Does God exist? (3 Viewers)

[jmakowiak]

aetheism? flawed much?

*atheism. Spelling? Flawed much?

I suggest you leave the thinking to others.

Don't insult him just cause he has a tiny brain.

 

[BradCube]

Perhaps all possible worlds simply exist, in which case there is no luck involved.

Hey KFunk, would you mind expanding on this idea for me?

If you are proposing a necessary existence (of the unmoved mover variety) for all possible worlds how to you appropriate this with the beginning of the universe for each of these worlds?

I'm also a little confused by your terminology here. Where as "possible world" is usually used as a maximal description of all reality, you seem to be using it as a description of the universe we observe? In short, I don't understand how multiple possible worlds could actually exist since all that does exist is encompassed within the term "possible world". I'm a little lost...

 

[Cazic]

1. ok so whats your reason and explanation for that tiny particle that expanded to be the universe. the cause of that appearing?

2.3.4. arent necessary if u reject the existence of god

YouTube - 'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009

 

[missanonymous7]

OK, I'll give it a shot. (Can't necessarily say I'll be able to answer all subsequent questions though tbqh.)

3. i dont understand what u mean? the bible states clearly that god created one man, adam, and used one of his ribs to create a woman. how am i taking that out of context? where does it say in the bible about anything being a metaphor? is god a metaphor then? an idea used to teach small children right from wrong? good from bad? if so, then i'll accept that idea of god.

It's out of context because
1. Genesis (well, the first few chapters at least) was originally written in a 'poetic' form of language, not a factual narrative-style report. This differs from other parts of the Bible which are written as historical recounts and a couple of various other different forms. Of course a lot of the 'poetry' gets lost in translation from the original ancient languages into English, in the same way translating most English puns and limericks into different languages doesn't really work.


2. It was originally written for a much, much, much earlier audience of readers than ourselves, who did not have the level of scientific knowledge that we have today. Can you imagine taking a television set to the Middle Ages and then trying to explain to the people how it works? Of course you could start off using technical language, but they probably wouldn't have a clue what you're talking about - and so you'd have to simplify. A lot.

Similarly, can you imagine explaining the Big Bang theory and the mechanisms of evolution to civilisations with absolutely no knowledge of modern physics or biology? They wouldn't even have the vocabulary to describe such scientific processes, much less understand them. This is why the Genesis account of creation is a much more 'simplified' version of how the universe and life began - and I think you'll find that only hardcore Creationists truly believe in this completely literal interpretation of Genesis. I'd guess the majority of Christians do not believe that the world was created in six literal days, and most would also believe in microevolution at least (changes within a species) if perhaps not macroevolution (changes from one species into another)(for the record, I firmly believe in both).

This 'allegorical' or 'metaphorical' interpretation can then be extended further, even up to the point where some Christians don't believe there was a literal 'Adam' and 'Eve', but rather they figuratively represent the first human beings. Personally, I'm inclined to take this view, however there are still a lot of people who believe there was one Adam and one Eve, and there are valid arguments for that.

It tends to come down to personal belief, really, depending on your background etc, when it comes to the details of Genesis.

 

[ad infinitum]

OK, I'll give it a shot. (Can't necessarily say I'll be able to answer all subsequent questions though tbqh.)



It's out of context because
1. Genesis (well, the first few chapters at least) was originally written in a 'poetic' form of language, not a factual narrative-style report. This differs from other parts of the Bible which are written as historical recounts and a couple of various other different forms. Of course a lot of the 'poetry' gets lost in translation from the original ancient languages into English, in the same way translating most English puns and limericks into different languages doesn't really work.

LOL? It's written in 'poetic' language? What on earth do you mean by this? It is written exactly the same as the rest of the gospels, all of it was taken as the perfect word of god (a perfect account of reality) for more than a thousand years, and still is by proper Christians. How to you distguish between poetry and literal account? (O yea! you project your own intuitions! You are the arbiter!...) Even if it was poetry (which it is not)- what difference would it make? What on earth would its absurd babble be a metaphor for? This is meant to be the the best moral guide that an all knowing god could provide humanity with.

2. It was originally written for a much, much, much earlier audience of readers than ourselves, who did not have the level of scientific knowledge that we have today.

LOL! It was written by a much, much earlier people.

Can you imagine taking a television set to the Middle Ages and then trying to explain to the people how it works? Of course you could start off using technical language, but they probably wouldn't have a clue what you're talking about - and so you'd have to simplify. A lot.

Something has gone terribly wrong with your neurology. You realize that people in the middle ages had the exact same mental capacity as modern peoples? An all knowing god would have no trouble in creating a document that lays down the foundations of science (perhaps the scientific method would have been useful in the bible! instead of.....some buring pushes and pray miracles), perhaps atomic theory would have been usefull...Infact a mention of the wheelbarrow would have been an amazingly usefull thing this all knowing god could have mentioned, no, no! it was far more important to make sure humanity knows to stone children for disobeying their parents, to know how many days they could beat their slaves for before they where alowed to die! What poetry!.

Similarly, can you imagine explaining the Big Bang theory and the mechanisms of evolution to civilisations with absolutely no knowledge of modern physics or biology?

How do we teach our children evolution today...?Please, think through your terrible thoughts before revealing them to others.

They wouldn't even have the vocabulary to describe such scientific processes, much less understand them.

Uh, you don'y need a 'special scientific vocabulary' to describe evolution to a child. And even if you did, why could not god have provided us with it? I'm sure he could manage a glossary.

This is why the Genesis account of creation is a much more 'simplified' version of how the universe and life began

No. It's simply not.

- and I think you'll find that only hardcore Creationists truly believe in this completely literal interpretation of Genesis.

Why wouldn't they? It is pretty clear what Christians should think. It's written in the Bible.

I'd guess the majority of Christians do not believe that the world was created in six literal days, and most would also believe in microevolution at least (changes within a species) if perhaps not macroevolution (changes from one species into another)(for the record, I firmly believe in both).

Um, this is contrary to Christian dogma, not because of it. These people are less Christian. Darwin uncovered this process through science, not through 'god', and he was persecuted for this by the parties of God.

This 'allegorical' or 'metaphorical' interpretation can then be extended further, even up to the point where some Christians don't believe there was a literal 'Adam' and 'Eve', but rather they figuratively represent the first human beings.

Sure, you can do this with any text. Even a cookbook recipie. I can 'interpret' 'add sugar' as evolution and 'stir well' as don't murder! I hope these terrible thoughts of yours a recycled.

Personally, I'm inclined to take this view, however there are still a lot of people who believe there was one Adam and one Eve, and there are valid arguments for that.

No there aren't.

It tends to come down to personal belief, really, depending on your background etc, when it comes to the details of Genesis.

Haha.
It quites clear that you have no idea what your talking about.

 

[missanonymous7]

^ lol.

I might have responded to most of those points if anyone else had posted them.

 

[ad infinitum]

^ lol.

I might have responded to most of those points if anyone else had posted them.

I took the time to respond to all your points...you could atleast return the favor.

 

[missanonymous7]

I took the time to respond to all your points...you could atleast return the favor.

Yeah, but - respect. You lack it.

You seem more interested in pissing off as many people as possible (including people 'on your side'!) rather than engaging in a meaningful debate. What's the point?

 

[ad infinitum]

Yeah, but - respect. You lack it.

You seem more interested in pissing off as many people as possible (including people 'on your side'!) rather than engaging in a meaningful debate. What's the point?

I lack respect because I took the time to carefully respond to each one of your points? Oh yes! You show so much respect by not responding to one of my points! I don't care if I 'pissed off' people, If you disagree, give me reasons- show me where I'm wrong.

You say I'm not interested in engaging in 'meaningful debate', uh, I put forth a detailed rebuttal of your points, you wrote something along the lines of 'i duntz likezz uuu'.

 

[cwalker]

why the fuck wud u argue about this shit on a fucking study forum
u dumb dick fuckers

 

[Heggarty]

Ok so I apoligise if many of these arguements have already been covered I couldn’t be bothered searching through the entire thread or in fact any of the thread. I will just outline some of the reasons I choose to believe in god.

Firstly the creation of the universe. Never have I ever seen life come from non life. I have seen life come from life. Invaraibly life comes from life. So do I choose to believe in the beginning nothing followed by protons and neutrons followed by antimatter etc or in the beginning god.

Secondly Moral absolutes. The way, we as humans know when something is wrong and when something is evil. The strong correlation between what the bible says is wrong and as what we as human beings see as wrong to me can not simply be labelled coincidence. The bible says that murder is wrong I know that it is wrong not because I am a Christian but because I am a person. Stealing is wrong, I know stealing is wrong not because I am a Christian but because I am a person. I choose to believe that there is an intelligent mind behind these moral absolutes. Feelings of love: do I choose to believe that over hundreds and thousands of years we have evolved to a state where we can love fellow humans and over hundreds and millions of years cells and energy and whatever have built up inside of us to create these feelings or do I choose to believe there is an intelligent mind behind these feelings. I choose the later.

Thirdly the sheer perfection of this universe. Even atheists would note that the chances of this planet being formed and the life which is here at the moment is somewhere in the millions to 1 range. Im not exactly sure of the exact figures but I think it is something like the air is made up of 78 percent nitrogen and 22 percent carbon. If it was 80-20 or 76-24 we would all be dead. If the sun was 500 metres closer we would burn, 500 metres further away and we freeze. If the grass was any other colour than green we would all be blind. Do I choose to believe that over billions of years natural selection formed us into this perfect species or do I choose to believe that god has created this world and the people to live in harmony. Again I choose the later.

Fourthly. Even when I was an atheist I was always trying to disprove god. Constantly thinking of ways god didn’t exist or how it was impossible for there to be a god. All of my friends who don’t believe in god constantly try to think of reasons why god doesn’t exist. I personally believe that there is a god shaped hole in all of us. I believe atheists continually try to disprove god because god is constantly trying to draw close to us. Thats more of a personal opinion.

When I look at the gospels and I see that Jesus lived a sinless life, died and rose again it leads me to believe that Jesus is indeed god. Even atheists acknoweledge Jesus as a historical figure. When I see the grace, mercy and love that was shown throughout his 33 years it is compelling evidence for me. Dawkins would have you believe Jesus was a “Wise Teacher”. TO me that is ludacris. Either jesus was a lunatic or he was the son of god. Only a lunatic or the son of god would die on a cross forgiving his enemies. I encourage people to read the gospels and decide for yourself weather in your opinion jesus is a nut or who he claimed to be.

Dawkins never tackles the question of the resurrection of jesus either. As the foundation of the Christian faith youd think there would be a mention of it. Paul says that if Jesus didn’t rise from the dead our faith is worthless. Atheists would have you believe that there were mix up in tombs or that 500 people were all smoking some hash and thought they had seen Jesus. I personally choose to believe the gospels.

The validity of the gospels is something that is always going to be bought into question. Dan Brown paints the picture of a committee picking and choosing what they want. 5200 manuscripts all dated from the 1st to the 10th century with nothing contradicting each other for me is enough proof.

Finally the day I cried out lord I need you, you win. And on that same day he transformed me from depressed drug addict into joyful born again hopefully is the most compelling bit of evidence I could provide. I tried to change on my own and it just wasnt possible. But as soon as I let god all my chains and bondages were gone.

Sorry I got a bit carried away, I’m sure these points have been covered before. Let me know what you think, apologies I’m not the most articulate person either.

 

[jet]

Thirdly the sheer perfection of this universe. Even atheists would note that the chances of this planet being formed and the life which is here at the moment is somewhere in the millions to 1 range. Im not exactly sure of the exact figures but I think it is something like the air is made up of 78 percent nitrogen and 22 percent carbon. If it was 80-20 or 76-24 we would all be dead. If the sun was 500 metres closer we would burn, 500 metres further away and we freeze. If the grass was any other colour than green we would all be blind. Do I choose to believe that over billions of years natural selection formed us into this perfect species or do I choose to believe that god has created this world and the people to live in harmony. Again I choose the later.

I actually saw a mathematical argument in my Cosmology textbook which arrived at the conclusion that at any arbitrary point in time, there might be as many as 1000 galaxies inhabited with life. It also found that of those 1000, only 1 will be inhabited by an intelligent life form at a time (i.e. like us). Just thought it might be interesting.

It's 20% oxygen, not carbon, lol. If it were carbon, we would be dead. And 500m is incredibly small on a Cosmological scale, but your point still stands. Many actually take the fine-tuned nature of the Universe to prove the existence of a higher power, who created the Universe for the existence of life.

I myself am a weak agnostic. I still take (most) Christian values, because I find that they are generally correct, though God is the grey area.

 

[sam04u]

ad - just because an explanation is lacking, does not point it to a God.
just because X isn't true doesn't make Y true, ESPECIALLY if it's not a boolean position being tested.

This argument is pretty flawed as you have failed to define either X or Y. If X isn't true, that definitely means that it is something other than X. If we define "something other than X" as Y, then in the event that it isn't X it is definitely Y.

Often the problem with these debates is that one party (generally an atheist or an agnostic) asks for evidence of the existence of God and then goes on to provide a test for which to measure the argument. The test of course being the scientific method. The biggest problem with this test is that no answer could ever pass the test. Again, using the definitions from above you can neither prove X nor Y using this test. However it has to be either X or Y. Therefore the problem is the test and not the solution provided to the question.

This barrier has caused for many problems and even for some to be irrational enough to "distrust" science and that is ridiculous and counter-productive. Of course it must be noted that as was shown above we can not take the scientific method to be infallible. Though it does seem to be the new form of dogma adopted by some atheists.

 

[Iron]

Their thoughts could reach far enough to form a judgement about the world around them, though they found no trace of Him who is Master of it.

You come close only to men who are humble at heart. The proud cannot find you, even though by dint of study they have skil to number stars and grains of sand, to measure the tracts of constellations and trace the paths of planets...

 

[cwalker]

Lol you're just talking out of your ass aren't you? Why the hell are you even on the "News, Current Affairs & Politics" section? What do you want? Who the fuck do you think you are? If other people wants to discuss topics which are relevant to them, who are you to tell them to stop? And plus, I don't see you going to other threads and telling people to stop discussing "non-study" related topics.

And what the fuck is a "dick fucker"???

dickfucker= u
you fucking dumbshit
go suck ur dads shit cock
coz ur a gay homo faggot
fucking anal manure eater
and btw
god was always there
no one created god
you ignorant piece of shit
you dont know shit about religion
you fucking low life fagface prob fucking wank and smoke all day
piece of fucking cumstain dickhead
stop drinking ur own periods
moron shitfucker
i am better than u
coz u fucking squeeze ur fucking grandparents asses for life

 

[Iron]

Catholicism appeals to the lovers of order. It beckons like a life-boat to the shipwrecked souls who have seen the conventions go down under their feet...

 

[trickx]

Catholicism appeals to the lovers of order. It beckons like a life-boat to the shipwrecked souls who have seen the conventions go down under their feet...

Is this guy for real?

And wtf at the 09ers ...

 

[Lukybear]

Is this guy for real?

And wtf at the 09ers ...

He is for real. And the only true salvation is Christianity.

 

[tommykins]

lol, never get tired of this thread

 

[John McCain]

Firstly the creation of the universe. Never have I ever seen life come from non life. I have seen life come from life. Invaraibly life comes from life. So do I choose to believe in the beginning nothing followed by protons and neutrons followed by antimatter etc or in the beginning god.

So I suppose you reject the germ theory of disease also, because you can never directly observe microorganisms causing disease?

Secondly Moral absolutes. The way, we as humans know when something is wrong and when something is evil. The strong correlation between what the bible says is wrong and as what we as human beings see as wrong to me can not simply be labelled coincidence.

If you look at our 'moral' choices, many of the ways we act and patterns we're involved in are repeated throughout all animal species. Do ants looks after each other and their community because they're really nice guys? There is an evolutionary advantage in acting in a collectivist way. You are inclined to feel stealing is a bad idea, because for millions of years, anyone who stole from anyone else would have been clubbed to death. 'love' is simply a feeling of intense attraction, and you typically feel it strongest for people you are going to breed with, and your genetic offspring. People feel intense attraction to, and jealously protect their progeny simply because it maximises the perpetuation of their genes.

Also, how do you account for the fact that many of our instinctual feelings, particularly our desire for lust, anger, greed and vengeance, powerful drivers of behavior that influence all human interaction, are contrary to biblical values, and many people enjoy fulfilling these drives with no remorse?

Thirdly the sheer perfection of this universe. Even atheists would note that the chances of this planet being formed and the life which is here at the moment is somewhere in the millions to 1 range. Im not exactly sure of the exact figures but I think it is something like the air is made up of 78 percent nitrogen and 22 percent carbon. If it was 80-20 or 76-24 we would all be dead. If the sun was 500 metres closer we would burn, 500 metres further away and we freeze.

As Kfunk noted, suppose there is an infinite number of universes? Then there will be an infinite number of planets that are ideal for supporting life.

Even within our own universe, the drake equation proposes that there may be many planets capable of supporting life.

If the sun was 500 metres closer we would burn, 500 metres further away and we freeze.

I don't know about your other figures, but the earths orbit is elliptical. Our distance from the sun varies by over 5 million kilometres per year.

Also the sun, the composition of energy it releases, and the composition of the atmosphere, have all changed hugely over the 3.5 billion years that life has existed. Life has persisted because the changes occurred gradually, and life adapted. Life can persist under a range of extreme environments. If the environment was slightly different, life would simply exist in a different form.

Finally the day I cried out lord I need you, you win. And on that same day he transformed me from depressed drug addict into joyful born again hopefully is the most compelling bit of evidence I could provide. I tried to change on my own and it just wasnt possible. But as soon as I let god all my chains and bondages were gone.

Were you really a drug addict? Really?

Sorry I got a bit carried away, I’m sure these points have been covered before. Let me know what you think, apologies I’m not the most articulate person either.

Nah, you're alright.