Does God exist? (2 Viewers)

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

Posing God answers far more questions which are un-answerable by us (at least through science). Origin of the universe, life etc.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absense unless:

1. We know fully what evidence we would expect to find and
2. We have thoroughly research those areas and found no such evidence.

1: This is impossible if I'm reading you correctly.
2: What does 'thoroughly researched' mean? I would say it means we've given our best effort and despite all of our attempts there is yet to be evidence. Kind of like how we've attempted to research the existence of magical fairies/leprechauns/dragons/bigfoot etc.

I don't feel that this is applicable to God.

Because you're trying very hard to carve out some special niche that just isn't there. There's no reason why we should accept the supernatural theory of universe creation and not the supernatural theory of earthquakes just because we have a natural explanation for earthquakes... if we still didn't have the natural explanation for earthquakes then it wouldn't be any more logical to posit a supernatural force did it.

Posing God answers far more questions which are un-answerable by us (at least through science).

Btw it really just creates far more unanswerable questions. The answers in science are given as temporal truths which are to be accepted if you accept the axioms/observations as true, why do I accept them as true? They appear to work quite well with reality as I know it. I don't see how "God did it" provides a better answer than saying "balahal" -- Saying "god did it" is just a response and answers nothing, unless you want to start to explain how God did it, then explain how you know this (coming up with something analogous to the scientific method i suppose) and having a firm foundation in strong axioms that we as humans almost MUST accept as true.... then maybe you'll start having some answers.

 

[BradCube]

brad, id like to know why you believe in christainity and no other god/religion. i may have asked before or you may have already said but id like to know moar. what do you base your decisions on and why?

Will try to get back to you 3unitz I've had it for tonight though. Cheers

 

[hiphophooray123]

wu tang is for the children.

 

[Slidey]

If I raised a point that said 1/2 of the worlds atheists follow what one atheist believes then does this mean that whatever that person says on a topic is authoritative or conveys truth? Not to mention the fact many of those atheists don't actively pursue their belief (or Catholics in the underlying example, that don't actively pursue Christianity).

In the framework of Catholics, what the pope says is true, yes (word of God and all). It's not really an appeal to authority because it's a basic concept of the religion. I don't expect this argument to apply to other denominations or religions, and thus never made any claim that it does.

Are you honestly claiming that what a court has ruled in one case, makes it an authoritative case on the whole issue? Again, I think you would hardly be putting forward this position if the shoe was on the other foot. I would also add that many people would regard the legal system as flawed and I find a hard time seeing how one case proves the validity of a whole topic.

I'd like you to please read my post properly. I said it was supporting evidence. 'Supporting' means not primary, back-up, secondary. There are many out there who dismiss the scientific method on illogical grounds. To such people often appeal to authority works where logic fails.

I find that the whole discussion in this regard is simply an appeal to authority

And? Did you have a point? There are many styles of argument and appealing to authority is a generally very well accepted and common style of persuasion in an argument. It doesn't nullify an argument nor make it less useful; that's entirely up to its logical truth.

You may have misunderstood my point here. I am not talking about about evolution - I am referring to the existance of everything in the universe and the universe itself. If you believe you have empirical proof that disproves the existance of God, then please bring it forward. I want to hear it

Oh? Why would you bring that up when you were moments ago talking about Intelligent Design? We've thoroughly discussed the inadequacy of religion being applied to a scientific framework before. Since we are talking about design, I'll get us back on topic with this, and you can discuss it instead (unless you feel there was some aspect of metaphysics we missed earlier?): Intelligent Design makes no testable predictions and gives no scientific explanations. Further, because a mutually exclusive scientific theory exists with tremendous explanatory power and empirical evidence, Intelligent Design has no place in a rational (not merely scientific) interpretation of the world.

 

[BradCube]

1: This is impossible if I'm reading you correctly.
2: What does 'thoroughly researched' mean? I would say it means we've given our best effort and despite all of our attempts there is yet to be evidence. Kind of like how we've attempted to research the existence of magical fairies/leprechauns/dragons/bigfoot etc.

1. Yes, impossible in relation to God (hence my point)
2. By thoroughly research I extend it beyond merely trying to look for some evidence. I am suggesting that you must have proved there is no evidence.

Because you're trying very hard to carve out some special niche that just isn't there. There's no reason why we should accept the supernatural theory of universe creation and not the supernatural theory of earthquakes just because we have a natural explanation for earthquakes... if we still didn't have the natural explanation for earthquakes then it wouldn't be any more logical to posit a supernatural force did it.

Well, firstly, if you don't feel this definition of what should be seen as evidence of absence is accurate, I would ask you to revise or state what reasoning you would use.

Secondly I think your point about past unknowns and attributions to God doesn't hold much weight when compared with science. I mean what your saying is that, people were wrong in the past about God, therefore they are also incorrect now. This doesn't follow. The same could be argued that scientific conclusions in the past have been wrong, and therefore are likely to be wrong at the moment. Both conclusions seem fallacious to me.

Btw it really just creates far more unanswerable questions. The answers in science are given as temporal truths which are to be accepted if you accept the axioms/observations as true, why do I accept them as true? They appear to work quite well with reality as I know it. I don't see how "God did it" provides a better answer than saying "balahal" -- Saying "god did it" is just a response and answers nothing, unless you want to start to explain how God did it, then explain how you know this (coming up with something analogous to the scientific method i suppose) and having a firm foundation in strong axioms that we as humans almost MUST accept as true.... then maybe you'll start having some answers.

Well, if you want to rename God as balahal, I guess that is all you are doing - I don't really see much of a problem with this. I suppose my issue lies in my an intelligent cause being seen as less plausible than something such as multiple universes or any other such untestable theories that are currently floating round today. I mean, people on BOS have reduced the improbability of life in the universe to the point that they no longer believe we are the only life. If that is a reasonable position to hold, why not life/intelligence outside of our universe?

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

1. Yes, impossible in relation to God (hence my point)

No it is impossible in relation to anything.

2. By thoroughly research I extend it beyond merely trying to look for some evidence. I am suggesting that you must have proved there is no evidence.

What? How is God any different to a fairy in this regard?

Well, firstly, if you don't feel this definition of what should be seen as evidence of absence is accurate, I would ask you to revise or state what reasoning you would use.

Evidence of absense should be whenever something has been considered and to date had no evidence. Of course this doesn't mean that it DOESN'T exist, it's quite possible we just have the evidence yet, but as far as our reality is concerned (our percieved reality only being made up of things which we know of) then we should take it to not exist.

To provide an analogy, it is my opinion that if in Britain in the 1500's you said "all swans are white" you would be logically sound, because based on the knowledge you have at hand (even after some exploratory research) it would appear that all swans ever encountered are white. Of course in the end this was untrue, but that doesn't make the statement at the time any more untrue for the person who never had the knowledge.

To say otherwise is merely to deny the non-existence of anything, which I don't think is true for our constructed reality.

Secondly I think your point about past unknowns and attributions to God doesn't hold much weight when compared with science. I mean what your saying is that, people were wrong in the past about God, therefore they are also incorrect now. This doesn't follow.

No, I'm not saying that just because people were wrong in the past they will be wrong in the future. My point is that even before we 'knew' they were wrong (when science provided the answer as to why an earthquake happens) they were already wrong in positing a creator.

Well, if you want to rename God as balahal, I guess that is all you are doing - I don't really see much of a problem with this.

My point is more that to say "God did it" is a response, or white noise, it isn't an actual answer. It's like me saying "Nature did it"... that's not really an answer. Science provides answers because we have an agreed upon framework of axioms which lead us to the conclusions (answers).

 

[BradCube]

In the framework of Catholics, what the pope says is true, yes (word of God and all). It's not really an appeal to authority because it's a basic concept of the religion.

The pope is the word of God? The pope is a basic concept of Christianity? Both of these are news to me

I don't expect this argument to apply to other denominations or religions, and thus never made any claim that it does.

Okay now I hope I'm not sounding to harsh at the moment, but you originally applied what you believed about the popes statement regarding ID to all of Christianity, but now you are only applying it Catholics. Does this represent a change in thought on your behalf?

I'd like you to please read my post properly. I said it was supporting evidence. 'Supporting' means not primary, back-up, secondary. There are many out there who dismiss the scientific method on illogical grounds. To such people often appeal to authority works where logic fails.


And? Did you have a point? There are many styles of argument and appealing to authority is a generally very well accepted and common style of persuasion in an argument. It doesn't nullify an argument nor make it less useful; that's entirely up to its logical truth.

My point was that an appeal to authority is logically fallacious - if it is the only proof you have for such a belief. If it was only supportive (as you now claim it was) then there is no problem. I however, though you were originally suggesting that all of ID is dismissible based on comments from the pope and one court ruling.

Oh? Why would you bring that up when you were moments ago talking about Intelligent Design? We've thoroughly discussed the inadequacy of religion being applied to a scientific framework before. Since we are talking about design, I'll get us back on topic with this, and you can discuss it instead (unless you feel there was some aspect of metaphysics we missed earlier?): Intelligent Design makes no testable predictions and gives no scientific explanations. Further, because a mutually exclusive scientific theory exists with tremendous explanatory power and empirical evidence, Intelligent Design has no place in a rational (not merely scientific) interpretation of the world.

I am still talking about intelligent design - but it relation to the whole universe not just life within it. It seems I don't find ID and science in a much of a mutually exclusive state as you seem to. For me ID is simply another hypotheses such as multiple universes. It should be using scientific testing to try and verify many of the claims and coming up with more questions in the process.

 

[Slidey]

Dear god you are mind-numbingly stupid. You can't even read. I give up.

 

[BradCube]

No it is impossible in relation to anything.

I don't follow. Your telling me if we were sitting in a room and I told you that there was an elephant in the room with us, you wouldn't know what evidence of that elephant to expect?

What? How is God any different to a fairy in this regard?

I think we have been through this, but I will state it again. The reason I pose Gods existance is because I see reason for doing so. I don't see such reason in posing fairies existance (and no, not even for how "mystical" love is as you suggested before ).

Evidence of absense should be whenever something has been considered and to date had no evidence. Of course this doesn't mean that it DOESN'T exist, it's quite possible we just have the evidence yet, but as far as our reality is concerned (our percieved reality only being made up of things which we know of) then we should take it to not exist.

Well then your definition of evidence depends on the length for which something is considered! If I were to suggest that I have no hair but give this no time for consideration, am I therefore justified in thinking that I have positive evidence for the non-existance of my hair? Of course not!

To provide an analogy, it is my opinion that if in Britain in the 1500's you said "all swans are white" you would be logically sound, because based on the knowledge you have at hand (even after some exploratory research) it would appear that all swans ever encountered are white. Of course in the end this was untrue, but that doesn't make the statement at the time any more untrue for the person who never had the knowledge.

Again, I'm not sure that I follow here. It's not untrue/false for a person to believe that only white swans exist? Even if that is the only evidence they have it still has no bearing on the truthfulness of the statement they are making. Whether the statement is true or false is external to their own misguided opinion. It would be illogical for a person to say, I have only seen white swans, therefore only white swans exist.

No, I'm not saying that just because people were wrong in the past they will be wrong in the future. My point is that even before we 'knew' they were wrong (when science provided the answer as to why an earthquake happens) they were already wrong in positing a creator.

So why bring the point up if it wasn't a jab at the thought of proposing God as an explanation?

My point is more that to say "God did it" is a response, or white noise, it isn't an actual answer. It's like me saying "Nature did it"... that's not really an answer. Science provides answers because we have an agreed upon framework of axioms which lead us to the conclusions (answers).

It's not an answer that goes into fine details of how something happened, no. I agree with you there. It's an answer that suggests an original cause (much like multiple universes) and not the steps in between - that's where the science comes in

 

[BradCube]

Dear god you are mind-numbingly stupid. You can't even read. I give up.

Yeah, that hurts. I apologize if I sound like I am "mind-numbingly stupid". I can only process what you have said with the brain I have

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

Well then your definition of evidence depends on the length for which something is considered! If I were to suggest that I have no hair but give this no time for consideration, am I therefore justified in thinking that I have positive evidence for the non-existance of my hair? Of course not!

Yes... until you have considered it further and found that there is evidence of your hair then you would be justified in believing that you have no hair. Of course people should never rest on the back of 'established' truths, they are never established, only true based on what we know so far.

Again, I'm not sure that I follow here. It's not untrue/false for a person to believe that only white swans exist? Even if that is the only evidence they have it still has no bearing on the truthfulness of the statement they are making.

It has no bearing on objective truth, but then again we have no way of knowing objective reality, therefore we're stuck with a constructed reality based on our knowledge/observations etc.

So why bring the point up if it wasn't a jab at the thought of proposing God as an explanation?

It's still a jab, the jab is just not that because it was wrong in the past it'll be wrong again in the future, more that the reason it was wrong in the past had nothing to do with the fact that it turned out to be wrong in the future.

It's not an answer that goes into fine details of how something happened, no. I agree with you there. It's an answer that suggests an original cause (much like multiple universes) and not the steps in between.

No it's not an answer in any sense because it does not have an accepted framework which leads to that conclusion... unlike with scientific theories where operating inside the accepted framework we are led to believe X=Y.

It's just a 'conclusion' with no framework to lead to it.

 

[Steppenwolf]

to think this wonderful world came from two rocks clashing is insulting.
if thats what truly happened then im peter pan

 

[tommykins]

to think this wonderful world came from two rocks clashing is insulting.
if thats what truly happened then im peter pan

That argument won me over. "Oh my god the human race is so awesome we must've been created".

Get over yourself, we are no different from cows or any other animal, if anything - we damage the planet more than these animals do.

 

[Kwayera]

to think this wonderful world came from two rocks clashing is insulting.
if thats what truly happened then im peter pan

Well, good, because.. it didn't.

 

[Slidey]

Yeah, that hurts. I apologize if I sound like I am "mind-numbingly stupid". I can only process what you have said with the brain I have

I over-reacted. Sorry. It seems there is a fundamental difference in the way we perceive the world, however. I seek the truth; you seek the truth as long as it doesn't conflict with your quest for the divine. I will leave it at that.

 

[Shoubadoo]

i have a Question i wanted to ask.

Why Does God Want Us To Worship Him?

ok so you believe that he exists, and that he created us in someway or another. But why would he "test" our faith or make us go to church and pray.

God doesn't.
At least, not the god I have discovered.
What made you think that god wants us to worship him/her?
: It was either the bible or the church, i.e. the PEOPLE.
You know how God says in the bible 'I have made you in my image'?
Well I think humans have made god in their image.
"A religious war is like children fighting over who has the strongest imaginary friend"



Look up Conversations with God by Neale Donald Walsh.
Yes, it's one of those books in which god talks to a man (Neale) who friveously writes everything down. When I first heard of it I didn't want to go near it. We've had plenty of those books come out.
But what I read astounded me. It's everything you'd want to hear from God.

"You don't need to worship me. You don't need to acknowledge I exist. If I have given you free will, why would I send you to hell if you choose not to believe in me? Whatever works for you, works for me." But God goes on into such detail about so many things we ask, and everything just makes sense!

I highly recommend buying the books, starting with Conversations with God Book 1. There's also CWG for teens.

(I grew up in a Christian household, and don't get me wrong, I love the lovingness in God in Christianity. But why would God send someone to hell? It doesn't make sense. God is love. I love praise and worship at church because music is what connects me to god. But I no longer agree with some of the churches values).

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

I have always believed in God, just not the certain characteristics we have given him. Love is the strongest feeling I get when I feel God.
Thanks for reading my little God opinions ^_^

 

[KFunk]

I think I actually pretty much agree with everything you have said here. My last point of resolve lies in the fact that we both recognize that individuals have the capability of making either choice when presented with a decision. Now whilst I recognize that they may be prone to choosing one choice over another we enter a tricky territory when we started interweaving morality in with the decision making process.

We have situations where we know what we "should" do but instead choose otherwise. So in this way, despite the individual recognizing what they believe is the right or most correct choice, they still choose to do otherwise.

I think our original point in bringing up free will (way back) was in discussion of how you don't believe in objective morality since we don't have free will? I would suggest that our inner consciousness and sense of morality is reason to think that free will does exist - since we can freely choose other than what we believe we should be choosing. Hope that makes sense enough - seems we may be at a dead end in our beliefs?

What you've said still doesn't show that more than one choice is possible. That we don't always act in accordance with our values doesn't entail that multiple chocies are always available at those points where we deviate.

Also, it is not our lack of free will which prevents me from believing in objective morality. The sort of argument that I endorse is more along the lines of what Richard Joyce provides in The Myth of Morality.

Interestingly enough I would probably throw preference in film genre and attractive individuals into the meaningless discussion basket too. The reason we find music, artwork or literature worthwhile for discussion is because we believe that they hold some value and meaningfulness. Discussing preferences in morality when you ultimate regard that morality as having no real meaning still appears to be meaning less to me.

But music, visual art and literature are valuable and meaningful. It is just that that they are only valuable/meaningful in a relative/subjective sense. I don't see why this makes the entire discourse meaningless. Suppose that two individuals see immense beauty in different artists and try to convey their subjective meanings (that they attach to each respective artwork) to one another. I don't understand how you deem all this meaningless. Also, it can be objectively true that "individual X values Y". At the least there is no reason to throw meta-discourse out the window. Human existence is rife with subjectivity (which breeds relativity) - we experience the world from a first person view! To reject all discourse which deals with the relative seems also to reject all discussion of the human condition.

The importance of conflict resolution implies that conflict resolution has some value and meaning. I think you would find that this leads back to a case of what you believe is "right" and "wrong". The same goes for the claim that understanding is valuable.

Now certainly, I actually do believe that conflict resolution and understanding are very worth while - but this comes from someone talking with a belief in objective morality.

We have debated about a lot of things, but I really disagree with this - almost to the point where I have trouble trying to understand what you are saying. I can't see any reason why objective morality is necessary for conflict and conflict resolution. I never said conflict resolution is morally valuable. Simply that, in practical terms, it is useful. I simply don't understand why objective morality is necessary for all this...

 

[*yooneek*]

But why would God send someone to hell? It doesn't make sense. God is love.

What doesn't make sense is that God would save someone from hell.

Think about it: if everything about God as written in the Bible is true re. His perfect character, and our sin/active rebellion against Him... why would it make any sense to spend eternity with Him, when on Earth we despise Him, hate Him, ignore Him and want absolutely nothing to do with Him?

Seriously, someone going to hell is someone getting what they wanted: being eternally separated from the God they didn't want to know.

What amazes me is that He would send Jesus to make salvation from Hell possible. That is what makes God 'love' (as you said). God sending people to Hell is what makes Him just.

 

[HalcyonSky]

Would the 2 females please stop polluting this thread with garbage. Thanks.

 

[Shoubadoo]

What doesn't make sense is that God would save someone from hell.

Think about it: if everything about God as written in the Bible is true re. His perfect character, and our sin/active rebellion against Him... why would it make any sense to spend eternity with Him, when on Earth we despise Him, hate Him, ignore Him and want absolutely nothing to do with Him?

Seriously, someone going to hell is someone getting what they wanted: being eternally separated from the God they didn't want to know.

What amazes me is that He would send Jesus to make salvation from Hell possible. That is what makes God 'love' (as you said). God sending people to Hell is what makes Him just.

I see where you're coming from- I used to believe this, to. And I'm still figuring things out for myself. But "someone going to hell is someone getting what they wanted: being eternally seperated from god" doesn't make sense to me if the person doesn't believe in god in the first place- they wouldn't want to be seperated from god because they don't even believe in God.

A friend of mine who is in training to become a pastor said she views Jesus' death as defeating hell- he, according to the Word, went to hell to defeat Satan, so in doing so we do not have to go to hell anymore. He has ridden us of our sins.

And why would god allow us someone to be created, if he knew they would end up in eternal hell. If I was god, I would hate to watch them live their life if I knew that would occur.

If god is love, how could he bare one of his children being in hell for all eternity, just because with their free will, they denied his existence?
God's mind to me, isn't as small and judgmental like that, like us human beings. It's accepting- which is love.

I'll shut up now