Does God exist? (2 Viewers)

[Lundy]

Salima - you're quite apparently blind to any reason whatsoever, so it's probably best to leave the thread and preach your mystical ramblings elsewhere. Or at least learn to type properly.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Settle down people :burn:

When I see Generator's deleted messages with the note "pointless" on them, that is a good indication that the quality of the thread has sunk to people failing to listen to each other. Saying the same thing over and over will not advance the discussion unless we attempt to deal (politely) with each other's views.

You will simply make yourself more and more worked up if you are closed to other people's perspectives. This doesn't mean accepting their views, it means trying to reply (courteously) to the points that are made.

Salima: Please try to post calmly and clearly; using giant red capital letters does not get your point across any more coherently. We are open to what you have to say, but jumping up and down and getting angry inhibits fruitful debate.

ur_inner_child: To my mind you are usually controlled and I wouldn't want you to burst simply because of Salima's comments. If you are getting really frustrated by what she is saying, maybe it is best to just ignore it and focus on arguments that you find worth dealing with.

 

[davin]

The Qur'an on Clouds:​

After speaking about rain and hail and lighting:
"...And he sends down hail from mountains (clouds) in the sky, and He strikes with it whomever He wills, and turns it from whomever He wills. The vivid flash of its lightning nearly blinds the sight." (Qur'an, 24:43)
Meterologists have found that these cumukonimbus clouds that shower hial, reach a height of 25,000 to 30,000ft like mountains, as the Qur'an said:"...And He sends down hail form mountains in the sky..."

This verse may raise the question. Why does it say "its lightning" in a reference to hail? Doe this mean that hail is the major factor in producing lightning? Let us see what the book entilted Meterology Today says about this. It says that a cloud becomes electrified as ahil falls through a region in the cloud of supercooled droplets adn ice crystals. As liquid droplets collide with hailstone, they freeze on contact and release latent heat. This keeps the surface of the hailstone warmer than that of the currounding ice craystals. When the hialstone comes in contact with ice crystal, an important phemomenon occurs: electrons flow fromt he cooler object toward the armer object. Hence, the hailstone becoems negatively charged. The smae effect occurs when supercooled droplets come in contact with a hailstone and tiny splinters of positively chraged ice breaks off. These lighter positvely chraged particles are then carried to the upper part of the cloud by updrafts. The hail, left with a negative charge, falls towards the bottom of the cloud, thus the loer part of the cloud becomes negatively charged. The negative charges are then discharged as lighting. We conlcude from this that hail is the major factor in producing lightning.

This information on lightning was discovered recently. Until 1600AD, Aristotle's ideas on meterology were dominant. For example, he siad that the stmosphere contains two kinds of exhalation, dry and moist. He also said that thunder is the sound of the collusion on the dry exhalation wht the neighbouring clouds, and lightning is the inflaming and burning of the dry exhalation with a thin and faint fire. These are some of the ideas on meterology that were dominant at the time of the Qur'an's revelation, fourteen centuries ago.

So this is why the lighting in the surah above says "its lightning": beucase hail si a major cause of ligtning, contray to aristole's ideas, which you have so recelty claimed ot be great, and which the qur'an, you say, stole its ideas from.

thats only a partial explanation of lighting, and that a vague statement of similarities to the actual theory doesn't mean that its fully accurate. Where, for example, does it talk about electric chrage? or that ash and smoke can have the same effect? Or differentiate between hail and ice crystals. I've seen plenty of thunderstorms that had rain, but no hail.

the logic to take small bits of a larger work, interpret them to fit, and then claim accuracy for the entire body is a logical fallacy that has been repeated in everything from religious writings, to Nostradomus, to song lyrics like the Beatles.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

In my personal capacity, I will now reply to Salima's post.

Firstly, your points on scientific accuracy have been addressed on the first page of this thread.

Secondly, you consistently use the term "logic", when in fact you have no training or understanding of logic. I find that a bit annoying, considering you imply that others are not using "logic" (when people such as myself, who are arguing against a great number of your perspectives, have a far greater awareness of the discipline). It is indirectly and ironically insulting. If I have not made something clear I am happy to explain it to you.

You say this? ANd I suppose ths is logical? I think not! You only say this because turth hurts.

In order to argue you have to back up claims like this with justifications. Please give a reason why something is not logical, do not merely say it is not.

And I'm sure you'll say some crap that you say is logical and say it's not true, blah blah blah, heard it all before.

If you've heard it before, then perhaps you can give a reply to some of the criticisms of your arguments?

This is why I don't want ot post here anymore, beucase you won't try to understand, (you only say soemthign stupid when I tyr to make you sunderstand why msulims do such things or why they believe this and that as you ask questions, you cannot just ignore the answers given becuase they are answers to your questions. You can't ignore what is given to you just a you cannot ignore a deadly allergy one may have) what I haev given, and only want to say what you think and nothign else, adn you are right no matter what happens, even if god told you himself!

I am really unsure of what you mean here - if you could perhaps restate that in a clearer fashion. Thanks.

All the crap you've said here only proves all my points. NAd I did mean push not prove, and when you say christians actually believe in god bit did you even know what you were refuting? No I was sayignot push someone into religion, like evangelical poeple, that you must convert everyone even against thier will. Muslims don't do this and muslims believe in god don't be insulting sutpid to yourself moreso than to me or opthers.

From what I understand, you make the point here that Muslims do not try to force their religion on to others. Your point is taken, I do not know about that issue. It is not really relevant to the discussion about whether God exists though.

You see your ignorance and by the way you're speaking here utterly proves all my points, and by the looks of things you'll nenver be open to god.

You are entitled to make such speculations, but I have already informed you that my position is not atheism.

You cannot say you'll never know if god exists. The rpoof is here.

Kindly inform me of what proof that may be. I am entirely open to hearing about it.

I know philosophy I didi a short course already. Logic and religion, science and religion all go in one.

Did you do a course in reason? If so, you should be aware of fallacies and deductive reasoning, yes? Those are very basic elements of informal logic.

You think faith is utterly blind and stupid it is not.

What I said was that faith is belief without evidence. It is rational to base one's beliefs on reason and evidence. It is irrational to believe certain claims that are extremely controversial and unfounded without evidence and reason.

First you relise there is soemthing else and then you find the proof, al qur'an.

1. Please explain what you mean by "realise that there is something else."

2. You cannot use a religious text to prove the existence of God. That point was addressed here.

Youc an go by feelings. Feelings have so often told me about things that I would not otherwise know. You cannot say felings are stupid in determining what is out there. I haven't seenany valid counter-arguements. Because all you say is false, the style of the kufr

Feelings do not indicate what is true. Truth is discovered through applications of reason. You claim that feelings have told you things that you would not have known. Please give an example, as I am sure that you are mistaken.

I do not need ot explain myself to you any furhter kufr. You will never understand.

If I do not understand, it is your failure to articulate a coherent perspective, I assure you. It is certainly not any lack of capacity on my part.

What you say about being agnostic is atheism. You cannot say your open and not be closed off.

That is actually incorrect.

Atheism = I believe that God does not exist.
Agnosticism = I do not think that it is possible to know whether God exists or not.

There is clearly a difference. Atheists deny that God exists, agnostics do not make the call either way.

You say you see possibilities, but how can you see them if there will enver be any proof to you of such a thing being?

Because it may not be provable. Even if such beliefs were true we may not be able to ever have knowledge that they were true.

You will never therefore, if htere is a way to worship a god or gods, worhsip them and reach heaven, you're forelorn.

Firstly, you clearly come from a very specific understanding about God. That is the way you were raised or the way you have learnt from your religious text, I understand that. However, there is nothing to prove that Gods want to be worshipped. There is nothing to prove that there is no afterlife. God may exist, but it may be absolutely nothing as you picture it to be.

Secondly, if there is no evidence of such a God existing, then no, I will not know about it.

Thirdly, this does not mean that I will be "forlorn". I am quite content with my life, thank you.

So therefore, beucase of your idiocy to even understnad, i will no longer post here.

Please refrain from insulting me and others. I assure you I have the capacity to understand. If your argument was so persuasive, you would be able to deal with all the counter-arguments that have been raised against you. In fact, you have failed to address them.

I mean like i keep saying i want you to understand why msulims would believe and act the way they do within their religion, but you won't even do that, now that's truely stupid and illogical if you are talking about the mind and logic.

Again, cease with the insults; it adds nothing to your argument (and it just makes you look silly anyway).

I knew all along there was soemhting else. For I could sense things and I have seen thigns not of human kind. So I knew there was somehting esle. I had freakishly seen the future before and predicted htings, even the other day it happened to me. So I knew there was something bigger than us, than the idea of aliens. The proof for me is in the qur'an, logically and sicentifically proven.

Once again, you cannot use a religious text to prove the existence of God. That point was addressed here.

I think it to not see htis, that there is something else and that they wouldn't give us proof is stupid. The signs are everyhwere! To not see the possibility would be hell for me, would be depressing.

Some people choose the more preferable belief not because it is more likely to hold true, but because it is more comforting. Judging by that remark, I have the feeling that is what you are doing.

To think it is only here and now and nothing else, rediculous! You may be against organised religion, but it doesn't mean you should refuse ot understand why people choose to be part of one, and why peeople within the religion belive what they believe in and act the way they do due to thier religious texts.

I do attempt to understand it. If I did not attempt, I would not be having this discussion right now.

 

[SashatheMan]

"...And he sends down hail from mountains (clouds) in the sky, and He strikes with it whomever He wills, and turns it from whomever He wills. The vivid flash of its lightning nearly blinds the sight." (Qur'an, 24:43)

i am sorry even after reading your explanation, i dont see how this is so amazing. oh and when u claim hail clouds form around the same high as mountains, the question is , how high is a mountain? mount everest high? or the blue mountains? big differce.

its all well and good that u explain how lightning and hail is made, but it doesnt explain in this verse.

 

[withoutaface]

I'll point out something to the religious posters in this thread:
1. The primary aspect of religion is faith, and if something was proven beyond doubt to everybody then this would lose that aspect.
2. Supposing God exists, when creating the universe he would have created it in such a way that no logical argument could be constructed to prove his existence, because this would contradict 1.
Hence you can never win.

 

[davin]

I'll point out something to the religious posters in this thread:
1. The primary aspect of religion is faith, and if something was proven beyond doubt to everybody then this would lose that aspect.
2. Supposing God exists, when creating the universe he would have created it in such a way that no logical argument could be constructed to prove his existence, because this would contradict 1.
Hence you can never win.

enter the babelfish

 

[ur_inner_child]

I'll point out something to the religious posters in this thread:
1. The primary aspect of religion is faith, and if something was proven beyond doubt to everybody then this would lose that aspect.
2. Supposing God exists, when creating the universe he would have created it in such a way that no logical argument could be constructed to prove his existence, because this would contradict 1.
Hence you can never win.

you write beautifully <3

 

[withoutaface]

f*** of all of that technical, debating, political and whatnot bullsh*t some of you guys use to explain this issue. it's not really going to make the other side go "Oh damn, you really got me there! I forfeit!"

why do you even bother with this arguing when it does nothing but provoke more crafty anti-religious / anti-secular sentiments from the sides?

i hope you sad bastards commit suicide

These threads are not useless, and in fact I was swayed from Catholicism to agnosticism by the last one.

 

[Lexicographer]

Interesting Justin that you say you were swayed from Catholicism to agnosticism. I must ask, were you a nominal catholic or were you properly catechised (ie had a solid instruction in the faith)?

I must also address a popular yet horribly wrong statement. Faith is not simply "belief without evidence", at least not in the Catholic understanding. Indeed, the Catholic Church teaches that faith based merely on feelings and emotion is weak and easily disrupted by the gentlest malicious forces. Faith should be based on truth and reason. The various philosophical proofs and clarifications can be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is available at the Vatican website.

Answers to common misunderstandings of and attacks on Catholicism and Christianity can be found at the Catholic Apologetics site Catholic Answers.

 

[withoutaface]

I was born into a Catholic family, went to two Catholic schools etc, but my faith was never incredibly strong, but for statistical purposes I would have considered myself Catholic.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

I must also address a popular yet horribly wrong statement. Faith is not simply "belief without evidence", at least not in the Catholic understanding. Indeed, the Catholic Church teaches that faith based merely on feelings and emotion is weak and easily disrupted by the gentlest malicious forces. Faith should be based on truth and reason. The various philosophical proofs and clarifications can be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is available at the Vatican website.

Ah, but that is not faith then. That is reason/evidence

 

[HotShot]

Did you know that in the middle ages that tey beleived women could suffer from crazy womb..you know when they seem to act odd adn thought is was thier wombs moving round thier bodies. It was probably just PMS, puberty or menapause, cuase you know, BIG BURSTS OF HORMONES!

am i missing somthin, i thought 'crazy womb' was caos the women were getting horny as a result of testorene being released from the baby? anyway i have no idea.

There was question raised before, that why do you believe in god (or in your religion). I believe most of the people simply believe in their religion because they are born into it, rather figuring out their own purpose and need for it.

you know parents forcing and putting values into our brains, religion could be one. As a result when they grow up, they forced into their religion, rather than choosing your own.

 

[gerhard]

haha that catholic website just tries to get me to buy their merchandise. how catholic

 

[Lexicographer]

Ah, but that is not faith then. That is reason/evidence

Why is it that you insist faith must be free of reason and evidence? Faith is a complete trust and/or confidence in something, for this kind of trust to be entirely divorced from reason would not be faith but madness.

I realise that not all Christians understand faith in the way myself and the Catholic Church do, but I am not speaking for them. The idea that faith is somehow weakened by any consideration of reason is not only absurd, it is heterodox. Rather, faith is a choice to place ones trust and belief in God without being forced to do so by completely restrictive evidence.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Why is it that you insist faith must be free of reason and evidence?

If faith is not free of reason and evidence, then it is not faith is it? It is a belief based on reason/evidence. In contrast, faith is belief that cannot rationally be proven or objectively known.

Faith is a complete trust and/or confidence in something, for this kind of trust to be entirely divorced from reason would not be faith but madness.

Now you see my problem with it.

If you have certain beliefs that stem from evidence/reason, then they are not based on faith. You could say that you have some evidence/reason, and that you are prepared to infer or assume from that (limited) evidence/reason. But that just means the evidence/reason may be lacking. Faith is not some sort of "cure-all" that bridges the gap. For there is no substance to faith other than having the belief.

I realise that not all Christians understand faith in the way myself and the Catholic Church do, but I am not speaking for them. The idea that faith is somehow weakened by any consideration of reason is not only absurd, it is heterodox. Rather, faith is a choice to place ones trust and belief in God without being forced to do so by completely restrictive evidence.

Then please explain, what is it based on, if not evidence?

 

[Lexicographer]

haha that catholic website just tries to get me to buy their merchandise. how catholic

Clearly you didn't try clicking anything in the sidebar, particularly the section labelled "library". Furthermore, unlike various evangelical "churches", the Catholic Church does not sell merchandise and does not practice tithing. Of course She does ask the faithful to generously support Her through donations of money, time and abilities - but it is always up to the individual to give what they can and want to. That said, how is it so "catholic" that this apologetics group is advertising the sale of their resources (which in my experience are actually very good)?

 

[Lexicographer]

Nowhere did I say it wasn't based on evidence. I said we choose to believe rather than being forced to.

Let me use Gravity as an example. There is overwhelming evidence for gravity, and though we can choose not to acknowledge it we do so at our own peril. Gravity is comething we have no choice but to believe in. There is no faith involved, because there is no choice.

Faith in God, however, is different because we can choose to "explain him away" and not be physically worse off for it. There is evidence for God (the philosophy behind it is something I can't enter from the top of my head) but it is not like gravity in that to ignore the evidence causes us physical harm. There is a choice in whether or not we wish to acknowledge God and place our trust, our confidence, our faith in Him.

The fundamental differrence between gravity and God is that while gravity is a natural truth, an aspect of the temporal world (in which we live, with space and time) God is a supernatural Truth, existing in the spiritual world (outside space and time, without matter or physical substance). Humanity is unique because only we have aspects in both - we are both body and spirit, fundamentally united to make a person.

 

[withoutaface]

I'd like to see these philosophical arguments.

 

[Lexicographer]

I was born into a Catholic family, went to two Catholic schools etc, but my faith was never incredibly strong, but for statistical purposes I would have considered myself Catholic.

The sad truth is that Catholic schools no longer provide the spiritual formation they are meant to. People are more interested in UAIs than eternal life, and that's what they pay for.

As for the philosophical arguments, you'd be looking for the writings of Sts Augustine and Thomas Aquinas (two of the Doctors of the Church, the fathers of theology). Of course, they're bloody hard to follow so you might want to start with the Catechism, which is a more lay-directed explanation of what Catholics actually believe (or would, if they bothered finding out).