MedVision ad

Does God exist? (7 Viewers)

do you believe in god?


  • Total voters
    1,568

Bored_of_HSC

Active Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2011
Messages
1,498
Gender
Female
HSC
2012
Statements like this are what keep religion alive. This is what gives it the weight it doesn't deserve.

"God" is a man made concept. Given that, it is infinitely unlikely that "God" is the correct answer to the problems and uncertainties of the world. If we take the supernatural into account, there are an infinite number of possible solutions to these problems (think about it - what are the limits of the supernatural?). "God" is but one of infinity possible solutions, so it is safe to assume that there is no God.
Just because 'god' (again we should be specific on what we're talking about here) is one of many possibilities doesn't neccesarily give any proof to absolutist claims like that.

That's just arrogance.
 

mirakon

nigga
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
4,221
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
Absolutely not.

Statements like this are what keep religion alive. This is what gives it the weight it doesn't deserve.

"God" is a man made concept. Given that, it is infinitely unlikely that "God" is the correct answer to the problems and uncertainties of the world. If we take the supernatural into account, there are an infinite number of possible solutions to these problems (think about it - what are the limits of the supernatural?). "God" is but one of infinity possible solutions, so it is safe to assume that there is no God.
U do realise your argument is flawed when u assume God is a manmade concept and then proceed to show why God is based on that assumption?
 

Annihilist

Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2012
Messages
449
Location
Byron Bay
Gender
Male
HSC
2012
U do realise your argument is flawed when u assume God is a manmade concept and then proceed to show why God is based on that assumption?
I have stated in an earlier post my reasoning for this (quoted below). The Bible was written by men, and it is the only "evidence" supplied for the existence of God. But as I said, it is not evidence.

"In order to prove the existence of God, one cannot cite the Bible as a reference. The Bible is not proof of God's existence, it is a proposition of the theory of God's existence*. You cannot verify a proposition or a theory with itself. You need to search outside the Bible to verify it. Otherwise you are merely using self reference as evidence. What you are saying is "God exists because it says so in the Bible", and "The Bible is true because it says so in the Bible". It's like saying "I am right because I say I am". You haven't verified this claim at all, you have merely proposed an opinion. In order to verify this claim you need to search for evidence outside yourself."

The only reference people cite for believing in God is the Bible. A book written by men. God was invented by men and written about in a book. How do you claim that God was not a man-made concept, and in fact "God wrote the Bible" as many people believe? The only source that contains that information is the Bible itself. It's a tautology, and therefore meaningless.

I did not merely assume that God is a man made concept. Evidence for such a claim is right before your eyes.

Just because 'god' (again we should be specific on what we're talking about here) is one of many possibilities doesn't neccesarily give any proof to absolutist claims like that.

That's just arrogance.
"Hey, we know that there is extremely compelling evidence against your belief and there is an incredibly small chance that you are right, but, you never know...you might still be right"

No. Thinking like that is what gives religion so much weight, validity and credit where it is not due. Coupled with the harm religion does to society and individuals, I personally don't think it's worth leaving open for debate.

Another way to think about it it mathematically. God is a "higher power". If we believe in a higher power, or consider it seriously, then we have to take into account the other ways that a higher power can possibly manifest itself. What are the limits of a supernatural higher power? As provided by sufficient logic and evidence used by people who make such claims, none. There are no limits. Therefore, there are an unlimited (infinite) number of ways in which a higher power could possibly exist, and God is but one possibility.

Here's where the math comes in. If God is one possibility out of infinity, then the probability that God is the answer is 1/∞. 1/∞ is defined as the [limit as x->∞ of 1/x], which is zero.

So, the probability that God is our "higher power", out of the infinite number of possible "higher powers", is practically nil. And I did not make an absolutist claim. I said that it is safe to assume there is no God. Which is the appropriate logical conclusion for the probability of his existence, if we accept the notion of a "higher power", is one-divided-by-infinity.
 

Bored_of_HSC

Active Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2011
Messages
1,498
Gender
Female
HSC
2012
"Hey, we know that there is extremely compelling evidence against your belief and there is an incredibly small chance that you are right, but, you never know...you might still be right"

No. Thinking like that is what gives religion so much weight, validity and credit where it is not due. Coupled with the harm religion does to society and individuals, I personally don't think it's worth leaving open for debate.

Another way to think about it it mathematically. God is a "higher power". If we believe in a higher power, or consider it seriously, then we have to take into account the other ways that a higher power can possibly manifest itself. What are the limits of a supernatural higher power? As provided by sufficient logic and evidence used by people who make such claims, none. There are no limits. Therefore, there are an unlimited (infinite) number of ways in which a higher power could possibly exist, and God is but one possibility.

Here's where the math comes in. If God is one possibility out of infinity, then the probability that God is the answer is 1/∞. 1/∞ is defined as the [limit as x->∞ of 1/x], which is zero.

So, the probability that God is our "higher power", out of the infinite number of possible "higher powers", is practically nil. And I did not make an absolutist claim. I said that it is safe to assume there is no God. Which is the appropriate logical conclusion for the probability of his existence, if we accept the notion of a "higher power", is one-divided-by-infinity.
Lol where is this "compelling evidence"? I was arguing the case for a non-theistic god. If you want to point out fallacies in the bible or the koran that's fine but your arguement stops there.

Okay you didn't make that claim. Then why did you come in and defend the person that was?
You were defending an arguement that was. not. yours.
 

Annihilist

Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2012
Messages
449
Location
Byron Bay
Gender
Male
HSC
2012
Lol where is this "compelling evidence"? I was arguing the case for a non-theistic god. If you want to point out fallacies in the bible or the koran that's fine but your arguement stops there.
Wait, what? A "non-theistic" God? A God is, by definition, theistic. The definition of "theist" is one who believes in a God, or Gods.

I think you might mean a "non-dogmatic God", which I would interpret as being the notion of a general higher power. Correct me if I am wrong. I was not trying to refute that notion.

Okay you didn't make that claim. Then why did you come in and defend the person that was?
You were defending an arguement that was. not. yours.
Sorry, my mistake. I did make that claim, yes, and that is my belief. I made two claims - one was that the probability that God exists is so possibly small that it might as well be zero. And from that claim, I made a second which was there is no God. One led to the other. That was my logic. I believe that there is absolutely no God for many reasons, including this one.

And I feel the need to point out that my conclusion is only valid if we accept the notion of a higher power in the first place. Which I don't. If we do, the probability is zero, and if we don't, then God doesn't exist right off the bat.
 

Bored_of_HSC

Active Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2011
Messages
1,498
Gender
Female
HSC
2012
Wait, what? A "non-theistic" God? A God is, by definition, theistic. The definition of "theist" is one who believes in a God, or Gods.

I think you might mean a "non-dogmatic God", which I would interpret as being the notion of a general higher power. Correct me if I am wrong. I was not trying to refute that notion.
We're probably gong into semantics here haha. Maybe i should've said a non-religious god? (synonymous to non-dogmatic :p).
But yeah i just interpreted theism as the belief in a deity which interfers or "sustains" humanity.

Sorry, my mistake. I did make that claim, yes, and that is my belief. I made two claims - one was that the probability that God exists is so possibly small that it might as well be zero. And from that claim, I made a second which was there is no God. One led to the other. That was my logic. I believe that there is absolutely no God for many reasons, including this one.

And I feel the need to point out that my conclusion is only valid if we accept the notion of a higher power in the first place. Which I don't. If we do, the probability is zero, and if we don't, then God doesn't exist right off the bat.
We came from the same assumptions (that the probability is low) but made different conclusions. I don't see how we can argue with each other here. I just think we're in a perpetual state of ignorance (no matter how certain our claims may be).
 

Annihilist

Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2012
Messages
449
Location
Byron Bay
Gender
Male
HSC
2012
We came from the same assumptions (that the probability is low) but made different conclusions. I don't see how we can argue with each other here. I just think we're in a perpetual state of ignorance (no matter how certain our claims may be).
Agreed.
 

Examine

same
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
2,376
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2013
Just saw this on facebook. y do people do dis then say it's a quote from somebody who obviously didn't say it :(:cry::( Don't do dis, ever.


Professor : You are a Christian, aren’t you, son ?

Student : Yes, sir.

Professor: So, you believe in GOD ?

Student : Absolutely, sir.

Professor : Is GOD good ?

Student : Sure.

Professor: Is GOD all powerful ?

Student : Yes.

Professor: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to GOD to heal him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But GOD didn’t. How is this GOD good then? Hmm?

(Student was silent.)

Professor: You can’t answer, can you ? Let’s start again, young fella. Is GOD good?

Student : Yes.

Professor: Is satan good ?

Student : No.

Professor: Where does satan come from ?

Student : From … GOD …

Professor: That’s right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?

Student : Yes.

Professor: Evil is everywhere, isn’t it ? And GOD did make everything. Correct?

Student : Yes.

Professor: So who created evil ?

(Student did not answer.)

Professor: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don’t they?

Student : Yes, sir.

Professor: So, who created them ?

(Student had no answer.)

Professor: Science says you have 5 Senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Tell me, son, have you ever seen GOD?

Student : No, sir.

Professor: Tell us if you have ever heard your GOD?

Student : No , sir.

Professor: Have you ever felt your GOD, tasted your GOD, smelt your GOD? Have you ever had any sensory perception of GOD for that matter?

Student : No, sir. I’m afraid I haven’t.

Professor: Yet you still believe in Him?

Student : Yes.

Professor : According to Empirical, Testable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says your GOD doesn’t exist. What do you say to that, son?

Student : Nothing. I only have my faith.

Professor: Yes, faith. And that is the problem Science has.

Student : Professor, is there such a thing as heat?

Professor: Yes.

Student : And is there such a thing as cold?

Professor: Yes.

Student : No, sir. There isn’t.

(The lecture theater became very quiet with this turn of events.)

Student : Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don’t have anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we can’t go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.

(There was pin-drop silence in the lecture theater.)

Student : What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?

Professor: Yes. What is night if there isn’t darkness?

Student : You’re wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light. But if you have no light constantly, you have nothing and its called darkness, isn’t it? In reality, darkness isn’t. If it is, well you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn’t you?

Professor: So what is the point you are making, young man ?

Student : Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.

Professor: Flawed ? Can you explain how?

Student : Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life and then there is death, a good GOD and a bad GOD. You are viewing the concept of GOD as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, Science can’t even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing.

Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it. Now tell me, Professor, do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?

Professor: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do.

Student : Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?

(The Professor shook his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the argument was going.)

Student : Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor. Are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher?

(The class was in uproar.)

Student : Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor’s brain?

(The class broke out into laughter. )

Student : Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor’s brain, felt it, touched or smelt it? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established Rules of Empirical, Stable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says that you have no brain, sir. With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?

(The room was silent. The Professor stared at the student, his face unfathomable.)

Professor: I guess you’ll have to take them on faith, son.

Student : That is it sir … Exactly ! The link between man & GOD is FAITH. That is all that keeps things alive and moving.

P.S.

I believe you have enjoyed the conversation. And if so, you’ll probably want your friends / colleagues to enjoy the same, won’t you?

Forward this to increase their knowledge … or FAITH.

By the way, that student was EINSTEIN.
 

Examine

same
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
2,376
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2013
Wow, religious people must be getting desperate to make up that.
I don't mind religion or religious people, though I hate when they make shit like this up and call it a true story under a famous name.
 

planino

Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2012
Messages
559
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
We just have to have faith in God, as He wants us to trust Him. Science is amazing, no doubt (otherwise I wouldn't be doing chem and bio) but no matter how hard scientists try, there will be no scientific explanation of God. He didn't create 'evil', it's just that people do have to pay for past mistakes as that is only fair (think Karma). Linking punishments with past deeds is indeed very complex and we shouldn't waste our time in trying to untangle and decipher these links (leave that to God), instead whenever something bad happens, we must acknowledge that it's because of a past sin - we deserve it
 
Last edited:

funkshen

dvds didnt exist in 1991
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
2,137
Location
butt
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
We just have to have faith in Unicorns, as Unicorns wants us to trust Unicorns. Science is amazing, no doubt (otherwise I wouldn't be doing chem and bio) but no matter how hard scientists try, there will be no scientific explanation of Unicorns. Unicorns didn't create 'turduckens', it's just that people do have to pay for past mistakes as that is only fair (think Karma). Linking punishments with past deeds is indeed very complex and we shouldn't waste our time in trying to untangle and decipher these links (leave that to the Unicorns), instead whenever something bad happens, we must acknowledge that it's because of leprechauns - we deserve it
 

IamBread

Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
757
Location
UNSW
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
I don't mind religion or religious people, though I hate when they make shit like this up and call it a true story under a famous name.
I hate anyone that does this, for or against religion. It's just pathetic.

We just have to have faith in God, as He wants us to trust Him. Science is amazing, no doubt (otherwise I wouldn't be doing chem and bio) but no matter how hard scientists try, there will be no scientific explanation of God. He didn't create 'evil', it's just that people do have to pay for past mistakes as that is only fair (think Karma). Linking punishments with past deeds is indeed very complex and we shouldn't waste our time in trying to untangle and decipher these links (leave that to God), instead whenever something bad happens, we must acknowledge that it's because of a past sin - we deserve it
Science doesn't have to explain God. It just explains the universe and how it works. It just so happens that none of these explanations in any way point to a higher power, and science can explain most things without the need of a God. Science cannot give an explanation to something that there is no evidence for, other then there is no evidence for it. But why is it that your God is the true one? What makes your God any more valid then any other God. There are a huge number of God's to choose from, why do you pick the one you do?

So what you're saying is, if someone was to make a mistake, then their children, and their children's children will also have to suffer because they made a simple little mistake? That is sick. That is so very very wrong. It's this kind of thought that leads to things like the Holocaust. Judging people based on things that they didn't even do is just plain wrong. I hope you fail the HSC and go no where with your life, because you deserve it, and you know, it is only fair.
No one deserves that, not matter what they have done, and especially if they themselves didn't even do anything.
 

planino

Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2012
Messages
559
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
I hate anyone that does this, for or against religion. It's just pathetic.



Science doesn't have to explain God. It just explains the universe and how it works. It just so happens that none of these explanations in any way point to a higher power, and science can explain most things without the need of a God. Science cannot give an explanation to something that there is no evidence for, other then there is no evidence for it. But why is it that your God is the true one? What makes your God any more valid then any other God. There are a huge number of God's to choose from, why do you pick the one you do?

So what you're saying is, if someone was to make a mistake, then their children, and their children's children will also have to suffer because they made a simple little mistake? That is sick. That is so very very wrong. It's this kind of thought that leads to things like the Holocaust. Judging people based on things that they didn't even do is just plain wrong. I hope you fail the HSC and go no where with your life, because you deserve it, and you know, it is only fair.
No one deserves that, not matter what they have done, and especially if they themselves didn't even do anything.
My bad, I should have clarified:
If a person has committed a sin, then I'm saying that very person suffers, not their children - why should their children suffer for their misdeeds?. 'God' in my previous post wasn't referring to any specific entity, it was used in a general sense and in no way did I mention that 'my' God was the true one, or superior to any other God. I actually believe that there is only one God, it's just that many different designations are attached to Him. A tap can be called a tap or a faucet, either way it's a tap (or faucet depending on what you call it by) and there's no difference, or correct designation, or superiority between the two terminologies of the same thing).

If something bad happens to another, we should under no circumstances point fingers and criticise them at all - in this way we're adding on to their suffering. Rather we should show compassion and help them out as best as possible since God is in every one of us, when we help another, we have served God (NOTE: Do not think that I'm saying that we're Gods, if I was a God, then English wouldn't be a compulsory HSC subject). Also making others happy in times of need is a great thing to do for obvious reasons

However, if something bad has happened to us, then we should recognise and accept that it's a penalty for a past sin. I fully agree with your post (bar the last part of your first paragraph). There may not be scientific evidence for God, but that's where faith comes in

with all due respect, I hope you understand
 

Annihilist

Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2012
Messages
449
Location
Byron Bay
Gender
Male
HSC
2012
We just have to have faith in God, as He wants us to trust Him. Science is amazing, no doubt (otherwise I wouldn't be doing chem and bio) but no matter how hard scientists try, there will be no scientific explanation of God. He didn't create 'evil', it's just that people do have to pay for past mistakes as that is only fair (think Karma). Linking punishments with past deeds is indeed very complex and we shouldn't waste our time in trying to untangle and decipher these links (leave that to God), instead whenever something bad happens, we must acknowledge that it's because of a past sin - we deserve it
Why should I trust Him? Why is He the ultimate judge on what is "sin" and what is "good"? Why is He right beyond questionability?

I don't trust him. He's a narcissistic prick.

I was prepared to label you a troll for a moment.
 

Annihilist

Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2012
Messages
449
Location
Byron Bay
Gender
Male
HSC
2012
My bad, I should have clarified:
If a person has committed a sin, then I'm saying that very person suffers, not their children - why should their children suffer for their misdeeds?. 'God' in my previous post wasn't referring to any specific entity, it was used in a general sense and in no way did I mention that 'my' God was the true one, or superior to any other God. I actually believe that there is only one God, it's just that many different designations are attached to Him. A tap can be called a tap or a faucet, either way it's a tap (or faucet depending on what you call it by) and there's no difference, or correct designation, or superiority between the two terminologies of the same thing).

If something bad happens to another, we should under no circumstances point fingers and criticise them at all - in this way we're adding on to their suffering. Rather we should show compassion and help them out as best as possible since God is in every one of us, when we help another, we have served God (NOTE: Do not think that I'm saying that we're Gods, if I was a God, then English wouldn't be a compulsory HSC subject). Also making others happy in times of need is a great thing to do for obvious reasons

However, if something bad has happened to us, then we should recognise and accept that it's a penalty for a past sin. I fully agree with your post (bar the last part of your first paragraph). There may not be scientific evidence for God, but that's where faith comes in

with all due respect, I hope you understand
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed; faith is the denial of observation so belief can be preserved"

What you are saying is we have to deny what we see in order to believe in God. That is just plain ignorance and stupidity. What I dislike about your idea is that God is punishing us for past sins, and my problem is I don't understand why he is the ultimate authority on morality. There is no such thing as objective morality, it only exists so we don't need to think for ourselves. If we rely on objective morality to define what is "right" and "wrong" then we no longer assume any responsibility for our thoughts. And there cannot be an objective morality because any such thing is based on an opinion, which is in itself is subjective. God's subjective opinion on what is right creates an objective morality which we must all follow. That makes no sense. Therefore he cannot be the ultimate moral authority.
 

Graney

Horse liberty
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
4,434
Location
Bereie
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
whenever something bad happens, we must acknowledge that it's because of a past sin - we deserve it
People who are completely innocent and have committed no sin, often endure immense suffering.

Other people who consistently commit sin, may have relatively little suffering in their lives.

What you're suggesting isn't played out in reality, suffering happens regardless of how good or bad a person is, it's unequal and unfairly distributed.
 

funkshen

dvds didnt exist in 1991
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
2,137
Location
butt
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
People who are completely innocent and have committed no sin, often endure immense suffering.

Other people who consistently commit sin, may have relatively little suffering in their lives.

What you're suggesting isn't played out in reality, suffering happens regardless of how good or bad a person is, it's unequal and unfairly distributed.
by definition these "completely innocent" people you talk about must have sinned to have deserved such material suffering.

and the chronic sinner suffers the most

flawless logic. checkmate.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 7)

Top