a lacking in his power. It simply means that there is an ulterior motive that God has, which is to test his creation to see if they go walk on the right path.

We humans have been given a brain to make decisions out of free will. But it is God's test ( ie poverty, disease) which will test the steadfastness of his creation.

 

[insert-username]

buit the suffering on earth is a punishment for a sinning people, so that they may understand.

Why then must all, and not just those who sin, suffer?


I_F

 

[veterandoggy]

Why then must all, and not just those who sin, suffer?


I_F

because they failed to spread the message properly to those who sinned so bad that they brought upon themselves the punishment

 

[Ilija]

Veterandoggy, so by your logic. You should be punished for me being an atheist, because you did not spread the message.

 

[veterandoggy]

Veterandoggy, so by your logic. You should be punished for me being an atheist, because you did not spread the message.

and you think i am not being punished?!?!?!

besides, i spread the message properly, but you chose not to hear it.

 

[insert-username]

because they failed to spread the message properly to those who sinned so bad that they brought upon themselves the punishment

That just sounds like a convenient excuse. Take people who don't listen to anyone else, who are only guided by their own morals, misguided or no. Let's say that these people sinned, and sinned greatly, enough to bring upon them great suffering. But no one in the world could give these people the message of God, since they don't listen. Thus everyone must suffer because of people who don't listen - no matter how hard they tried to spread the message "properly". I just can't see a God who so loves His people taking vengeance on all His people rather than just those who do wrong.

Taking it one step further, let's say God created these people who refuse to listen. Is he thus deliberately doing it to allow Him to make us all suffer?


I_F