Does God exist? (10 Viewers)

[boris]

and how the earth has a perfectly designed ecosystem.

um

DINOSAURS. WHERE ARE THEY NOW?

Earth's ecosystem isn't perfectly designed. It's far too open to too many variables

 

[darkliight]

^ It is mysteriously incredibly effective given how it was apparently formed by an explosion.

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

 

[Kwayera]

Please tell me how science can explain how the universe was sparked and formed out of nothing

It wasn't. Singularity != nothing.

and how the earth has a perfectly designed ecosystem

It doesn't. Hence natural extinctions, climatic variations, etc ad nauseum.

^ It is mysteriously incredibly effective given how it was apparently formed by an explosion.

It didn't. Explosive expansion != explosion.



Also, fuck the "God-of-the-Gaps" theory. Just because we don't know something yet doesn't mean we won't in the future. Hence scientific discovery.

 

[veloc1ty]

It doesn't matter anyway, there are countless planets that don't have well designed ecosystems. Some people persist in thinking the big bang occured for the sole reason of creating the earth. Likewise some erroneously think evolution has an end goal in mind (homo sapiens) and use this to say someone is behind it.

 

[BradCube]

"God of the Gaps... theory" is an absolutely terrible 'proposition'. Hey science! You don't have the answer to something! Therefore - God. BTW evolution can explain, there is life before/after the explosion, all we'd need is an explanation for why it'd speed up so much. There are other 'problems' with evolution (thus why we have people still doing the science)... this is to be expected.

My point was not to justify the God of Gaps theory as permissible in one off events. Rather it was to point out that saying "science is the answer and we will be able to prove it one day" is just as bad. In fact I find it worse, because with it comes the inability to be disproved - it can continue for eternity regardless of whether evidence is ever found.

Until there's a naturalistic answer I'd just say "I don't know", that's what science looks for... we can't look for a supernatural answer, if you want to look for a supernatural answer we would look at something like the cambrian explosion and say "ELVES DID IT" and that's the end of the conversation.

Seems we have a few differing opinions here. Firstly I don't believe that belief in the supernatural discourages scientific investigation. It's not "the end of the conversation" for me because it is always interesting to find out how God did something or whether it was God at all.

Also I thought I would bring up the point that I don't mind the God of Gaps theory being used in conjunction with other scientific problems. It's when used in a cumulative sense that the God of Gaps theory holds some weight in my opinion. Certainly, in one off situations, it seems like incoherent nonsense but when used in a case involving a variety of fields in investigation it seems like it is a natural connection to make.

There is also a bit of a dilemma in that if it really was God performing a supernatural act, then there will always be a scientific gap - naturally it cannot be scientifically filled. In this way, if there truly is a supernatural God, it is going to be impossible to avoid the God of Gaps theory because that gap in our scientific knowledge will always exist. However, if we can fill every gap with scientific knowledge (and not science of gaps) then we leave no room for God. The problem I suppose then, is that it is seemingly impossible to ever come to option 2 because our knowledge just does not look capable of ever going that far.

Thus, I don't think we can ever rationally disprove the possibility of Gods existence. Because of this you will probably always have people such as myself harping on about the possibility of God and maintaining an agnostic stance indefinitely.

 

[BoilinOatRunner]

My point was not to justify the God of Gaps theory as permissible in one off events. Rather it was to point out that saying "science is the answer and we will be able to prove it one day" is just as bad. In fact I find it worse, because with it comes the inability to be disproved - it can continue for eternity regardless of whether evidence is ever found.

Well personally I don't say "We'll be able to prove it one day" even though past experience tells me that often we do find solutions to these problems (which is a lot better than what we have in support for belief in god). More I'd be inclined to say "We don't know yet, may never know, for now it's uncertain but science may in the future have an answer".

It's not "the end of the conversation" for me because it is always interesting to find out how God did something or whether it was God at all.

Ok sure then, if you want to posit it in that way... I want to know how 'god did things', I don't just want to know that 'god did it', it's no better than me saying 'nature did it'.

Also I thought I would bring up the point that I don't mind the God of Gaps theory being used in conjunction with other scientific problems. It's when used in a cumulative sense that the God of Gaps theory holds some weight in my opinion. Certainly, in one off situations, it seems like incoherent nonsense but when used in a case involving a variety of fields in investigation it seems like it is a natural connection to make.

Nah it's just a junk idea all the time... 'God of the gaps' provides no answer at all really and is only just as good a theory as 'Magical elf of the gaps', bit of a joke. But I'm sure someone will bother to wade through exactly why this is with you in some more detail than me.

In this way, if there truly is a supernatural God, it is going to be impossible to avoid the God of Gaps theory because that gap in our scientific knowledge will always exist.

Not really... you can simply say that god exists outside of our observable knowledge (i.e. you may have a point in matters where it appears science won't ever be able to provide answers, such as the begining of the universe) and influences us through the natural observable means.

Thus, I don't think we can ever rationally disprove the possibility of Gods existence.

I think we can as much as we can rationally disprove the existence of every other supernatural thing you don't believe in, which is good enough... The problem with the God debate imo is that it's after an absolute. No, we will never absolutely know that there is no God... this isn't a problem for me.

 

[darkliight]

Brad, can I ask, why do you insist on starting with a god, then trying to work everything around it? Have you ever just started with a 'blank page' so to speak?

 

[Kwayera]

Somewhat unrelatedly, my main problem with the God-of-the-Gaps is not that its intellectually dishonest, but that it discourages actually discovering WHY something is the case.

We don't know, thus God did it, end of conversation, next problem.



And I agree with you, Brad. We'll never be able to empirically disprove God's existance (with anything other than probability, which can definantly be seen as 'evidence'), but by the same token, we'll never be able to disprove fairies in the garden or dragons or the celestial teapot or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Your point?


(I use them as examples because, almost by definition, there is as much evidence for their existance, and the existance of "God", as there is for their non-existence. That is to say, none.)

 

[BradCube]

Brad, can I ask, why do you insist on starting with a god, then trying to work everything around it? Have you ever just started with a 'blank page' so to speak?

Of course, I always try to maintain as much intellectual honesty as I possibly can. However, I will always be bound to certain bias's from the way I have been raised, taught etc. So in this way I doubt anyone can truly start from a "blank page".

Also, to be truly honest with you, I would far prefer to see if Gods existance is at least possible before assuming that it is not. A God after all answers a lot of questions and can give purpose and meaning in life. If I was to come to the belief that God did not exist, I would truly find myself largely depressed and lost - I wouldn't be at all surprised if I ended up committing suicide. The ramifications for Gods non-existance are so huge in day to day life, that without God there would be no reason to continue my existence.

With this in mind, I will always try and see if Gods existance is at least possible before making the assumption that it is not. This doesn't mean I will be intellectually dishonest in my discussions here - I do after all want the truth of the matter which ever way it is.

 

[BoilinOatRunner]

A God after all answers a lot of questions and can give purpose and meaning in life.

Really? I find 'serve god' as a fairly dull meaning to my life...

 

[BradCube]

Somewhat unrelatedly, my main problem with the God-of-the-Gaps is not that its intellectually dishonest, but that it discourages actually discovering WHY something is the case.

I don't entirely follow in this line of thought. I would always want to know why or how God did something even if I believe that it was God.

And I agree with you, Brad. We'll never be able to empirically disprove God's existance (with anything other than probability, which can definantly be seen as 'evidence'), but by the same token, we'll never be able to disprove fairies in the garden or dragons or the celestial teapot or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Your point?

My point was that science of gaps and God of gaps are on neutral ground.

Also I thought I would quote from an email I sent to a Christian apologetics website when asking "Why is the belief in God any more valid than the belief in fairies, unicorns or other fictional entities?".

The reply I got was two fold, I'll give the second as it is probably more appropriate

First, (to repeat) we do have good reasons for believing in God. But there is also another response Second, your question. Let me explain.

Suppose someone says there is a snake in the room. Under what conditions would I *not* be agnostic about this? Well, presumably after I look around the room, lift up the mattress, book, so on and then find no snake. I could then say justifiably, "there is no snake." Generalizing this we arrive at appropriate conditions for denying a proposition.

The conditions for someone x denying a proposition p are these:

If x rationally believes himself to be in a good epistemic position relative to p, and x is in possession of no good evidence (or any other epistemic ground) for thinking that p, x ought to deny p.
--and the subject must reasonably believe himself to be in good epistemic position to assess the positive existence claim p. This happens if and only if:

(a) p is such that if it were true, there would exist positive epistemic considerations (evidence or any other epistemic ground) indicating its truth; and

(b) the subject is such that were these positive epistemic considerations (evidence or any other epistemic ground) extant, he would (or most likely would) possess them.

 

[BradCube]

Really? I find 'serve god' as a fairly dull meaning to my life...

I find it far more meaningful, than no meaning at all...

Expanding on this. I can understand why people may not want to "serve God" since it essentially allows you to do whatever you please. However knowing that doing what ever I do is ultimately worthless and without a point is a far more depressing conclusion for me to come to.

 

[darkliight]

Also, to be truly honest with you, I would far prefer to see if Gods existance is at least possible before assuming that it is not. A God after all answers a lot of questions and can give purpose and meaning in life. If I was to come to the belief that God did not exist, I would truly find myself largely depressed and lost - I wouldn't be at all surprised if I ended up committing suicide. The ramifications for Gods non-existance are so huge in day to day life, that without God there would be no reason to continue my existence.

Way to deter anyone debating with you

At any rate, if a god doesn't exist, there is no need to spit on the existence of everyone that has ever lived and say it was all for nothing. I appreciate their effort and it's great that we're free to enjoy what we've earned. Get an education and try to make the next generations life a little bit more interesting somehow, a good story, a scientific paper, an interesting political stance, a weird piece of art, etc - don't neck yaself. Take it easy bud.

 

[BoilinOatRunner]

I find it far more meaningful, than no meaning at all...

The thing is I have much more profound meaning in my life than that, it's just not decreed as such by the all-powerful god.

 

[Kwayera]

Also, to be truly honest with you, I would far prefer to see if Gods existance is at least possible before assuming that it is not. A God after all answers a lot of questions and can give purpose and meaning in life.

His existence would answer questions? I think it'd ask more, to be honest, and I don't see why the existence of a god (and here I'm meaning a generic one, because a 'personal' God is a ridiculous fantasy) would give your life meaning. In fact, for me, it'd cheapen it.

If I was to come to the belief that God did not exist, I would truly find myself largely depressed and lost - I wouldn't be at all surprised if I ended up committing suicide. The ramifications for Gods non-existance are so huge in day to day life, that without God there would be no reason to continue my existence.

Why would there be such huge ramifications? What, truly, would change? Certainly nothing in your life as you actually live it.

With this in mind, I will always try and see if Gods existance is at least possible before making the assumption that it is not.

But for scientists, that is intellectual dishonesty. When we want to prove a theory, we always assume it is in fact wrong, and construct our experiments and statistical analyses to disprove it.

 

[BradCube]

Way to deter anyone debating with you

At any rate, if a god doesn't exist, there is no need to spit on the existence of everyone that has ever lived and say it was all for nothing. I appreciate their effort and it's great that we're free to enjoy what we've earned. Get an education and try to make the next generations life a little bit more interesting somehow, a good story, a scientific paper, an interesting political stance, a weird piece of art, etc - don't neck yaself. Take it easy bud.

Oh certainly, I would not want to think that I would try and be demeaning of others lives if I came to the conclusion that mine was worthless. I would far rather them continue living how they are, trying to achieve "happiness" (even if such happiness is worthless).

I've attached an article that goes into depth on some of the reasons why I find the proposition of a meaningful life without God, absurd. It's a pretty long read and is written from a Christian perspective, but it is a good read nevertheless.

Also thought I should mention that I didn't intend my previous post to be a death threat of any sort! I do want the truth more than what conclusions I will draw from it.

 

[BradCube]

His existence would answer questions? I think it'd ask more, to be honest, and I don't see why the existence of a god (and here I'm meaning a generic one, because a 'personal' God is a ridiculous fantasy) would give your life meaning. In fact, for me, it'd cheapen it.

Well, it would answer some questions . But yes, you are correct in saying that it would also raise a lot of others - much of which we discuss here in this thread.

I don't understand how a God would cheapen your life though. How much do you think you life is worth at the moment?

Why would there be such huge ramifications? What, truly, would change? Certainly nothing in your life as you actually live it.

Everything thing that I thought was, good, right, just, noble etc would all be void. In fact anything at all that I place any worth or meaning in would be worth nothing to me anymore.

But for scientists, that is intellectual dishonesty. When we want to prove a theory, we always assume it is in fact wrong, and construct our experiments and statistical analyses to disprove it.

You can still try to disprove something whilst believing that it is in fact true - especially in the case of scientific studies, no?

 

[Kwayera]

Well, it would answer some questions . But yes, you are correct in saying that it would also raise a lot of others - much of which we discuss here in this thread.

I don't understand how a God would cheapen your life though. How much do you think you life is worth at the moment?

Everything our species has achieved against the odds would be worth nothing. God did it.

Everything thing that I thought was, good, right, just, noble etc would all be void. In fact anything at all that I place any worth or meaning in would be worth nothing to me anymore.

Why? You don't find these values in individuals, in yourself?

You can still try to disprove something whilst believing that it is in fact true - especially in the case of scientific studies, no?

Yes, but you work on the assumption it IS true.

 

[BradCube]

Everything our species has achieved against the odds would be worth nothing. God did it.

In my understanding, without a God, anything we do achieve is worth nothing anyway.

Why? You don't find these values in individuals, in yourself?

Without a God, of course I don't see values in individuals or myself - we are worth no more than the dirt on which we stand - ie nothing

 

[Kwayera]

In my understanding, without a God, anything we do achieve is worth nothing anyway.


Without a God, of course I don't see values in individuals or myself - we are worth no more than the dirt on which we stand - ie nothing

But why? For me, as an analogy, I look at the stars, and an awed by them. That they are there, and we, against all those enormous odds, germinated from the primordial and survived and evolved to look at them and BE in awe.

Do you look at the stars and stare in awe because God made them?

That would cheapen the sight, to me.