Does God exist? (10 Viewers)

[gerhard]

lol tmac, im pretty sure by result polls around this board, that the number of athiest/agnostics vastly outweighs religious people. more likely most people get tired of arguing the same thing for 234 pages. i dont think any religious people that posted say in the first 50 pages are still posting, but most of the ath/nostics are

edit: here is the thread
http://community.boredofstudies.org...abortion-what-your-background-beliefs-rm.html

12 out of 42 had some belief/faith/religion

 

[lengy]

I nearly fell off my chair laughing that you some how came to the conclusion that suddenly anyone so far has made any sort of convincing argument for the existence of 'god'. The fact that you came to that conclusion without any evidence says everything about how easily manipulated and how wrong your conclusions are.

 

[The Logical One]

Awesome. A psychic. How did you ever guess that the big bang theory is the reason I stopped being a Catholic?
That is quite possibly the most retarded thing I've read in this debate yet. I stopped being religious well before I understood the 'theory' of the Big Bang. In actual fact the 'big bang' had no bearing on my decision to relieve myself of the burden that is the stupidity of religion. Nor does it today.

You talk about logic, yet you then go on to say you don't understand and that how there is a God is beyond you. That appears to me to be blind faith, not logic.

I don't understand how you can do that, read what I say but not understand the meaning. I know of many people who have left their religion for many reasons, but that doesn't mean they quit believing in god. Believing in god and following any one religion is two different things entirely. God, basically being what created this universe. Religion at times can be quite irrational but there are many types of religions, basically a religion is just a set of beliefs used to justify why we exist. I know that.

Here is the biggest problem. People who believe in god, don't understand what god is and believe in god for all the wrong reasons and People who are actually capable of understanding gods purpose and contribution(s) to this universe generally don't believe in god.

Trying to logically come to the conclusion that 'God' doesn't exist and that the universe just magically popped out of no where is just plain stupidity. Why would you assign to those beliefs when they're the reason you repel religion? You don't want to believe miracles and faith, but you do want to assign your beliefs to weak and unprovable scientific 'theory'. Perhaps, it's because one admits that it might not be wrong, maybe you want to 'prove' it's wrong.

Here is my logic. The universe exists, it all works perfectly and everything operates because of a specific reason. Except, life has no reason. The purpose of life is to survive. But, why? Why does life struggle to survive?

Life is just a collection of compounds and elements right? Amino acids working off chemical reactions. Yet, all life has one purpose in common. To live. Is it that the "Living" form is any more efficient to the "Dead" form? Does one perhaps have a 'spirit'? Why would chemicals react this way? (even life forms which don't consist of any consciousness or intelligence).

The universe was created by something, a purpose isn't necessary for the universe but life is much different.

The universe does have one thing in common with life though. Through all the laws which govern the universe one is most important and is evident in all the laws which govern the universe. The Law of Energy, the conservation of Energy, and the preservation of Energy. It seems as though all laws only exist to protect this law. The law that energy exists, and that it is a finite ammount. Everything which happens in our universe is just to protect energy and to preserve its ammount. So, where did energy come from? Where did the law that energy exists come from?

I'm not saying the creator of our universe (the entity which defined the law of energy and perhaps the laws of life) is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent. I'm just saying that it exists, and that we should spend more time thinking about what it is, rather then wondering if it exists or not.


This is just my opinion, you may criticise it by pointing out flaws which you may find, or just because you disagree to it. But, just because my logic may be different to yours, that doesn't mean that either of ours is right or wrong. It's just a difference of opinion and that's what this whole debate is. I know that right now someone has read to this point is getting ready to make a response focussing on certain parts of my posts, but I only have one thing to say to those people.

You were bound to make that post the minute you realised that my opinion conflicted with yours. You're only posting because, the minute you realised that what I thought was different to yours, something triggered inside you, something which is asking you to push your beliefs, to push what you thought to be true.

That's what compels me to make posts every time I have something to contribute. (I admit there a breaks between my spurts of ideas), but pushing the same nonsense day to day without considering the different opinions is stupidity. Regardless of what you think, it's stupidity.

Don't post if you have nothing to contribute.

 

[lengy]

Science at least tries to back up it's arguments. You say the idea that the universe 'magically' popped up from no where is a silly idea yet that's what your 'god' does. Your 'god' is all you have to explain everything that has ever occurred and if it weren't for science trying to actually FIND the reason that things work and act the way they do we'd all be back in the stone age. So you can take your 'god' and go back to the medieval Middle East and stay there. 'God' is not a argument.

 

[T-mac01]

Science at least tries to back up it's arguments. You say the idea that the universe 'magically' popped up from no where is a silly idea yet that's what your 'god' does. Your 'god' is all you have to explain everything that has ever occurred and if it weren't for science trying to actually FIND the reason that things work and act the way they do we'd all be back in the stone age. So you can take your 'god' and go back to the medieval Middle East and stay there. 'God' is not a argument.

Everyone believe in the Darwin's theory of human revolution?

Didn't he suggest the reason for men to have eventually grown to walk on two feet is that during our transformation, we constantly tried to reach for things high in the air, mostly fruits on trees. So that eventually got our spine straight.

Would anybody find it funny?

 

[The Logical One]

Science at least tries to back up it's arguments. You say the idea that the universe 'magically' popped up from no where is a silly idea yet that's what your 'god' does. Your 'god' is all you have to explain everything that has ever occurred and if it weren't for science trying to actually FIND the reason that things work and act the way they do we'd all be back in the stone age. So you can take your 'god' and go back to the medieval Middle East and stay there. 'God' is not a argument.

You know what? I'm bigger then this so I'm going to ignore the racism and rude ascertions made in this post and take it as a rant from a confused individal.

I don't think you have an argument period but this is an oppurtunity for you to make one. Go for it.

(I never said I wasn't pro-technology, and I only claim god contributed one thing to this universe not everything, Finding answers is my purpose just to get that straight.)

You don't know me, But I know you.

 

[lengy]

I only provoke when provoked.

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

I don't think this should be a business deal between you and whatever god you have in mind.

First of all, I don't like how people explain all things happened as God's mysterious way of actions. It's not mysterious. It's just that things happen for various reasons that is not relevant to us physically. Doesn't matter if its bad or good.
Just for yo, considering if God does exist which I believe so. We would certainly with no doubt recognise him as the true wisdom of all. So how can you figure out what the results are for if you think like humans with a naturally limited amount of wisdom.

Anyway, is it just me feeling that most of us have been convinced that God does exist? The topic seems to have upgraded a little bit.

Things happen for reasons that are not relevant to us physically...what exactly do you mean by that?

Anyway, when I said God had some explaining to do (if he exists) I didn't mean he had some explaining to do and then I'd join his religion, because even if God exists I am not interested in worshipping him. And No, I'm not afraid of Hell. I notice you pull out 'limited human understanding' as an explanation, but I think that's crap. Omniscience is an illogical concept.
God created us, didn't he? So he created our capacity for wisdom and understanding, so if I don't understand God, and think that 'God' and 'Satan' are just two names for the same thing, that is His fault, His problem.

So, which would you prefer? I remain an Atheist who studies religion, can even admire it but doesn't believe, or I become someone who believes in, but hates, God.

Everyone believe in the Darwin's theory of human revolution?

Didn't he suggest the reason for men to have eventually grown to walk on two feet is that during our transformation, we constantly tried to reach for things high in the air, mostly fruits on trees. So that eventually got our spine straight.

Would anybody find it funny?

I think you'll find that the theory of evolution is still more plausible than creatonism. Notice I didn't say 'Darwin's theory..." because Charles Darwin has been discredited to some extent. Our knowledge has increased, and the reasons why we walk on two legs is not known, however his hypothesis is not considered as likely as others. What you don't seem to get is that changing the theory based on further evidence is not a sign that science is wrong. Creationism is not intrinsically more likely to be correct just because it doesn't change, as creationism is based on a concept that cannot be tested. I must refer to my previous posts about creationism being as likely as the theory that humans are the descendents of fairies...you cannot prove it, but on the other hand you cannot disprove it.

 

[KFunk]

Trying to logically come to the conclusion that 'God' doesn't exist and that the universe just magically popped out of no where is just plain stupidity. Why would you assign to those beliefs when they're the reason you repel religion? You don't want to believe miracles and faith, but you do want to assign your beliefs to weak and unprovable scientific 'theory'. Perhaps, it's because one admits that it might not be wrong, maybe you want to 'prove' it's wrong.

Here is my logic. The universe exists, it all works perfectly and everything operates because of a specific reason. Except, life has no reason. The purpose of life is to survive. But, why? Why does life struggle to survive?

Life is just a collection of compounds and elements right? Amino acids working off chemical reactions. Yet, all life has one purpose in common. To live. Is it that the "Living" form is any more efficient to the "Dead" form? Does one perhaps have a 'spirit'? Why would chemicals react this way? (even life forms which don't consist of any consciousness or intelligence).

The universe was created by something, a purpose isn't necessary for the universe but life is much different.

The universe does have one thing in common with life though. Through all the laws which govern the universe one is most important and is evident in all the laws which govern the universe. The Law of Energy, the conservation of Energy, and the preservation of Energy. It seems as though all laws only exist to protect this law. The law that energy exists, and that it is a finite ammount. Everything which happens in our universe is just to protect energy and to preserve its ammount. So, where did energy come from? Where did the law that energy exists come from?

I'm not saying the creator of our universe (the entity which defined the law of energy and perhaps the laws of life) is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent. I'm just saying that it exists, and that we should spend more time thinking about what it is, rather then wondering if it exists or not.


This is just my opinion, you may criticise it by pointing out flaws which you may find, or just because you disagree to it. But, just because my logic may be different to yours, that doesn't mean that either of ours is right or wrong. It's just a difference of opinion and that's what this whole debate is. I know that right now someone has read to this point is getting ready to make a response focussing on certain parts of my posts, but I only have one thing to say to those people.

The universe doesn't have to have "popped out of nowhere". To propose an idea: it could simply be an eternal cycle of big bang, big shrink, big bang, big shrink ad infinitum. In this case the universe is all that ever has been or will be. While this may be a matter of dodgy intuition I suspect at some base level (be it energy or otherwise) there is some fundamental 'unit' which is eternal. This unit seems to have a nature not to dissimilar to what you call god. If god is to be the creator of everything then it is necessary that noone created god, so I find it safe to suppose that such a god is eternal and has always existed. Scientists have eternal particles, strings and vacuum fluctuations and theists have a sentient being.

The appeal of the concept 'god' is a very understandable thing. We crave meaning and rationality. Indeed, a lot of what you said above reads like an existential crisis resolved by postulating the existence of god. While it might 'make more sense', in an intuitive or an idealistic manner, that there is a sentient being conducting the movements of our universe, I don't think it provides a very logical foundation for god's existence. In a way it seems like wishful thinking - I know that I would prefer it if there were a god and some form of afterlife but as of yet I am unable to bring myself to believe in such things. One of the main things I wish to question is your premise that life must possess inherent meaning - why must this be the case? Can we not first exist and then define what which we are, giving ourselves meaning?

Our intuition yields many fruits, but it has been knocked back by science again and again. A universal speed limit of 'c'? Particle behavior mediated by probability alone? Quantum mechanics is so vastly counter-intuitive and yet we can use it to make accurate predictions and to make technology that works. Historically it would seem that what makes most sense isn't necessarily the best measure of how things must be.

 

[gerhard]

Everyone believe in the Darwin's theory of human revolution?

Didn't he suggest the reason for men to have eventually grown to walk on two feet is that during our transformation, we constantly tried to reach for things high in the air, mostly fruits on trees. So that eventually got our spine straight.

Would anybody find it funny?

why? this makes quite logical sense

a primitive man who could reach higher up than other primitive men , by pushing himself onto two feet, would get these abundant resources (fruit say) found in higher places that are only available to him. then if for some reason the food at ground level became scarce, his other primitive man brothers who could not reach up high would die out and only the ones who could reach higher up to get fruit could survive.

further more, standing on two legs could have other advantages, includign a show of strength to scare away other primitive men etc. again the stronger would survive.

the problem you seem to have is that you havent grasped the conept of evolution yet. no ones saying that just because you reach for something that your body will change. they are saying that in every person tehre are mutations, and if one of these led to a primitive man being able to position himself even a little bit more upright, it would be advantaegous to him and he would be more likely to survive and carry on his genes than his brothers.

 

[ichigo.bankai]

Man i dont even know wat the hell brought this topic up but personally i believe that god exists.......
but there are afew things that can prove that god exists if
1.the big bang y did it happen ?" no 1 knows rit .ok lets say it randomly existed and evolution happened and so on and so forth but how could u explain that we humans didnt evolve till know or even any other animals evolve (like monkeys to humans) another thing would be how come that if we evolved y did we end up having sexual reproduction and if we say that it was mutation then y didnt it move on to different type of reproduction .y is it that almost all females give birth and and take care of their young u see acat and it kittens a dog and her puppies amother and her children.Why do we have feelings then if it was random then?
how about the law of gravitation and rain if u drop anything from a height even if a small pebble from skyscrapper it can kill somone or even break through a car ,y is it then that when it rains it doesnt break through a window or kill somone.
how about trees what tells the seed which way to grow shoots and which way to grow roots ?
how about who teaches a baby to see with his eyez in the first week or so ?
how about who teaches a bay tosuk or even walk and learn new things as it grows up ?


if any one could anser all these questions that i have stated above then ill accept that god doesnt exist ..
this is not my last post about this topic and ill post more questions that require ansers from people who dont believ in GOD...

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Trying to logically come to the conclusion that 'God' doesn't exist and that the universe just magically popped out of no where is just plain stupidity.

Actually, some atheists (like me) don't feel the need to explain where the universe came from... So don't imagine that all atheists think the universe just 'magically popped out of nowhere'. Atheists whom do have some feeling about where the universe came from will also try to use naturalist scientific theories.

Why would you assign to those beliefs when they're the reason you repel religion?

Big bang theory... is NOT the reason most people are atheists.

You don't want to believe miracles and faith, but you do want to assign your beliefs to weak and unprovable scientific 'theory'.

Again, not all athiests believe in Big Bang, certainly not all have some sort of 'faith' in it.

The universe exists, it all works perfectly and everything operates because of a specific reason.

Can you prove that the universe is operating for a specific reason? The only one I could think of is entropy but I think that'd be stretching 'reason' a bit.

Except, life has no reason.

What do you mean no reason? You say no reason then you say the purpose of life is to survive.

The purpose of life is to survive. But, why? Why does life struggle to survive?

Life wants to survive because if it didn't want to survive it wouldn't exist for very long. I.e. If life on early earth didn't have this desire to live, then it wouldn't be here now. You see what I'm saying?

Life is just a collection of compounds and elements right? Amino acids working off chemical reactions. Yet, all life has one purpose in common. To live.

Again... it makes sense that all life would have this 'desire' to live, for if it didn't the life probably wouldn't exist.

The Law of Energy, the conservation of Energy, and the preservation of Energy. It seems as though all laws only exist to protect this law.

All the 'laws' of the universe work off of each other... 'laws' are just the way we explain how our universe works.

Where did the law that energy exists come from?

You really don't understand 'laws'. The law that energy exists came from the fact The universe existed and there was energy and matter... What I think you're really asking is 'where did energy come from?' or 'where did the universe come from?'.

I'm just saying that it exists, and that we should spend more time thinking about what it is, rather then wondering if it exists or not.

We do spend alot of time on this. What do you think cosmology is all about? You just don't like it because we talk about the 'creator' of the universe as if it has no special consciousness or attributes that could make it associated in any way with your religion.

You were bound to make that post the minute you realised that my opinion conflicted with yours. You're only posting because, the minute you realised that what I thought was different to yours, something triggered inside you, something which is asking you to push your beliefs, to push what you thought to be true.

I examine my own beliefs, however as they're still my beliefs, they're what I consider to be true.



Don't post if you have nothing to contribute.[/quote]

Everyone believe in the Darwin's theory of human revolution?

Didn't he suggest the reason for men to have eventually grown to walk on two feet is that during our transformation, we constantly tried to reach for things high in the air, mostly fruits on trees.

His theory has been revised many times... his ideas weren't perfect... science marches on.

----------------------------------------------------------------

if any one could anser all these questions that i have stated above then ill accept that god doesnt exist ..
this is not my last post about this topic and ill post more questions that require ansers from people who dont believ in GOD...

Hmm... You don't post very coherantly (sorry if you're offended by that) but I'll try to answer your questions as best I can understand them.

1.the big bang y did it happen ?" no 1 knows rit .ok lets say it randomly existed and evolution happened and so on and so forth but how could u explain that we humans didnt evolve till know or even any other animals evolve (like monkeys to humans) another thing would be how come that if we evolved y did we end up having sexual reproduction and if we say that it was mutation then y didnt it move on to different type of reproduction

- For all your questions reguarding 'Big bang theory' go to http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html
- I don't get what I think is the second part of your question there...
- "Sex helps a fledgling creature pass on its good mutations and respond better to environmental stresses that would leave its asexual neighbors floundering in the shallow end of the gene pool."

.y is it that almost all females give birth and and take care of their young u see acat and it kittens a dog and her puppies amother and her children.

- Not all creatures look after their young... however;
- The existance of creatures that look after their young tells us that looking after your young is probably better for the survival of the species, i.e. perhaps if mothers didn't look after their babies there would be no cats left.

Why do we have feelings then if it was random then?

Evolution is not random, it has a purpose. This purpose is to survive.

how about the law of gravitation and rain if u drop anything from a height even if a small pebble from skyscrapper it can kill somone or even break through a car

I'm thinking you're a troll now, but since I've gone this far....

Things falling from great distances (while maybe hurting you) are unlikely to kill you if they are small. The reason for this is their density and their (can't think of the proper word right now) but I'll say 'freefall' point, where the force of air hitting the object is equal with the gravitational pull pulling the object down.

how about trees what tells the seed which way to grow shoots and which way to grow roots ?

This is in its genetic information.

how about who teaches a baby to see with his eyez in the first week or so ?

Alot of this stuff is instinctual, theorised as being passed down by our parents along genetic lines....

how about who teaches a bay tosuk or even walk and learn new things as it grows up ?

Part genetic, part learning.

if any one could anser all these questions that i have stated above then ill accept that god doesnt exist ..

I hope I've answered the questions to your satisfaction, but these questions I have to say aren't a reason to believe God exists.

 

[stalk_if_u_dare]

an interesting conversation at work brought up this question:

"Was Jesus the first christian?"

I am the member of the 'no' party. because 'christian' is about worshipping jesus...so unless jesus loves himself WAY to much...i dont think he was the first one.

Anyone else for the 'no' party?

 

[doingHSC]

People will always try to rationalise situations of overcoming unbelievable odds with something. Some will 'pray' to win lotto and never win and others will and when they win it's 'god' and when they don't it's not 'god' or whatever. They always try to reason this things. Stuff happens, good, bad. It has nothing to do with 'god'.

HI ErendilPeredil!

The thing some of you need to understand is that under duress the brain can do amazing things.
It's like when you go on a ghost tour to an old sanitarium or something. You're so convinced that it's haunted that out of the corner of your eye you see a figure, or a head on a fence post. They're complete figments of ones imagination and can be proved to be nothing more.

Much like these 'miracles'. When you trick the brain into believing something for long enough, it's not out of the question for the brain to manifest images.

same thing can be said other way around. If I tell you I won a lotto, u'll be more inclined to believe that it was a matter of probablity, even if it was a "miracle". In the end know one knows!!

no one can prove that god exists "scientifically/logically"..otherwise this thread would not have existed, someone might've done that already centuries ago, and no one can prove that god does not exists either....


i've only read few pages of this thread, but i think this is how the thread goes:
a theist says....god exists because of this this and this..
an atheist says...no it could have been probablitiy or this this and this, that does not prove he exists..

ofcourse u can't prove god exists like this

an atheist should provide his/her arguements also
atheist...he does not exist because blah blah
theist...blah blah ..

of course u can't prove god does not exist like that either

end of story, close thread!!

 

[EraserDust]

an interesting conversation at work brought up this question:

"Was Jesus the first christian?"

I am the member of the 'no' party. because 'christian' is about worshipping jesus...so unless jesus loves himself WAY to much...i dont think he was the first one.

Anyone else for the 'no' party?

Jesus was not a Christian. For those unaware, Christian means "belonging to Christ". The term "Christian" was first used to describe his followers at Antioch.

EDIT- close this thread if u want, since another one of this nature will inevitably start somewhere else

Descartes' Meditations gives interesting reasoning for God's existence (partially similar to the ontological argument wrapped up earlier by MoonlightSonata). Still, God's apparent existence cannot be proven logically, only drawn from self intuition.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

of course u can't prove god does not exist like that either

I disagree. I think we can prove God doesn't exist just as well as we can prove any other supernatural being doesn't exist... We can show that there is no God just as well as we can disprove the fantasies of a lunatic - It's Good enough for me.

 

[doingHSC]

I disagree. I think we can prove God doesn't exist just as well as we can prove any other supernatural being doesn't exist... We can show that there is no God just as well as we can disprove the fantasies of a lunatic - It's Good enough for me.

please prove it..

 

[EraserDust]

Evolution is not random, it has a purpose. This purpose is to survive.

I thought I would comment on this. Evolution is random in that it is lacks a purpose, instead it is merely the result of natural endurance. It does not have a purpose, it has an outcome. The difference in meaning lies in having a conscious aim or intent behind the consequence. Of course as you claimed without a sentient being, this "purpose" of survival is simply to survive, and to become better at surviving, nothing more.

I disagree. I think we can prove God doesn't exist just as well as we can prove any other supernatural being doesn't exist... We can show that there is no God just as well as we can disprove the fantasies of a lunatic - It's Good enough for me.

You cannot axiomatically prove that God does not exist. I would assume that to a lunatic, their fantasies seem real (from personal conviction) and you cannot prove to them otherwise. You can obviously justify using logic your belief in no God to yourself and to others who hold the same belief, but that does not make it anything more than justified conceived proof.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I thought I would comment on this. Evolution is random in that it is lacks a purpose, instead it is merely the result of natural endurance. It does not have a purpose, it has an outcome. The difference in meaning lies in having a conscious aim or intent behind the consequence. Of course as you claimed without a sentient being, this "purpose" of survival is simply to survive, and to become better at surviving, nothing more.

When I said that evolution has a purpose I was trying to explain how it is not random simply - Evolution has the appearance of 'purpose' (that's of course how alot of ID'ers justify their beliefs) due to natural selection. It is not random, the mutations can be random however the way in which these traits compete against other traits in their environment to survive is not random.

You cannot axiomatically prove that God does not exist.

I've never claimed to be able to prove with 100% certainty that God does not exist. I've just claimed that I can prove God does not exist as well as I can prove any supernatural being / object of fantasy does not exist. If that's not good enough for people then they can go on believing in God, but I'd question how logical they're being given that they're bound to not believe in SOME other supernatural being / object of fantasy.

i.e. I can prove God does not exist, as well as I can prove that the tooth fairy does not exist.

 

[doingHSC]

I've never claimed to be able to prove with 100% certainty that God does not exist. I've just claimed that I can prove God does not exist as well as I can prove any supernatural being / object of fantasy does not exist. If that's not good enough for people then they can go on believing in God, but I'd question how logical they're being given that they're bound to not believe in SOME other supernatural being / object of fantasy.

i.e. I can prove God does not exist, as well as I can prove that the tooth fairy does not exist.

out of curiosity, how can u prove supernatural being/object/tooth fairy does not exist?