Does God Exist?

[Murphy]

This isn't a poll. This is a thread to debate the existance of God and to analyse the arguments for and against. It seems that The Apricity is lacking this discussion and if I am wrong and the search function fucked up again, then I apologise.

Anyways, does God exist?

Regards,
Eóin.

[Atlas]

Yup.

[Loki]

Good thread idea Eóin.

Very shortly from my point of view:

I have seen no tangible evidence yet that "God" exists. Hmmm but first we need to determine the qualities and definition of such a "God". Is he/she/it merely the creator? Or are we talking Christian God here? Or any God at all?

The mysteries of how the universe and all that is within it came to being, are probably too much for the human mind to ever fully comprehend. To bridge this dilemma, human cultures have come up with the idea of a god who created everything. "God" is thus:

1) a convenient explanation of things we are too stupid to understand, and

2) an escapism to make us feel better about our own mortality.

I don't believe in the existence of God, and especially not in the very specific Christian one.

[Nodens]

Leaning towards an Ignostic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism) view.

[Lutiferre]

Very shortly from my point of view:

I have seen no tangible evidence yet that "God" exists. Hmmm but first we need to determine the qualities and definition of such a "God". Is he/she/it merely the creator? Or are we talking Christian God here? Or any God at all?

I have given you examples of such evidence, which you haven't evaluated and certainly not refuted.

[Loki]

I have given you examples of such evidence, which you haven't evaluated and certainly not refuted.

I have evaluated your examples and found them to be inconclusive at best, and biased at worst. It is not enough for me to say: "I believe in God now!".

As a Christian I had some very interesting experiences. I still cannot explain it. I recall in 1988 I had a significant spiritual experience, which was unexpected and un-anticipated. To this day, it baffles me. That experience set the course to change my life, and I've been a very committed Christian for the following 12 years.

Upon re-evaluation, I consider even my own significant personal experiences, which were life-changing, not to be enough evidence to point to the existence of God. It could simply have been a brain function that nobody is aware of yet.

[Svarog]

Gods does exist, in everyone of us, you just need to find yours and follow it and make a good person out of yourself, how do you call him or her, could not care less.

[Lutiferre]

And with that I was thinking of this post (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=101484&postcount=22) among others.

That is, if they thought with their head for a while, and then immediately stopped to found a sect (see the quote in my signature).

Those who become Christian rather do so on much deeper reflections.


I am sure you mean that it is likely that it is unlikely to be true.

But Christianity does not base itself on "random" beliefs; far from it. Rather, it bases itself on beliefs which can be traced back to a tradition that goes back many thousands of years, in which numerous historical events are involved, and a long historical process of clearly exacting our beliefs in exposition and discussion in the many ecumenical councils and so on. It is certainly not "random".

If you simply want pure evidence and reason, in that sense, you should look into the many contemporary evidentialist Christian philosophers, like William Lane Craig who argues from the premise that Christianity makes historical claims, which is also relevant to the probability of the truth of the claims of Christianity, in the historical sense, for which you could look to Richard Swinburnes The Resurrection of God Incarnate, (reviewed here (http://www.arsdisputandi.org/index.html?http://www.arsdisputandi.org/publish/articles/000141/index.html)) in which he calculates the probability of Jesus ressurrection to a Bayesian probability of 97% (in the background of his previous theistic work). As to whether there is such evidence to establish Gods existence, you can certainly find many. A modalised version of the third way of Aquinas can be found here (http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Reli/ReliMayd.htm), a cosmological proof (http://www.nd.edu/~jrasmus1/NecessaryBeing.pdf) based on a weak causal principle, or the many other cosmological arguments, like Swinburnes C-inductive argument (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/#5), not to mention the deductive Thomistic cosmological argument from contingency, or the Leibnizian one from reduction to the minimal amount of necessary causal regressions or the Kalam version, (both sketched shortly here (http://reasonfromscripture.blogspot.com/2009/02/cosmological-arguments-for-gods.html)) or Swinburnes teleological proof from order (http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/SwinburnDesign.php) and in its similar axiomatic incarnation (briefly discussed here (http://www.closertotruth.com/video-profile/Arguments-About-God-Richard-Swinburne-/367) and exposited more deeply along with others here (http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth09.html)), or Kurt Gödels ontological proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof#The_proof), or Heartshones modal argument (http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2009/08/hartshornes-modal-argument.html), or Peter Kreefts short and simple list of 20 proofs (here (http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0276.htm)). There is also the Kantian transcendental proof (http://butler-harris.org/tag/), which exists in several forms, but is certainly the most radical one.

For certain, it is notable that under a Christian theistic epistemic structure, it is much easier to understand the fundamental question of why there is something rather than nothing. That this question is accounted for, even if the account is not itself taken to be absolutely certain or proven, is something which renders the interpretation of the world more rationally accesible.

But in fact, you should know that your statements and deamnds of evidence already presuppose that evidentialism; and that such is not mandated a priori as some kind of necessity for epistemic justification. Looking to establish religious epistemology on other forms of justification compatible with what would be to be expected given that Christianity is true, is in fact, a necessity to evaluate it's rationality and truth. Therefore, I deflect the evidentialism and refer to the work in Reformed Epistemology, especially here, Alvin Plantingas work on properly basic beliefs, which though, still involve the criteria of epistemic possibility, which is certainly complemented by the work of Christian metaphysicians and even evidentialists. You can find a short introduction to his work on epistemic justification here (http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth03.html).

All this, of course, is part of a rationalist paradigm of thinking which needs not be accepted. It might be closer to the truth to accept a kind of wider epistemological effect of Gödels incompleteness theorem and Heisenbergs uncertainty principle, and resort to the Christian phenomenologists like Xavier Zubiri and their excellent work and it's implication for how we know the world and the truth and God (short introduction here (http://www.zubiri.org/works/informalintro.htm), and longer expositions here (http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Comp/CompFow2.htm), here (http://www.zubiri.org/intro.htm), here (http://www.zubiri.org/general/xzreview/1999/rovaletti1999.htm) and here (http://www.zubiri.org/general/xzreview/2004/web/bes_2004.pdf)). It is also worth looking at, in the end, ultimately a Kierkegaardian approach which is far from impressed by rationalism.

But whichever view one chooses, it's without doubt that your accusations remain irrelevant, show no knowledge of Christian philosophers and thinking, no insight, and bring nothing new to the table of the discussion which has been ongoing for the last thousands of years.

Or maybe existence is simply not a predicate, per Kant. Or maybe you or I can bring another thing up. Whichever you choose, cowboy.

You have not shown that a Christian worldview does not have sufficient epistemic justification, or that it is a case of "something we have absolutely no evidence exists", or that it is even a case of having to prove any such things rather than being a case of instrumentalist and experiental epistemology and goals which has no occupation with evidence, or even of a Kierkegaardian one and it's implications for what the truth of the thing is to be determined after. Indeed, all you have done is bring a worthless and incoherent accusation full of nonsensical presuppositions that I have no more nerve to dissect.

There are varying degrees of connection, and certainly of ontological and epistemic types, even if they aren't "denominationally" equivalent. But even if there are such ontological and epistemic equivlances between theistic and deistic claims, there isn't far from the belief in such a transcendent, rational being that has created all things in existence, which implicitly implies the potentiality of an interaction with humans (from omnipotence) to the actuality of that interaction between one rational and powerful being (the transcendent creator) and the rational and powerful beings it has freely brought about (humans), and that obviously not by compulsion if it is indeed omnipotent as both deists and theists agree. These beliefs, though diverse, share mostly the fundamental similarities, one example of which is your more or less universal nominator of "absolute existence" which is a good basic statement of the fact of God, whichever way we come to realize it.

There are many physicists and biologists and others who maintain their belief in God as the Lawgiver, something that Darwin maintained until his old age, and there are many analogies in the natural world that leads to such a belief.

That too in modern science, in the words of the Anglican particle physicist who helped discover the quark, John Polkinghorne, that "the nearest analogy in the physical world [to God] would be ... the Quantum Vacuum.".

As for more elaborations on Christianity, I have made many other posts. This (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=107048&postcount=44) one, and here (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=107077&postcount=46), here (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=107297&postcount=52), and here (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=107120&postcount=5).

[Lutiferre]

I have evaluated your examples and found them to be inconclusive at best, and biased at worst. It is not enough for me to say: "I believe in God now!".
I never said it was enough for you to believe in God; convincing was not my agenda, since that is subjective.

[Hrolf Kraki]

I believe in a supreme creative force. It could be a deity of it could simply be a nontheistic force. Perhaps it's a combination of the two, or perhaps a combination of those two plus more that we just don't understand. To be sure there is a god or to be sure there isn't a god is utter nonsense, therefore it's impossible to adequately convince someone either way. You just have to rely on what you yourself believe. I took as much evidence as I could (and I'm always gathering ever more) and with the evidence I've accumulated, made a best-guess based on the data.

A lot of it goes back to cosmology. How did something come from nothing? Because I don't know doesn't prove that God did it, but it forces me to place God as a cause since I lack any other theory.

[Loddfafner]

I doubt God exists except in a psychological and cultural sense. It exists as an idea. A more interesting question is what effects do we see in the world that one might attribute to a god. How else can we explain those effects?

[Loki]

A more interesting question is what effects do we see in the world that one might attribute to a god. How else can we explain those effects?

I would go further and add that the attribution might be to a spiritual explanation, which is superstition as there is no proof that spirits exist.

In the olden days everything that could not be explained, was attributed to the works of a miracle-working, creative god. And to an extent, it is still the case today.

It is also clear that, to the writers of the Bible, the cosmos seemed a very different place than what we now know it is through scientific discovery. The night sky was some sort of flat disc-shaped structure called the "firmament" -- and stars were little lights stuck in the firmament. And there was a wall of water beyond that, apparently, because when God "opened the windows of heaven", it rained. Really hard.

Nowadays things that cannot yet be explained scientifically, are automatically attributed to God or a spiritual explanation. In the future science will probably find answers to many of these questions, disproving the supernatural explanation.

[Lars]

No.

It has no importance if God exist or not because any sane person can see it has no importance whatsoever. Not a single proof of God's work/influence has come to light.

If God exist (or any god or gods) may he stike me dead! :thumbs up

P.S. I really like the argument of Bertrand Russell's teapot. The burden of proof for God's existence lies with the believer and not the atheist.

[Gooding]

I'll give it a tentative "yes". I said a prayer not too long ago requesting which religion I was meant to follow and out of the blue I'm getting a bunch of mail from my old Catholic parish. My wife seems indifferent rather than opposed right now so I've much to consider..

[Murphy]

I'll give it a tentative "yes". I said a prayer not too long ago requesting which religion I was meant to follow and out of the blue I'm getting a bunch of mail from my old Catholic parish. My wife seems indifferent rather than opposed right now so I've much to consider..

Gooding man, I like you, but you might not like what I am going to say; you cannot allow your wife to dictate your religion no matter how much she opposes (Catholicism) Christianity. Your soul is not something to mess around with. It is not like getting a new pet dog.

Anyway, if you have any questions on Catholicism just drop me a PM or add my MSN/Yahoo.

Regards,
Eóin.

[Damião de Góis]

How did God came to exist? Did something or someone created God?

[Cato]

How did God came to exist? Did something or someone created God?

An obvious question, but also moot if you understand that, from the Bible, God has no beginning and no end.

It is also moot from the perspective of regarding God and nature as one and the same, a common ancient Pagan doctrine, with neither God nor nature (the "body" of God you might say) having a true beginning nor a true end.

[Damião de Góis]

An obvious question, but also moot if you understand that, from the Bible, God has no beginning and no end.

It is also moot from the perspective of regarding God and nature as one and the same, a common ancient Pagan doctrine, with neither God nor nature (the "body" of God you might say) having a true beginning nor a true end.

moot = debatable?

Every being in nature has a begining and an end, so it's kind of difficult for me to acept an idea of "something" without them.
I respect religion and spiritualism, i was brought up as catholic and i think that the values they teach are good for people. However, some things just seem to have no answer and it's up to us to accept or question them.

[Hrolf Kraki]

P.S. I really like the argument of Bertrand Russell's teapot. The burden of proof for God's existence lies with the believer and not the atheist.

Absolutely! I find it incredibly ridiculous when religious people tell me that I must prove that there god doesn't exist. I simply tell them to prove to me that Thor doesn't exist and when they can't I exclaim that then He must exist and we all better start praying to Him. :D

Oh and Bertrand Russell is awesome! His book Why I'm not a Christian was the so-called straw that broke the camel's back for me. My doubting Christianity became full-blown disbelief.

[Hrolf Kraki]

I'll give it a tentative "yes". I said a prayer not too long ago requesting which religion I was meant to follow and out of the blue I'm getting a bunch of mail from my old Catholic parish. My wife seems indifferent rather than opposed right now so I've much to consider..

Eh, the church is just in need of more followers now that science is taking away their believers. I get that crap all the time in the mail.

[Murphy]

Eh, the church is just in need of more followers now that science is taking away their believers. I get that crap all the time in the mail.

May I please use this as a signature to highlight the real gems of stupidity to be found on the internet?

Regards,
Eóin.

[Hrolf Kraki]

May I please use this as a signature to highlight the real gems of stupidity to be found on the internet?

Regards,
Eóin.

You're the one who believes that a Jew died for your sins and came back to life three days later and all that other nonsense. You want to find idiocy on the internet? Just go back over to one of your Christian forums.

There are less and less followers of Christ. People are becoming smart enough to see through it. Science disproves their nonsense. If you want to deny this, go right ahead, but don't expect others to share your asinine belief system.

[Lars]

#Hrolf Kraki

If you do go to Denmark to study I think you'll have found your home, as this country is probably the least religious country in the world. :)

[Murphy]

You're the one who believes that a Jew died for your sins and came back to life three days later and all that other nonsense. You want to find idiocy on the internet? Just go back over to one of your Christian forums.

I believe God died for me and what is more, I believe he rose again for me. I don't believe some mere creature rose from the dead.


There are less and less followers of Christ. People are becoming smart enough to see through it. Science disproves their nonsense. If you want to deny this, go right ahead, but don't expect others to share your asinine belief system.

Science by its very nature cannot disprove God and Christianity, nor is its modern sciences intention to try and disprove God and Christianity. You paint this picture as if there is a conflict between science and religion which is actually quite funny. Either way, I am taking what you said for a signature. I know some people who'll get a good laugh out of it as well.

I'll tell you what as well, scientifically prove to me God does not exist, please! Pretty please!

Regards,
Eóin.

[Murphy]

How did God came to exist?

I quoted the Gloria Patri by mistake sorry. But my point was that God has always been.


Did something or someone created God?

Not at all.

Regards,
Eóin.

[Psychonaut]

I'll tell you what as well, scientifically prove to me God does not exist, please!

Let's not be retards here and start demanding that someone respond to a negative proof fallacy (http://safalra.com/philosophy/fallacies/negativeproof/), OK?

[Cato]

moot = debatable?

Every being in nature has a begining and an end, so it's kind of difficult for me to acept an idea of "something" without them.
I respect religion and spiritualism, i was brought up as catholic and i think that the values they teach are good for people. However, some things just seem to have no answer and it's up to us to accept or question them.

Moot = not an issue.

[Murphy]

Let's not be retards here and start demanding that someone respond to a negative proof fallacy (http://safalra.com/philosophy/fallacies/negativeproof/), OK?

I am not saying that if he cannot scientifically disprove God then God therefore exists, that is not my argument for God's existance. I am simply asking him to clearly and scientifically demonstrate that God does not exist.

Regards,
Eóin.

[Loddfafner]

May I please use this as a signature to highlight the real gems of stupidity to be found on the internet?


If gems of stupidity are what you are looking for, you need only search closer to home (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/search.php?searchid=289291).

[Murphy]

If gems of stupidity are what you are looking for, you need only search closer to home.

Oh I have my moments as well, I never said otherwise did I?

Regards,
Eóin.

[Psychonaut]

I am simply asking him to clearly and scientifically demonstrate that God does not exist.

My apologies, you're being a completely different type of retard by using the Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html) fallacy. Sorry. :rolleyes2:

[Murphy]

My apologies, you're being a completely different type of retard by using the Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html) fallacy. Sorry. :rolleyes2:

Hrolf Kraki claims science disproves Christianity's nonsense, I ask him to scientifically disprove Christianity's nonsense.. I suppose he cannot do it :coffee:!

Regards,
Eóin.

[Psychonaut]

Hrolf Kraki claims science disproves Christianity's nonsense, I ask him to scientifically disprove Christianity's nonsense.. I suppose he cannot do it :coffee:!

Some of that nonsense certainly has been thoroughly falsified. The first thing that springs to mind is Young Earth Creationism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism). Falsification of something like that is within the realm of possibility because you're dealing with actual evidence. Insisting that someone disprove the existence of an invisible, inaudible, untouchable, unsmellable and untastable entity is to make a fallacy.

[Murphy]

Some of that nonsense certainly has been thoroughly falsified. The first thing that springs to mind is Young Earth Creationism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism). Falsification of something like that is within the realm of possibility because you're dealing with actual evidence.

Young Earth Creation was never apart of the Christian (Catholic and Easter Churches) deposit of faith. It was and today remains in Protestant sects not Christianity's nonsense just general human nonsense.


Insisting that someone disprove the existence of an invisible, inaudible, untouchable, unsmellable and untastable entity is to make a fallacy.

Hrolf Kraki claimed science disproves Christian nonsense and that is why so many people are leaving the Church. I asked him to demonstrate this. Why are you going after me for simply asking him to substantiate his assertions?

Regards,
Eóin.

[Psychonaut]

Hrolf Kraki claimed science disproves Christian nonsense and that is why so many people are leaving the Church. I asked him to demonstrate this. Why are you going after me for simply asking him to substantiate his assertion.

I'm going after you because you're engaging in a formal logical fallacy. No where did anyone say that the existence of God has been disproven. Hrolf said:


Science disproves their nonsense.

"Their nonsense" could refer to any number of things, not just (and certainly not explicitly) the existence of God. In the US (where Hrolf and I are from) there is much nonsense (like Young Earth Creationism) that is an integral part of Christianity. Much of this nonsense has been disproved.

[Murphy]

I'm going after you because you're engaging in a formal logical fallacy. No where did anyone say that the existence of God has been disproven.

He pretty much did.


"Their nonsense" could refer to any number of things, not just (and certainly not explicitly) the existence of God. In the US (where Hrolf and I are from) there is much nonsense (like Young Earth Creationism) that is an integral part of Christianity. Much of this nonsense has been disproved.

Hrolf was specifically addressing the Church's diminishing population and attributed this decline to science disproving our nonsense. The majority of people who leave the Church are not people who have been convinced that science disproves our nonsense. They leave because they cannot come to terms with the deposit of faith in regards to themselves and the wicked lives they wish to live. I took his labeling of nonsense to refer to the deposit of faith and I think I can be forgiven for thinking so. I don't know anyone who has ever left the Church because people in Europe once thought the earth was flat.

Anyway, I'm tfinished here.

Regards,
Eóin.

[Psychonaut]

I don't know anyone who has ever left the Church because people in Europe once thought the earth was flat.

Perhaps you're unaware of just how much nonsense is part of American Christianity. The wholesale denial of scientific research regarding the origin of man, life and the universe is part and parcel of many Christian denominations over here. I personally know quite a few folks who have left Christianity after seeing through this very type of nonsense.

[Andorran]

He pretty much did.



The majority of people who leave the Church are not people who have been convinced that science disproves our nonsense. They leave because they cannot come to terms with the deposit of faith in regards to themselves and the wicked lives they wish to live.

It might have something to do with the boy-buggering as well.

And the Church "coming clean" only after being completely exposed for the cover-up.

[Puddle of Mudd]

There is zero evidence for god/s of any kind.....

Except Jim Morrison that is, he came pretty close...

[Cato]

For the umpteenth time: science can't be used to prove or disprove what has to be intuited and experienced internally, so science can't be used as a proper measuring rod to determine the existence or non-existence of the divine.

[Psychonaut]

There is zero evidence for god/s of any kind...

The truth of that statement depends entirely on what categories of evidence you're admitting into your judgment. A religious experience, such as several of us on this forum have had, may not be public evidence, but it can certainly be considered private evidence. Incommunicability does not necessarily preclude an experience from being valid.

[Puddle of Mudd]

The truth of that statement depends entirely on what categories of evidence you're admitting into your judgment. A religious experience, such as several of us on this forum have had, may not be public evidence, but it can certainly be considered private evidence. Incommunicability does not necessarily preclude an experience from being valid.

Define these "religious experiences".

[Psychonaut]

Define these "religious experiences".

The Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_experience) article on it is pretty extensive and well sourced. If you're seriously interested, I'd recommend reading the standard work, The Varieties of Religious Experience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Varieties_of_Religious_Experience), by William James.

[Lady L]

Hello,

If I was going to ask that question I would ask does A God exist for You?
When you ask does God exist I feel like your asking about one certain God-

If there is a God would we have the same God? ( I'm asking God this btw:), not you ) That's just another unanswered question....

I mean there can't be one God for all religions can there?
And can one religion be the truth while all else is false?

I always welcomed the idea of spirit guides. It's appealing, comforting.

I would love to learn at my death,( if it's not possible then, then it never is... )

that there is a God, and a Heaven. The two without religion though. Built on beliefs of kindness, love and nobility. It won't matter which religion you followed, just as long as you followed your heart ( truth ) and your good on the inside.

Leave Religion at the door please....

Sometimes when I've been real desperate I have whispered to whom I call " God " ...makes me feel eased ...its always felt like someone was listening. :)

[Anthropos]

Interesting. Did you anywhere on the net publish an account of your life-changing experience?


I have evaluated your examples and found them to be inconclusive at best, and biased at worst. It is not enough for me to say: "I believe in God now!".

As a Christian I had some very interesting experiences. I still cannot explain it. I recall in 1988 I had a significant spiritual experience, which was unexpected and un-anticipated. To this day, it baffles me. That experience set the course to change my life, and I've been a very committed Christian for the following 12 years.

Upon re-evaluation, I consider even my own significant personal experiences, which were life-changing, not to be enough evidence to point to the existence of God. It could simply have been a brain function that nobody is aware of yet.

I don't understand why brain function should have to rule out God. I have had discussions with people before where they insist at some point that all their contact with God was just the result of chemical processing, brain functioning etc. The question of how God communicates with a human being does not have a simple answer, in my opinion, and for example, what some apologists say, that God simply uses functions that are also known to rationalistic science, is not a satisfactory explanation at all, in my opinion, especially not for disbelievers. On the contrary, I would insist that it cannot be a conclusive answer. And furthermore, no rational conclusion would be sufficient, nor even necessary at all, as proof of a function that many people are indeed aware of.




The mysteries of how the universe and all that is within it came to being, are probably too much for the human mind to ever fully comprehend. To bridge this dilemma, human cultures have come up with the idea of a god who created everything. "God" is thus:

1) a convenient explanation of things we are too stupid to understand, and

2) an escapism to make us feel better about our own mortality.

I don't believe in the existence of God, and especially not in the very specific Christian one.

This seems really contradictory to me, I must say. I don't fail to see how it makes sense from your point of view. But what is it that really could be understood as "a convenient explanation" and "an escapism" to deal with something that (according to your own statement) likely we will never understand? To resort to an entirely hypothetical and imaginary, specialised "brain function" that would explain it all and uncover God as altogether a human invention does seem grossly simplified to me. I am aware that in the one case you were talking about your life-changing experience, while in the other you were talking about the universe, but the one is a part of the other, and thus the two things are not entirely disconnected.

[Black Turlogh]

I'll say only what I've said before: I believe God exists and I place my faith in Him. It's only modest and reasonable of a man to admit that he doesn't possess the answers to such questions in absolute terms, and the man who admits as much cannot and will never be proven wrong.

[Hrolf Kraki]

I'm going after you because you're engaging in a formal logical fallacy. No where did anyone say that the existence of God has been disproven. Hrolf said:



"Their nonsense" could refer to any number of things, not just (and certainly not explicitly) the existence of God. In the US (where Hrolf and I are from) there is much nonsense (like Young Earth Creationism) that is an integral part of Christianity. Much of this nonsense has been disproved.

Quite right! I suppose I should have been more specific. Science does not and cannot say anything regarding the existence of a Creator, but it does disprove Christian tenents. People cannot rise from the dead. The earth wasn't created in 6 days, et. al.

And yes these anti-evolutionists who believe in intelligent design are quite prominent here in Kansas. In fact there are a few on the Kansas state school board! It's a goddamn joke. No pun intended. :p

[Thorum]

Well...I have never seen god nor any evidence for a god or gods. I also, haven't seen evidence for the tooth fairy, elves, supernatural impregnation, people brought back to life, etc. So, logically, I conclude that, no, there is no god(s)...

[Loki]

Interesting. Did you anywhere on the net publish an account of your life-changing experience?


No I haven't yet, perhaps I should. It won't be fully understood by the reader though. One can't put everything into words. Some things cannot be described.



I don't understand why brain function should have to rule out God. I have had discussions with people before where they insist at some point that all their contact with God was just the result of chemical processing, brain functioning etc. The question of how God communicates with a human being does not have a simple answer, in my opinion, and for example, what some apologists say, that God simply uses functions that are also known to rationalistic science, is not a satisfactory explanation at all, in my opinion, especially not for disbelievers. On the contrary, I would insist that it cannot be a conclusive answer. And furthermore, no rational conclusion would be sufficient, nor even necessary at all, as proof of a function that many people are indeed aware of.


The point here is that a mystical experience is not necessarily God. It might be, but then again it might just be some brain activity - similar to the effect that drugs have on the mind. There are numerous catalysts for this, I would imagine.



This seems really contradictory to me, I must say. I don't fail to see how it makes sense from your point of view. But what is it that really could be understood as "a convenient explanation" and "an escapism" to deal with something that (according to your own statement) likely we will never understand? To resort to an entirely hypothetical and imaginary, specialised "brain function" that would explain it all and uncover God as altogether a human invention does seem grossly simplified to me. I am aware that in the one case you were talking about your life-changing experience, while in the other you were talking about the universe, but the one is a part of the other, and thus the two things are not entirely disconnected.

I believe that humans have evolved a "religious" function/part of the brain. It's the only way I can account for different, unconnected peoples all believing in some form of superstition. They evolved that as a way of explaining their world; the unknown. That has eventually developed into the organised religion we see today.

"Religion"/superstition in its simplest form may even exist in animals, who knows. There are many things we don't know yet. We should not dismiss an entirely natural explanation for this, which is something that ardent religionists do.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

I doubt God exists except in a psychological and cultural sense. It exists as an idea. A more interesting question is what effects do we see in the world that one might attribute to a god. How else can we explain those effects?
According to the Bible:

Murder which He invented
Jealousy which He invented
Infanticide which He invented.
Wars which He invented.
Drunkenness which He approved of
Whoring which He approved of
Underhandedness which He invented.
Family murder which He invented
Bigamy which He invented
Race mixing which He invented.
Lying which He invented.
Capitalism which He invented
Socialism which He invented
Homosexuality which He seem to approve of.
Love which He approved of
Camaraderie which He approved of
Loneliness which He approved of
Taxes which He approved of
Sharing which He approved of
Truthfulness which He approved of
Honour which He approved of
Evolution

In short all human strength and weaknesses.
These attributes can be given to all Gods in the past.
We could dissect God(human invented ones) right up to the split second after the Big Bang,what was before the Big Bang no body knows and no body can even imagine.
Why should we bother,it is of no consequence,it is a void.
We do know the consequence of being human and life and death.
To strife for "good" is a fallacy.
We must be bad and good when it suits us,not God and we must open all doors in the long hall of knowledge to suit the progress,however slow, of humanity.
Pondering on God and how to please Him is an Unforgivable Sin to be punished by death.

Lets start with eradicating Mohamed and save the virgins.:D:D:thumbs up:wink

[Lulletje Rozewater]

Hello,

If I was going to ask that question I would ask does A God exist for You?
When you ask does God exist I feel like your asking about one certain God-

If there is a God would we have the same God? ( I'm asking God this btw:), not you ) That's just another unanswered question....

I mean there can't be one God for all religions can there?
And can one religion be the truth while all else is false?

I always welcomed the idea of spirit guides. It's appealing, comforting.

I would love to learn at my death,( if it's not possible then, then it never is... )

that there is a God, and a Heaven. The two without religion though. Built on beliefs of kindness, love and nobility. It won't matter which religion you followed, just as long as you followed your heart ( truth ) and your good on the inside.

Leave Religion at the door please....

Sometimes when I've been real desperate I have whispered to whom I call " God " ...makes me feel eased ...its always felt like someone was listening. :)

Follow your instinct to preserve your life and livelihood and your family but to ponder on doing right or wrong-which would drive me to drink- is out of the question.
God does not exist for me, other than that he is an enfant gâté loved by billions.
Why???????? When I can give more love to my family i.s.o. dividing it with another creature unseen

[Lulletje Rozewater]

I am not saying that if he cannot scientifically disprove God then God therefore exists, that is not my argument for God's existance. I am simply asking him to clearly and scientifically demonstrate that God does not exist.

Regards,
Eóin.

According to Genesis God created Adam and Eve.
Did they have a belly button????
No
Only their children had belly buttons.
For Adam and Eve He may exist,but for the generations after that He never existed

In short God created Adam and Eve
Adam and Eve had no belly button
God did not create a belly button.
God is not a God
Abel had a belly button
Adam and Eve are our gods.

Wow what a logic:D

[Anthropos]

No I haven't yet, perhaps I should. It won't be fully understood by the reader though. One can't put everything into words. Some things cannot be described.Sure, but for people who have had similar experiences, it should still be comprehensible.




The point here is that a mystical experience is not necessarily God. It might be, but then again it might just be some brain activity - similar to the effect that drugs have on the mind. There are numerous catalysts for this, I would imagine.


I don't think that experimentation of that kind is recommendable, and it goes without saying that it won't disprove God's existence conclusively. You can find some reports from people who claim that drugs offer a spiritual path here:

http://www.magiskamolekyler.org/

and here as well, although this is just a general forum:

https://www.flashback.info/

The accounts of spiritual experiences there are a laughing matter, or they contain slightly interesting details surrounded by meaningless fluff, at best, but there's no indication that drugs disproved God, nor that drugs really provide a stable spiritual path. You may also want to read some of the literature that drug experimentation and drug 'culture' has produced, but the more serious part of it is but a series of rather peculiar anecdotes, in my opinion. Some modern gnostics will disagree, but that is so only because they consider any escape from the flesh and from worldly and everyday matters a good thing in itself. What they are into is a highly dangerous and eventually even deadly game that follows a logic quite similar to that of suicidal tendencies. Even if the drugs themselves may not always be lethal, in this case we can speak of an escapism quite different from the religious and rationalist variants that we've already mentioned: an escapism that threatens to dissolve the intellectual faculties and the bodily health of those who go down that road. Some of them even speak of their advanced experiments with drugs as a way to train themselves in handling difficult situations, as if life wasn't hard enough without such manufactured problems. I don't deny that there seems to be rare cases in which drugs did serve as some kind of catalyst or eye-opener in some way, but the result is highly unpredictable, and besides, religious traditions provide much more trustworthy methods.




I believe that humans have evolved a "religious" function/part of the brain. It's the only way I can account for different, unconnected peoples all believing in some form of superstition. They evolved that as a way of explaining their world; the unknown. That has eventually developed into the organised religion we see today.

Either that, or the Christian account is true: Man was created in God's image, implying that God planted a spiritual fountain in all men: the means by which we can turn to Him.




"Religion"/superstition in its simplest form may even exist in animals, who knows. There are many things we don't know yet. We should not dismiss an entirely natural explanation for this, which is something that ardent religionists do.

It is speculation of a most fabulous kind, though.

[Baron Samedi]

I believe in the Black Flame, burning within me.

Gods are merely tools that us humans can use to better our existences.

[Loki]

Either that, or the Christian account is true: Man was created in God's image, implying that God planted a spiritual fountain in all men: the means by which we can turn to Him.


At what point did man become man, though? At what stage in our evolution? 10,000 years ago? 50,000 years ago? Or at the Homo erectus phase, or perhaps even at Australopithecus africanus stage? All valid questions, if you think about it. Or perhaps ... God guided the evolution of primates until they became to a recognisable human form -- then one day called that ancestor "Adam", and thus humans began? ;)

[Anthropos]

At what point did man become man, though? At what stage in our evolution? 10,000 years ago? 50,000 years ago? Or at the Homo erectus phase, or perhaps even at Australopithecus africanus stage? All valid questions, if you think about it. Or perhaps ... God guided the evolution of primates until they became to a recognisable human form -- then one day called that ancestor "Adam", and thus humans began? ;)

Who knows?

[Loki]

Who knows?

The point being, all evidence points to us becoming gradually what we are. Humans don't really possess any characteristic that chimps don't. We are just more intelligent and can co-operate better.

If we became humans gradually, was there a point where a man was an animal (i.e. soulless; without religion; without the ability to be spiritual), but his son/daughter became a spiritual being, created in the image of God? Or are apes also created in the image of God? It's too muddled to get a clear answer to this, and hence me thinking it's all nonsense thought up by humans who thought they were more important than they really were.

[Anthropos]

The point being, all evidence points to us becoming gradually what we are. Humans don't really possess any characteristic that chimps don't. We are just more intelligent and can co-operate better.

If we became humans gradually, was there a point where a man was an animal (i.e. soulless; without religion; without the ability to be spiritual), but his son/daughter became a spiritual being, created in the image of God? Or are apes also created in the image of God? It's too muddled to get a clear answer to this, and hence me thinking it's all nonsense thought up by humans who thought they were more important than they really were.

Only humans were created in the image of God. Besides that, the answer is still that I don't know. I would disagree that humans don't have something that apes lack, though. I read a book by a Swedish cognition scientist who argues in a similar way as you did, but his evidence was not at all convincing, since what he claimed for evidence could just as well be interpreted in any other way.

We know that existing traditions existed as oral traditions prior to being recorded, and that traditions that are now incorporated in the existing, living traditions, existed as oral traditions earlier on. How far back did oral traditions exist?

[Loki]

Only humans were created in the image of God. Besides that, the answer is still that I don't know. I would disagree that humans don't have something that apes lack, though.

Yes I understand what you mean. But in this point of view, there is a clear distinction between animals and humans. And this necessitates a stage where the father is an animal, and the child a human -- at some point. Are you of this point of view, or do you not believe that humans evolved from more primitive species over many thousands of years?

[Anthropos]

Yes I understand what you mean. But in this point of view, there is a clear distinction between animals and humans. And this necessitates a stage where the father is an animal, and the child a human -- at some point. Are you of this point of view, or do you not believe that humans evolved from more primitive species over many thousands of years?

I wouldn't choose one of those alternatives. I think that humans are related to animals in some way, although I don't accept that the line between humans and animals should be blurred. We, the human beings, have an animal side to us, quite undoubtedly, but we also have something in us that is not animalistic.

[Amapola]

God's the first motor, not moved by anything else.
The first cause not caused by anything else.
The first existing being whose existance is not caused by anybody else.

..
And so forth....

[Hrolf Kraki]

God's the first motor, not moved by anything else.
The first cause not caused by anything else.
The first existing being whose existance is not caused by anybody else.

..
And so forth....

One of Thomas Aquinas's famous proofs. Although it's not really a proof, but more of an argument, I like it. I also like the one in which he claims that order shouldn't come from disorder.

The first mover argument leads me to believe in God (although I like to call such a being Odin :p) as the initiator of the universe. I believe this only because there are at present no other qualified theories, and it has always been custom for scientists to tentatively accept a theory until a better one presents itself.

If someone is clever enough to remind me of M-Theory, I must say that however intriguing it might be, it isn't near complete and honestly I believe it raises many more questions than it answers.

[Amapola]

How did God came to exist? Did something or someone created God?

By definition: "God is the creator of the universe, who has never been created. So the question "how was God created" is illogical whereas it is illogical to ask :"Whom is the sinlgle man married to?"

[Gooding]

Gooding man, I like you, but you might not like what I am going to say; you cannot allow your wife to dictate your religion no matter how much she opposes (Catholicism) Christianity. Your soul is not something to mess around with. It is not like getting a new pet dog.

Anyway, if you have any questions on Catholicism just drop me a PM or add my MSN/Yahoo.

Regards,
Eóin.

Your words ring true and I respect them. I have been religious shopping, hither and yon,then yon and hither, sometimes trying to forget the whole thing. I'm too old,tired and Catholic to ignore the cry in my gut for too long. I took Reconciliation and the Eucharist today.My Bible and the Catechism's out, my wife's been asking questions about Catholicism and finally, I just caved in, damned near to tears when I spoke to Fr. Cilinski. I know where God is not.I wish to be where God is.I feel terrible about how I behaved toward the Church.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

Yes I understand what you mean. But in this point of view, there is a clear distinction between animals and humans. And this necessitates a stage where the father is an animal, and the child a human -- at some point. Are you of this point of view, or do you not believe that humans evolved from more primitive species over many thousands of years?

You two are discussing a very nice idea, I like it.
I am so enthralled by it,and a bit shy to forward my totally crack-pot idea.

"Come, let us make man in our image"

Thus spoke God to his "soldiers'=angels in a manner I would speak to my colleagues or sons if I had them. Angels are Spiritual "beings" without any material substance. God never had a body,he too was spiritual ( Holy Ghost)
Take the 6 days he created heaven and earth and only on the last day did he create humanity or something that would evolve into a human or human like.
This human would differentiate from all other creations by:
The ability to think and reason, specifically to make moral decisions.

To get to man FIRST, he had to create heavens-plants-animals- finally men .
To cut my story short:From the moment he started to create he installed thought=thinking=LIFE in the smallest particle of Nature(big bang-universe).
God( I hate that word and want to use"unknown Force) God is a word that has limitations)
This force set a standard law to be adhered to at all times---Evolve.
So all of creation had a "thought' process and was directional.
It is suggested that men was an accident(Gould) and could just as well have been something else. The reasoning behind it are the sudden catastrophes in the universe and on earth which gave rise to the mammals and man.

What are the intentions of this "Force" ????? To be visible.
IE Men(+plants+animals)are the Force made visible or in an other term: Man is God becoming visible.

In my opinion Men is not the end product,it may just be an offshoot in the evolution of the Force's visibility process.
This evolutionary process is ongoing,but regressed by Religion-all Religion.
Religion is static,Science is dynamic despite all its faults.

Looking at our planet the worth of a Lion is as much as that of a man.
The lion thinks-acts-and makes moral decision albeit with more instinct than a man.
The next stage of life is a "being" without any instinct and totally directional
We -humans- are part robotic part living.

Our lives are not more precious than that of a Lion or a bacteria.
We are just an other visible expression of the Force/God,but in our mind we have put ourselves above the plant and animal Kingdom by means of religion.

Make no mistake, religion does a lot of people good,but is being good appreciated by Nature.

IMO Good and Bad are equal parts of life,it is impossible for the total of Life to be more good than bad,Life is like a magnet with equal positive and negative particles,take 1 negative particle away and you have no magnet.
Take 1 part of "bad" away and you have no life.

Just my somewhat fragile idea.
By the way I stopped progressing my idea due to lack of time and what I wrote above is about a twentieth of what I have written in a manuscript.

[Lutiferre]

But in this point of view, there is a clear distinction between animals and humans. And this necessitates a stage where the father is an animal, and the child a human -- at some point.
I have posted links to Christian views of evolution before which explains to a great length even details like these.

But strictly speaking, it necessitates that at some point there was a proto-human vessel, a rational animal much like man before man, which provided the matter and form necessary to build up man, and gave birth to humanity.

And anyway, the distinction (between human and not so) only relies on what has become, not really on how it became. Humans are distinct from other creatures, like every creature is distinct; and humans are also elevated above every creature, to be gods, and have subdued everyone of them.

So what one might miss by looking simply at human coming-about is the fact of the humans that did come about.


If we became humans gradually, was there a point where a man was an animal
Not in the sense of a "a man which was not a man (animal)". But in the sense of a "a man which was a rational animal", then yes. Humans are rational animals, that has been the definition of man accepted by the Church Fathers and scholastics.

Before man, there was a proto-man, not a "man". Or if he was a man, then he was a man, and hence, not "before man".

Or are apes also created in the image of God?
Man is created in the image of God; no other creature is.

[Lutiferre]

At what point did man become man, though? At what stage in our evolution? 10,000 years ago? 50,000 years ago? Or at the Homo erectus phase, or perhaps even at Australopithecus africanus stage?
That's a question which has been roughly answered by many Christian evolutionists, but which depends on the scientific evidence. That is to say, we have to await clear scientific evidence of various items of knowledge before putting too much faith in science which may yet need to progress further.

But a rough answer to that question has been made specifically on a link I posted before, to this book (http://www.innerexplorations.com/chtheomortext/chmys.htm).

[Lutiferre]

How did God came to exist? Did something or someone created God?
This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what Christians intend to mean by God. We certainly do not mean a sort of time-confined being. Our understanding of him is very apophatic; he is eternal, which means timeless. That which is timeless does not exist according to the temporal designation of coming into existence at time t and stopping to exist at time t2. God, rather, exists wholly independently of time t and t2, and is radically transcendent.

The short way to put it is that God is pure actuality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actus_purus).

[Lutiferre]

Nowadays things that cannot yet be explained scientifically, are automatically attributed to God or a spiritual explanation. In the future science will probably find answers to many of these questions, disproving the supernatural explanation.
Not everyone subscribes to that kind of god *cough*idol*cough* of the gaps.

To the contrary, my beliefs about God are wholly independent of such an idol of the gaps, and is integrated with a metaphysical, phenomenological, and noetic grasp of such things as existence, reality and transcendence independently of, irrelevant to and outside the confines of specific items of scientific investigation, but perenially true and relevant.

[Anthropos]

Nowadays things that cannot yet be explained scientifically, are automatically attributed to God or a spiritual explanation. In the future science will probably find answers to many of these questions, disproving the supernatural explanation.

I disagree. Rationalistic explanations are exclusive: they exclude what rationalists call 'the supernatural'. Rational and metaphysical explanations can however exist side by side. Metaphysical explanations are greater, but they do not exclude reason.

[Damião de Góis]

This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what Christians intend to mean by God. We certainly do not mean a sort of time-confined being. Our understanding of him is very apophatic; he is eternal, which means timeless. That which is timeless does not exist according to the temporal designation of coming into existence at time t and stopping to exist at time t2. God, rather, exists wholly independently of time t and t2, and is radically transcendent.

The short way to put it is that God is pure actuality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actus_purus).

That's the problem for me. I cannot abstract myself from time. Everything in the universe has a begining and an end. It's very easy to say that God is timeless but have you ever really thought about that? You just take that for granted. Everything in the universe was created at some point How? I don't know, there are theories but no one knows for sure.
I don't rule out the existence of God but it would be nice to have some questions answered.

[Anthropos]

That's the problem for me. I cannot abstract myself from time. Everything in the universe has a begining and an end. It's very easy to say that God is timeless but have you ever really thought about that? You just take that for granted. Everything in the universe was created at some point, things How? I don't know, there are theories but no one knows for sure.
I don't rule out the existence of God but it would be nice to have some questions answered.

You have never had the intuition that there is something changeless?

[Damião de Góis]

You have never had the intuition that there is something changeless?

Something changeless? Not on the scale of what we are discussing. Like what, for example?

[Sol Invictus]

I don't rule out the existence of God but it would be nice to have some questions answered.

It's all in the Bible. ;)

[Lutiferre]

That's the problem for me. I cannot abstract myself from time.
You can come closer to abstracting it in a metaphorical form.

Consider God as one, eternal now, in which everything is simultaneously present, known and acted. One eternal now.

Read the words in Exodus 3:14 that God uttered to Moses:

And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

This is also reflected in the Tetragrammaton (YHVH):


YHVH is the symbol of all universal existence translated from Hebrew as follows:

HYH (Hayah) means was.
HVH (Hoveh) means is.
YHY (Yehiyeh) means will be.

The combinations of these words convey the meaning of past, present, and future, which make up the four-letter Name of God (YHVH, the Tetragrammaton of Yod, Hey, Vav, and Hey).

The name in Exodus 3:14 is also translated as "I shall be that I shall be". In short, it means that God exists independently of our time, and he eternally is, and always was, and always will be, even as we, are always temporally confined.

I can only recommend you to try to meditate on actus purus again, because it really makes the issue easier to understand. To understand this, try to understand the distinction between potentiality and actuality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentiality_and_actuality).

Also, consider the notion of entelecheia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entelechy) (in Aristotles original sense; disregard the modern perversions, as they are irrelevant).


Everything in the universe has a begining and an end. It's very easy to say that God is timeless but have you ever really thought about that? You just take that for granted. Everything in the universe was created at some point, things How? I don't know, there are theories but no one knows for sure.
God is not the universe, and we are not really meant to think we can represent God in terms of any created thing in an exhaustive sense.

[Anthropos]

Something changeless? Not on the scale of what we are discussing. Like what, for example?

If something is changeless, it is also timeless.

[Hrolf Kraki]

It's all in the Bible. ;)

What about the Qu'ran? Or the Bhagavad gita? Or actually, forget those. I have a whole mess of stories that tell of the feats of the great god Thor. Now there's your Truth!

[Damião de Góis]

Yes, it would be nice to have more than just the bible. I have more questions, why did God only intervene in history in ancient times? And why did he do it in the first place? Why did he never intervene again on other ocasions?
What was so special about Moses and Noah that no one never had again in history?

(I hope "intervene" is a word in english, from intervention? :P)

[Lutiferre]

Yes, it would be nice to have more than just the bible. I have more questions, why did God only intervene in history in ancient times?
The answer lies in why he revealed himself to begin with. To share with us his divine nature and goodness - for us to commune with him. That was the point of all the prophets, Moses and so on - it was a vessel for the salvation of mankind, a preparation for the incarnation of God in Jesus, which is the pinnacle of salvation history.

Why did he never intervene again on other ocasions?
No one says he never intervened on other occasions. The point is rather the imminent relevance of this selfrevelation to the Church, to the personal communion with God of the individual, which starts already by existing to begin with, which is sharing in the being of God, to the extent that we need his divine grace to exist at all; and so, we complete it as humans by salvation, which is full communion with him in every sense, something no lesser creature has the potential for.


What was so special about Moses and Noah that no one never had again in history?
They freely cooperated with God after his selfrevelation, which is why he elected them to begin with. As to why it were them, he had to elect someone to reveal himself to and prepare for the incarnation, and the best option was obviously a nation in the cultural and religious center of the world of the East Mediterranean, with trade routes, contacts and easy access to all directions and civilizations - Judea.

[Lutiferre]

AlexDeLarge, many of your questions could probably be answered if you looked to this thread: http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8787

And read my posts there, and the links to other posts of mine, and recommendations for reading.

[Damião de Góis]

So no other event in history was relevant enough to God as, for example, Moses leading the Hebrew people across the Red Sea, in which God himself divided the waters for them to cross.
That kind of intervention was never seen again.

[Lutiferre]

So no other event in history was relevant enough to God as, for example, Moses leading the Hebrew people across the Red Sea, in which God himself divided the waters for them to cross.
That kind of intervention was never seen again.
Israel was the vessel of salvation for mankind, the preparation for Christ. The preservation, trial and growth of the Israelitic nation was of global importance, in a way that nothing else has ever been.

[Piparskeggr]

I am a follower of the Aesir, Vanir and related Holy Beings...that is my belief.

I also believe that the Ultimate Source of Everything is Unknown and Unknowable by the mind of man; Intelligence or Sheer Force of Natural Laws in action, I do not know... :mmmm:

But, I do believe that there is some Higher Power and think that I have personal experience thereof.

[safinator]

Until proved otherwise with scientific sources, God doesn't exist.

[Mercury]

Until proved otherwise with scientific sources, God doesn't exist.

From author Alister McGrath:

"Dawkins makes the assumption--and demands that his readers do the same--that the limit of knowledge is that which may be scientifically discovered. Such an assertion is itself unprovable by scientific means, and is therefore self-negating."

[FrenchSeeker]

God is the greatest invention of mankind but does not exist. (That's my point of view )

[Stefan]

I don't see this question as very important, to be honest. If God exists, then certainly its existence isn't measurable nor tangible with the empirical methods we have devised to observe our world in the least wrong way possible(note I don't use the phrase "most correct.") Therefore one cannot verify his physical existence, and the question is irrelevant to our progression as individuals and human beings. The answer is found solely in one's faith in one's chosen theism, which changes from person to person. I personally do not know and know I have no way of finding out, and feel much better believing in things with actual empirical evidence. I really don't see this as an argument. There isn't any possible way to argue for or against god's existence, only the credibility of a belief or theism which proposes the existence of a god or various gods.

If you want me to describe the process by which theism develops, I personally believe(based on empirical evidence) humans need the beliefs in the afterlife and grander beings to relieve the anxiety of acknowledging their own mortality. This can have effects on one's brain chemistry and functionality. Hallucinations can be observed, and a sense of not being alone is often measured.

[Leadchucker]

God exsists for me. I am able to accept the fact on faith. I won't argue the fact as you are free to beleive what you will the same as I am. Simple as that.

[Ar-Man]

As the Indian philosopher Shankara said, the Essence of Everything appears to ignorant minds as Personal God, but this concept disappears in the highest levels of Samadhi.

Just sharing a point of view. ;)

[Supreme American]

Having studied college biology which focuses heavily on the cell and its components, I find it very difficult to believe that such intricate living things which have their own internal checks and balances and self-repair mechanisms can come into existence just because, in some non-guided, randomish process. It doesn't add up to me.

I'm not religious and I don't know if there is a "God" per se, but I have experienced some things in life which tell me there is something beyond our experience, I just don't know what.

[Ashley]

Yes. Faith requires faith. Those that don't have faith won't understand and will envy those with faith and will be all the worst off for it. Those without a path usually despise those with a path.

[Ville]

Anyways, does God exist?

Yes, God exists.

Since the notion of God entered our Consciousness, it has persisted for millennia to give deeper meaning to our own existence

Anthropomorphic God gave us morals; modern God is a metaphor for the Unknowable.

God exists. He will stay with us for as long as we, this species, are capable of burning the stardust that created us and our quest for knowledge.

And, as we re-design ourselves into another species, God too will follow - a faint incomprehensible image in a mirror that we are doomed to look into.

[Supreme American]

Yes. Faith requires faith. Those that don't have faith won't understand and will envy those with faith and will be all the worst off for it. Those without a path usually despise those with a path.

I wouldn't necessarily say that. The thing for me is that I don't know where to direct faith if I had it. I can't figure that out, so I let it alone.

[Supreme American]

Until proved otherwise with scientific sources, God doesn't exist.

Science isn't always able to prove itself.

[Flintlocke]

There are tremendous and powerful forces at play in nature. You can see them in great events even in a Jungian way in massive people's "hysteria" for lack of a better word. But as far as anything that resembles a God idea? No, I wouldn't say so.

[SaxonCeorl]

If by "God" you mean some old, bearded giant in a white robe who made the heaven and the earth (and they were good), no.

If by "God" you mean some abstract, unknown power that created and came before the Big Bang, we can neither prove nor disprove such a power.

[Stefan]

I find it very difficult to believe that such intricate living things which have their own internal checks and balances and self-repair mechanisms can come into existence just because, in some non-guided, randomish process. It doesn't add up to me.

This is a problem many scientists or people who study science seem to have. I think the answer is quite clear though. As living beings, able to understand our world, we can only exist in the small probabilities which allow for life. That is from the fundamental properties of the sub-atomic world and the fundamental forces which describe the macroscopic aspects of our universe, to the distance of the Earth from the sun. Without these parameters, we would not exist, and therefore - we would not be in a position to question our origins. Regardless of the small probability, in an infinite multiverse, everything that can exist physically will exist somewhere, sometime. This, of course, relies on a belief in various aspects of science - which one might or might not have, although I think everybody should be educated on the background observations and experiments which have allowed us to form such theories.

I do understand where you are coming from. The complexity of biology can be just as amazing as the simplicity and fundamental aspects of physics, but it is by no means inexplicable. One can only understand fully with a full picture(or as full as a human being can achieve) of science in its entirety. Biology can be described more fundamentally by chemistry and physics, which both can be explained with the use of mathematical hypothesis and experimentation to verify this into a theory or possibly, a law.

For every "internal checks and balances" or "self-repair mechanism" there is an explanation: whether we understand it or not. There is no need to assume that a higher being or system is required for these processes to form. We are explaining the processes of the universe; the only assumption we need to make is that these processes should occur, and have occurred: otherwise it isn't an assessment formed through the empirical methodology we call science, but one of internal conceptualization or faith.

[rashka]

What for? Only Mr. God knows why.
Aija Andrejeva
rfsKAZmnZbg

[Ashley]

I wouldn't necessarily say that. The thing for me is that I don't know where to direct faith if I had it. I can't figure that out, so I let it alone.

Go to a big church and talk to people there. Ask about their young adult groups, not youth groups, those are for high school age people. The bigger the church the better that way you can more easily fit in. Big churches are a good way to meet pretty girls you know with the right values ;)! I forget who exactly but a NASA person recently said something to the word of "we now know a lot less about the universe than we thought because with every discovery we are presented with more questions than answers, with much of the answers we thought we knew actually having been wrong." Science is good and all but it can't help you spiritually here on earth. Faith is a good thing. The single man with an MD is poorer than the married carpenter with a GED.

[Padre Organtino]

Having studied college biology which focuses heavily on the cell and its components, I find it very difficult to believe that such intricate living things which have their own internal checks and balances and self-repair mechanisms can come into existence just because, in some non-guided, randomish process. It doesn't add up to me.

I'm not religious and I don't know if there is a "God" per se, but I have experienced some things in life which tell me there is something beyond our experience, I just don't know what.

Unguided evolution taking place for literally aeons can be a better explanation. From auto-catalitic chemical systems to modern humans - natural selection and random mutation have driven the evolution of species.

As for the idea of God - I certainly don't believe in one that's preached by religions but the concept of some unknown power behind Universe's creation does not strike me as implausible.
Whether or not he really exists is not truely relevant for us as he probably would not bother at all with what's happening on some tiny planet (not to mention that his conciousness and etc would probably be incomprehensible for us).

[Drawing-slim]

I like to think that God exists, I also hope he is alot more clever then muslims and christian lunatics describe him to be.

[Hevneren]

Yes. Faith requires faith.

Indeed.


Those that don't have faith won't understand

Probably true, unless they used to have faith and then lost it.


and will envy those with faith and will be all the worst off for it.

This is pure assumption and frankly patronising to us non-believers. I don't believe because there's no reason for me to. Envy never factors into it. Do you feel envy when someone tells you they believe they were abducted by extraterrestrial lifeforms? Or do you choose not to believe them?

As for being worse off, that's not the case either. I can't say how my life would be as a religious person, but I'm happy being a skeptic open to exploring the big questions.


Those without a path usually despise those with a path.

We don't have a path simply because we don't believe in the same things you do? That's incredibly judgmental of you, and seems par for the course when it comes to believers. :rolleyes2:

We non-believers have a path. It takes the shape of many things: life, reality, reason, logic, science, love, friendship.

[Hevneren]

Go to a big church and talk to people there. Ask about their young adult groups, not youth groups, those are for high school age people. The bigger the church the better that way you can more easily fit in. Big churches are a good way to meet pretty girls you know with the right values ;)! I forget who exactly but a NASA person recently said something to the word of "we now know a lot less about the universe than we thought because with every discovery we are presented with more questions than answers, with much of the answers we thought we knew actually having been wrong." Science is good and all but it can't help you spiritually here on earth. Faith is a good thing. The single man with an MD is poorer than the married carpenter with a GED.

That's the beauty of science. It changes in the face of new evidence. Religion doesn't. Religion stays static and the religious are expected to stay just as static, with rather poor success rates.

The Bible says the Earth is flat. Science says it's spherical. Religious people overwhelmingly choose to believe the Earth is spherical.

The Bible sanctions slavery. Religious people today overwhelmingly oppose slavery.

The examples of the disconnect between a static religion and the believers who choose to absorb new information as it becomes available, are multiple and they show the necessity of science and reason.

We could've chosen to stick to the Bronze Age world of the Bible, instead of the world we live in today, but the question is if people of faith really would've preferred that world.

[Smaland]

20) For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
Romans 1:20, New American Standard Bible

[Heart of Oak]

Well I've always said I'll believe, just in case he/she exists. As if it is all true, you'll look pritty silly if it is really all true.
So I'll believe...John Chap 8 verse 7...

[Nixon]

Yes

[Siegfried]

That's the beauty of science. It changes in the face of new evidence. Religion doesn't. Religion stays static and the religious are expected to stay just as static, with rather poor success rates.
The Bible says the Earth is flat. Science says it's spherical. Religious people overwhelmingly choose to believe the Earth is spherical.


We aren't supposed to stay statistic. We are supposed to learn more and more about the world God has made to learn more about him.

Where does it say in the Bible that the world is flat? If you're making assumptions based on what people believed in the Middle Ages, then you're wrong again. Mediaeval people didn't believe the world was flat, that's a myth.

As for me, I believe God exists.

[Óttar]

Like I said before, if it could be proven that some kind of entity designed the universe, it most certainly isn't the maniacal, genocidal, vindictive, desert god of the Hebrews. If it is merely an impersonal clock, why does it deserve the name "God" any more than a calculator?

There is that saying, "If God allows evil to exist, but doesn't stop it [... you guys know the rest] ...Why call it "God" ?

Someone once explained to me that God is nature, saying, "Do you love the fire because it keeps you warm? Do you hate it because it burns you?"

Which leaves me with my original question, "Why call it 'God' ?"

Then there are those who say, "God IS everything." or some variation of that theme. An argument against that is, "if everything is God, then that means essentially that calling something 'God' has no meaning."

[Graham]

No, can't wrap round the concept of there being one. If there was a god, it wouldn't be like anything that has been taught through religion.

Though, I can't grasp the concept of infinity, foreverness and Never-ending through science, and going from nothing to something either. My small brain frazzles.:P

I mean how can you get both infinity and nothing?

[Heart of Oak]

Yes I do thank-you...

[mymy]

I don't know. I don't even think about it anymore... Base life on humanity, love, friendship and positive things, and don't worry about things that can't be proven. I do have inner, spiritual life, but it doesn't have to do anything with God or religion... Some power probably exist, but it's all energy, we are energy too.
I would say i am agnostic.

[Radojica]

Iq2rpMiatJQ

[Insuperable]

That's the beauty of science. It changes in the face of new evidence. Religion doesn't. Religion stays static and the religious are expected to stay just as static, with rather poor success rates.

The Bible says the Earth is flat. Science says it's spherical. Religious people overwhelmingly choose to believe the Earth is spherical.

The Bible sanctions slavery. Religious people today overwhelmingly oppose slavery.

The examples of the disconnect between a static religion and the believers who choose to absorb new information as it becomes available, are multiple and they show the necessity of science and reason.

We could've chosen to stick to the Bronze Age world of the Bible, instead of the world we live in today, but the question is if people of faith really would've preferred that world.

do not speak what you do not know
The Bible never says that the world is flat it says that it is round and that's it.
There is some misunderstanding with translation but it can mean that it says that the Earth is sphere.
It were scientists at that time who said that the world is flat and the Church listened what they say instead what Bible says.

[Argyll]

Several deities exist. It's very hard to provide true evidence that they do, mainly because they don't have to prove to us they exist. Most Christians are always on the hunt for the next piece of existence (i.e. miracles, etc), but pagans generally have a more personal connection with their gods.

For me, in particular, I feel my deities and feel their orders and prescence. It doesn't happen often, but I've had communion with them and it's a truly beautiful thing. The gods themselves (whichever pantheon) have hardly ever truly shown themselves or revealed themselves to us. And when they do, it is usually something truly large (that is, something to happen).

This is one of the reasons why I feel sorry for atheists. They can't feel the beauty of a deep connection with something larger than themselves and something far more ancient.

[Insuperable]

Several deities exist. It's very hard to provide true evidence that they do, mainly because they don't have to prove to us they exist. Most Christians are always on the hunt for the next piece of existence (i.e. miracles, etc), but pagans generally have a more personal connection with their gods.

For me, in particular, I feel my deities and feel their orders and prescence. It doesn't happen often, but I've had communion with them and it's a truly beautiful thing. The gods themselves (whichever pantheon) have hardly ever truly shown themselves or revealed themselves to us. And when they do, it is usually something truly large (that is, something to happen).

This is one of the reasons why I feel sorry for atheists. They can't feel the beauty of a deep connection with something larger than themselves and something far more ancient.

I however believe you are a crack addict

[Argyll]

I however believe you are a crack addict

Oh darn...

[Hevneren]

This is one of the reasons why I feel sorry for atheists. They can't feel the beauty of a deep connection with something larger than themselves and something far more ancient.

I don't need your pity, and I doubt any other Atheists do as well. I see the universe and Earth as it is, and that's magnificent enough.

Religious people seem to think that you need a god or gods to get in touch with something greater than yourself, when the truth is that every time you look up at the stars in the heavens you are in touch with the vastest greatness of all: the universe itself.

Everything is connected. All living beings are distant relatives, and taking some poetic license you could say we were all born from the stars. The universe is the most ancient entity of all and we all came from it.

The need for a personal deity or deities to watch over us and connect with us, seems so provincial and desperately human, when the vast expanse of existence is out there beckoning us to explore it.

[beaver]

More or Lss - northern

[rhiannon]

Having studied college biology which focuses heavily on the cell and its components, I find it very difficult to believe that such intricate living things which have their own internal checks and balances and self-repair mechanisms can come into existence just because, in some non-guided, randomish process. It doesn't add up to me.

I'm not religious and I don't know if there is a "God" per se, but I have experienced some things in life which tell me there is something beyond our experience, I just don't know what.

Lagergeld pretty much covered it as far as I'm concerned. :eek:

It's probably why I call myself Agnostic, rather than Atheist.

[rhiannon]

That's the beauty of science. It changes in the face of new evidence. Religion doesn't. Religion stays static and the religious are expected to stay just as static, with rather poor success rates.

The Bible says the Earth is flat. Science says it's spherical. Religious people overwhelmingly choose to believe the Earth is spherical.

The Bible sanctions slavery. Religious people today overwhelmingly oppose slavery.

The examples of the disconnect between a static religion and the believers who choose to absorb new information as it becomes available, are multiple and they show the necessity of science and reason.

We could've chosen to stick to the Bronze Age world of the Bible, instead of the world we live in today, but the question is if people of faith really would've preferred that world.

Religion has people believing the Earth is only about 5000 years old:rolleyes:

But, hey.....I guess it's their prerogative, lol

[Insuperable]

I believe in God because I want to believe in something greater.
I have noticed also that the majority of the atheists do not WANT to believe in God not because they think it's a rational thing but simply because they want to to be different and over the years they convinced them that it is a rational thing to be an atheist. In fact they want more to persuade people to think like they rather than we become an atheists.

[Graham]

I don't need your pity, and I doubt any other Atheists do as well. I see the universe and Earth as it is, and that's magnificent enough.

Religious people seem to think that you need a god or gods to get in touch with something greater than yourself, when the truth is that every time you look up at the stars in heaven you are in touch with the vastest greatness of all: the universe itself.

Everything is connected. All living beings are distant relatives, and taking some poetic license you could say we were all born from the stars. The universe is the most ancient entity of all and we all came from it.

We are but a humble speck in this grand expanding universe and to appreciate Science, where everything is questioned.

[rhiannon]

Whether any of us are religious, believe in God(s), atheist, or agnostic....the fact is not a one of us are gonna know jack squat until the day we kick the bucket, lol.

Only then, will the truth make itself known to all of us.

[Hevneren]

Lagergeld pretty much covered it as far as I'm concerned. :eek:

It's probably why I call myself Agnostic, rather than Atheist.

I don't mean to nitpick, but it's a common misconception that there's somehow a contradiction between Atheism and Agnosticism, when in fact the two positions are answers to two different questions. Agnosticism answers the question of knowledge, and Atheism the question of belief. So, if you neither believe nor know, you can be both Agnostic and Atheist.

Obviously, you can not know something yet still choose to believe, or you can believe something yet state that you do not know.

Here are the four main positions in relation to the Agnostic/Gnostic and Atheist/Theist positions:

Gnostic Atheist = "I know that a god or gods do not exist."

Agnostic Atheist = "I don't know whether a god or gods exist or not, but I choose not to believe due to the lack of evidence." <--- my position

Agnostic Theist = "I don't know if a god or gods exist but I choose to believe in something."

Gnostic Theist = "I know that a god or gods exist."

[Drawing-slim]

If we're such small creatures asking these big questions and contemplating the vast complex universe in our tiny little heads with our imagination, i think its only fair of whomever this guy God may be, to grant us a chance at the end, just a peak at least

A brief moment to see how everything works, and to let us know how badly we've fucked up, then slap us to eternity of nothingness, whatever, just a peak:d

Because seems unfair otherwise:mad::D

[rhiannon]

I don't mean to nitpick, but it's a common misconception that there's somehow a contradiction between Atheism and Agnosticism, when in fact the two positions are answers to two different questions. Agnosticism answers the question of knowledge, and Atheism the question of belief. So, if you neither believe nor know, you can be both Agnostic and Atheist.

Obviously, you can not know something yet still choose to believe, or you can believe something yet state that you do not know.

Here are the four main positions in relation to the Agnostic/Gnostic and Atheist/Theist positions:

Gnostic Atheist = "I know that a god or gods do not exist."

Agnostic Atheist = "I don't know whether a god or gods exist or not, but I choose not to believe due to the lack of evidence." <--- my position

Agnostic Theist = "I don't know if a god or gods exist but I choose to believe in something."

Gnostic Theist = "I know that a god or gods exist."

I did not realize there were different categories of Agnosticism lol. Well, that's not entirely true....but seeing as you laid them all out here, if forced to choose....I fall somewhere in the realm of the highlighted options....perhaps a wee bit more in the direction of Agnostic Atheist:)

Hell, I WISH someone or something would show me definitive proof there really IS a God. Until then, I just don't buy into anything and leave myself open to all possibilities:D

[Insuperable]

I don't mean to nitpick, but it's a common misconception that there's somehow a contradiction between Atheism and Agnosticism, when in fact the two positions are answers to two different questions. Agnosticism answers the question of knowledge, and Atheism the question of belief. So, if you neither believe nor know, you can be both Agnostic and Atheist.

Obviously, you can not know something yet still choose to believe, or you can believe something yet state that you do not know.

Here are the four main positions in relation to the Agnostic/Gnostic and Atheist/Theist positions:

Gnostic Atheist = "I know that a god or gods do not exist."

Agnostic Atheist = "I don't know whether a god or gods exist or not, but I choose not to believe due to the lack of evidence." <--- my position

Agnostic Theist = "I don't know if a god or gods exist but I choose to believe in something."

Gnostic Theist = "I know that a god or gods exist."

This is an excellent post. Good to know.
I think that Gnostic Atheism and Gnostic Theism is not that common

[Heart of Oak]

I don't know. I don't even think about it anymore... Base life on humanity, love, friendship and positive things, and don't worry about things that can't be proven. I do have inner, spiritual life, but it doesn't have to do anything with God or religion... Some power probably exist, but it's all energy, we are energy too.
I would say i am agnostic.

God is within...

[Argyll]

I don't need your pity, and I doubt any other Atheists do as well. I see the universe and Earth as it is, and that's magnificent enough.

Religious people seem to think that you need a god or gods to get in touch with something greater than yourself, when the truth is that every time you look up at the stars in the heavens you are in touch with the vastest greatness of all: the universe itself.

Everything is connected. All living beings are distant relatives, and taking some poetic license you could say we were all born from the stars. The universe is the most ancient entity of all and we all came from it.

The need for a personal deity or deities to watch over us and connect with us, seems so provincial and desperately human, when the vast expanse of existence is out there beckoning us to explore it.

You atheists do need pity. But one other problem I have with atheists is their arrogance in that they think that they can choose their own fate and shirk the gods, who they owe everything to.

[Teyrn]

What exists about God can be broken down into:

Speculation, like what the philosophers used to do about the gods in ancient times.

Hearsay, or so-called revelation.

Denial, or refusal to even consider the idea of the divine.

I think that the best that any honestly thoughtful person can say who isn't a dogmatic of some kind (atheist, Christian, etc.) is that "the truth is out there" to use the X-Files slogan. Great claims require great proof and neither atheists or theists offer very convincing evidence from my point-of-view. It's a nice idea to think about God but assuming you accept the proposition of God's existence who do you believe then? :confused:

[Heart of Oak]

God is within...

[PetiteParisienne]

Whether any of us are religious, believe in God(s), atheist, or agnostic....the fact is not a one of us are gonna know jack squat until the day we kick the bucket, lol.

Only then, will the truth make itself known to all of us.

Hot fire of truth.

[StonyArabia]

I believe in the existence of God, and his angels. In fact this complex world can not be created on it's own. Rather God is known by all mankind it's just due to their arrogance refuse to acknowledge him as the power that he is or to know him.

[PetiteParisienne]

I believe in the existence of God, and his angels. In fact this complex world can not be created on it's own. Rather God is known by all mankind it's just due to their arrogance refuse to acknowledge him as the power that he is or to know him.

Something had to light the spark.

[Teyrn]

Something had to light the spark.

The big bang by popular acounts, the God myth not withstanding and the two aren't mutually exclusive. :)

[Hevneren]

You atheists do need pity.

Is that so, sunshine? I'll take that with a pinch of salt coming from a 17 year old who believes in fairies.

People who claim to take pity on others are themselves pitiful, because they're incapable of tolerating other positions than their own. They're trapped by their own ignorance and judgmental attitude.


But one other problem I have with atheists is their arrogance in that they think that they can choose their own fate and shirk the gods, who they owe everything to.

No, the arrogance is in thinking you - as a human being - are so special that some invisible deity/deities in the sky care about you.

The arrogance is in insisting we non-believers need pity and that you hold the truth.

The arrogance is in expecting something you believe created or guides the universe, to listen to you and your needs.

The arrogance is in believing that humanity is the only species out there and that religion can answer every question.

The arrogance is in turning a blind eye to science and reason because you're "too good" for it.

[Magyar the Conqueror]

Of course the Mighty Atilla exists.

He himself descended down from the skies to put an end to the Roman Empire.

Now Atilla is watching over the Hungarian people and protects us.


In all seriousness now, no he doesn't.
If he does I am fucked.

[Hevneren]

I believe in the existence of God, and his angels. In fact this complex world can not be created on it's own.

You're leaping to conclusions without the answers you need to correctly determine the truth. In other words, you cannot know how the universe could exist.


Rather God is known by all mankind

What god is this? Define your god. I don't know any gods. I therefore disprove your position, as do millions of other non-belivers.


it's just due to their arrogance refuse to acknowledge him as the power that he is or to know him.

No, it has nothing to do with arrogance. Can you Theists not find something else to accuse us of, than arrogance? It's quite ironic afterall, seeing how many religious people behave. We Atheists aren't the ones behaving like we own the truth and that everyone should be forced to live by our rules.

Non-belief is simply a matter of not believing! How novel is that? :eek:

Just because you can't comprehend how we can't believe, it doesn't give you the right to define who we are based on your own beliefs and feelings on the subject. You're essentially projecting your own views onto us non-believers. :coffee:

[PetiteParisienne]

The big bang by popular acounts, the God myth not withstanding and the two aren't mutually exclusive. :)

Yep. :thumb001:

I never understood why so many people seem to think that science and faith are incompatible. Wilful ignorance, I suppose.

[Supreme American]

This is a problem many scientists or people who study science seem to have. I think the answer is quite clear though. As living beings, able to understand our world, we can only exist in the small probabilities which allow for life. That is from the fundamental properties of the sub-atomic world and the fundamental forces which describe the macroscopic aspects of our universe, to the distance of the Earth from the sun. Without these parameters, we would not exist, and therefore - we would not be in a position to question our origins. Regardless of the small probability, in an infinite multiverse, everything that can exist physically will exist somewhere, sometime. This, of course, relies on a belief in various aspects of science - which one might or might not have, although I think everybody should be educated on the background observations and experiments which have allowed us to form such theories.

Except that the possibility for all of these things to come into play randomly is infinite and thus I have great difficulty with the science-only explanation. It's far more likely to win a million Powerball jackpots than this.

[Supreme American]

God is within...

God is an ignorant, stinky human?

[GeistFaust]

I have my own Deistic interpretation of God, and if he exists than it becomes a matter of irreducible complexity. This means that if he exists he is too great to prove or make any sense of in the empirical world. The empirical or phenomenal world is the "limit" of all being in the world, and it is the limit upon which all limits are delimited in a calaculable fashion.


Beyond this we just have a vast unknowable space of being, and it has yet to occur what this being is. This void is interpreted as a nothingness in Eastern traditions, and takes on the value of something in more Western traditions or Westernized traditions like Christianity. This being has already been there, but its merely a static force, which coincides with the dynamic flow of natural events in the succession of time.


The succession of time is a causal movement of natural events, which are determined on the basis of certain fundamental and basic laws. The degree of fundamentally which a law contains depends on a phenomenal world, for a universal rule to be applicable whatsoever. This means that if supernatural or divine beings or laws did exist, they would have to conform to the possibilities of the empirical and phenomenal world.


This means that this being would be negated merely by the fact that the succession of time merely appears as a phenomenal convergence and divergence of natural events and forces. This negates and squeezes any divine or supernatural force from possibly existing or being capable of being applied to the reaction, motion, and momentum of phenomenon.


This phenomenon co-exists in the temporal plane of space-time, and it is space time, which is that which is the conceptual framework of this temporal plane in which all phenomenon is contained. This phenomenonal existence is all that their exists of this being of beings, and this being of beings is negated by the dynamic succession of natural events and forces.


This means that if a divine force created this empirical world then he naturally negated himself from that which he created, and thus we are left with a God of the gaps dilemna. This dilemna is pointed out by multiple scientific findings during and after the Enlightenment, and it was with Nietszche that this reality of the God existing in a divine chasm began to exist, in his proclamation God is dead.


There have only been two movements to solve this spiritual break from the material world, which puts the nature of the material world into question. Is reality merely a glitch of consciousness, which is covered up by self-consciousness and the dynamic succession of natural events as they appear to us through our senses in the phenomenal world?


I think its highly probable, and if this is the case then I think we can celebrate in part, despite the seeming tragedy of this situation. The universe's gift to mankind is his rational capacity, which allows him to act in accordance with moral laws. There is no moral laws to be derived in the actions of man without a certain degree of rational capacity, which is contained within him.


Since man's rational capacity is a conjunctive part of self-consciousness, which exists in a natural disjunctive state, between itself and its other then morality in large part is merely an anthropological projection of self. In large part the ontological concepts and ideas of God are anthropological projections of self, and this is only natural to the human condition.


This is because we live simply in the phenomenal world, and anything beyond this is incapable of being known or applied by reason to the dynamic forces of nature determined by the succession of time.


Our subconscious makes projections of anything beyond itself in the imagination as it is captured by our senses, and it re-directs this imagery of the world in an anthropological manner. This is not something I merely reasoned to, but something I experience quite vividly in my day to day life around other people.


Psychologically people have an anthropological projection of the world, and everything else is just an illusory image, which is projected by the sensibility. Christianity has tried to overcome in this quite a one sided, but anthropological manner, by latching onto the claim that God came manifested in the body of a man.


This means that Christianity tries to solve the God of the gaps by bridging our reason to something, which can not perceived by the senses. Thus the concept of faith plays an integrable role in believing in dogmatic and doctrinal codes in Christianity, but alas Christianity fails, because its runs into a contradiction.


If reason is needed to bridge the gap with faith, which exists in a union with reason, and which manifests itself purely in that which is rational and phenomenal, then there is no point from which we can define that which is rational from that which is faith. This is because the distinction in the Christian tradition derives from Reason, which man can not exist without in order to reach the hallmark of faith.


This means faith is merely something which is reduced to a hierarchy or linear array of subjective thought and determination, and anyone would claim to act with the spirit of faith is a charlatan and hypocrite. Buddhism offers us something more fundamental and authentic than what Christianity has tried to offer us. It asks us to see this God of the gaps as a mystical enanamation of self, which projects itself in a void of nothingness.


I think this is a more viable way of perceiving anything supernatural, because it does not ignore the ignorance of humans to such a matter. It does not attempt to construct a hierarchy of self or project an anthropological self onto this void, but merely lets it be.


Our moral duty is to reach a point of moderation and rationality, by approaching the world around us through the middle way. This means that we attempt to approach it from a rational approach, so that we do not end up in acting in excess or in a defected manner in accordance with moral laws, which are in large parts abstractions we make from our consciousness.

[GeistFaust]

Except that the possibility for all of these things to come into play randomly is infinite and thus I have great difficulty with the science-only explanation. It's far more likely to win a million Powerball jackpots than this.



Its comes down to a matter of probability statistics, and I think it would be good if you read into chaos theories. Its important to understand how the systems of the world work, and the mechanisms that cause them to operate as such. It can't be all understand, but technic has been constructed in order to uncover a greater depth about the poesis of man.


That said the Poesis of man can not be re-constructed in a positivic way unless it conforms with the dynamic succession of time in nature. This dynamic force determines all things towards growth, and then to a decline. If an organism or being is unfit or uncapable of adapting to the environment, then it will fade and die out.


This is called natural selection, and I think its the best way to understand how the Poesis of mankind works. This poesis compels man in a rather telelogical manner to re-construct and uncover himself and his surroundings by delineating the structures of the phenomenal world through the use of technic. Its not about understand everything about each structure, but its about understanding the parts in part, and this is how we and nature comes to uncover the Poesis already contained within man and nature.

[Teyrn]

Yep. :thumb001:

I never understood why so many people seem to think that science and faith are incompatible. Wilful ignorance, I suppose.

If you're looking for a nice book to read that's within the God vs. faith question let me suggest this book written by an astrophysicist:

http://www.thegodtheory.com/

[PetiteParisienne]

If you're looking for a nice book to read that's within the God vs. faith question let me suggest this book written by an astrophysicist:

http://www.thegodtheory.com/

Cheers! That looks interesting.

[Argyll]

Is that so, sunshine? I'll take that with a pinch of salt coming from a 17 year old who believes in fairies.

Throwing insults is no way to win an argument.


People who claim to take pity on others are themselves pitiful, because they're incapable of tolerating other positions than their own. They're trapped by their own ignorance and judgmental attitude.

I tolerate other positions; I just take pity on them. :shrug:


No, the arrogance is in thinking you - as a human being - are so special that some invisible deity/deities in the sky care about you.

How so? I humble myself before my deities and serve them. What's arrogant is that atheists think of themselves as the only beings in the world (humans, that is) that matter and that no higher power exists above them.


The arrogance is in insisting we non-believers need pity and that you hold the truth.

Who's the one that can't tolerate other positions now? ;)


The arrogance is in expecting something you believe created or guides the universe, to listen to you and your needs.

No, that is humbling. How, in any way, is believing in a higher power greater than you arrogant?


The arrogance is in believing that humanity is the only species out there and that religion can answer every question.

Who said humanity was the only species out there? Going back to your making fun of me for believing in the fey, are they not a whole different species entirely?


The arrogance is in turning a blind eye to science and reason because you're "too good" for it.

I turn a blind eye to a lot of science because a lot of science thinks it can play as the gods.

Is this what spirituality is degenerating to? :(

[Mercury]

I think it's naive to assume just by chance something exists rather than nothing. The complexity of the Universe is amazing, no one could possibly deny that. And the fact that we are here today, as Homo Sapiens, opposed to the BILLIONS of organisms we could've been, is what-- a 1 in a trillion chance? I am sorry but I do feel that Atheism does have the burden of proof when they assert there is no God.

With that said I feel much closer with Atheists, Agnostics, Deists, and the like who constantly question the supernatural and a non-scientific Deity. Sorry, but I don't take people like Christians, Muslims, and Jews seriously when they claim they are the only ones capable of understanding God.

[Hevneren]

Throwing insults is no way to win an argument.

Correct, and telling someone you pity them is a personal insult.


I tolerate other positions; I just take pity on them. :shrug:

Then you don't know what tolerating other people's positions really means. You lack a fundamental respect for other people and their viewpoints.


How so? I humble myself before my deities and serve them. What's arrogant is that atheists think of themselves as the only beings in the world (humans, that is) that matter and that no higher power exists above them.

You "humble yourself", as you call it, but don't you want something in return?


Who's the one that can't tolerate other positions now? ;)

Say what? I don't pity you, kid, even though I may be justified in doing so. I just don't show that level of arrogance and disrespect towards the beliefs of others.


No, that is humbling. How, in any way, is believing in a higher power greater than you arrogant?

It's all a matter of perspective and personal opinions, but generally people seek something, which is why they believe in deities in the first place. It could be comfort, power, a sense of unity etc.

Belief that a god cares about you and your needs also expresses immense self-importance on the part of the believer.


Who said humanity was the only species out there? Going back to your making fun of me for believing in the fey, are they not a whole different species entirely?

I'm speaking of the universe, and not the little spherical lump of material we're anchored to.


I turn a blind eye to a lot of science because a lot of science thinks it can play as the gods.

Science cannot "think", nor is its place to measure the metaphysical (at least not now). Science is merely an instrument of knowledge and reason. It's a tool used to differ fact from fiction. Nothing more and nothing less.


Is this what spirituality is degenerating to? :(

If you consider yourself spiritual, then you should consider strengthening your spirit by not going around pitying others and being patronising. It seems desperate on your part. Be happy with what you are and what you believe in.

[Hevneren]

I am sorry but I do feel that Atheism does have the burden of proof when they assert there is no God.

Most Atheists don't assert there is no god.

As for the burden of proof, non-belief is the default position, and Theists are generally the only ones making positive claims about deities and the afterlife.

The ones who make the claims are the ones who have the burden of proof, and extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

In addition, non-belief isn't a claim. I can't "prove" than I'm a non-believer. It makes no sense. However, I can ask believers if they can prove whether a god exists or whether there is an afterlife. That makes sense.

[GeistFaust]

I think it's naive to assume just by chance something exists rather than nothing. The complexity of the Universe is amazing, no one could possibly deny that. And the fact that we are here today, as Homo Sapiens, opposed to the BILLIONS of organisms we could've been, is what-- a 1 in a trillion chance? I am sorry but I do feel that Atheism does have the burden of proof when they assert there is no God.

With that said I feel much closer with Atheists, Agnostics, Deists, and the like who constantly question the supernatural and a non-scientific Deity. Sorry, but I don't take people like Christians, Muslims, and Jews seriously when they claim they are the only ones capable of understanding God and the mysteries of the Universe. I don't buy that for a second.



There is no rational basis or doctrine for such a thing, and if so it can be directly proven ever. I think a lot of people have a healthy soul, and they can't look at the world in any other way then to see a God. This is despite the fact that it ignores a basic and fundamental understanding of reality, and obstructs us from understanding the empirical world in all of its profoudness.


Christians, Muslims, and Jews all have shallow and undeveloped perspectives of the world, which are in today's world either too grounded in seeing the world as a fixed order, or as something which can be subjectively interpreted anyway they want to it. Another disgusting thing about these three religions, and especially Christianity, is their tendency to anthropologize the divine and mysterious.


Its pure blasphemy I must say, its basically like saying I believe in God, but because I am God. Its a self righteous attitude to have, and it tries to stamp out anything that is good or sublime in the human mind. These people feel so ensured that what they are commanding others to do is a divine imperative.


This is truly the sickest mentality to exist in, and Nietszche decried it as a result of the shiftiness of the theologian. The theologian is nothing without the pagan and rational traditions of the Graeco-Roman, and yet he uses the Graeco-Roman traditions to usurp them. I think these people are extremely egotistic, and they live in a darkened world where the intellect has been twisted and warped.


A lot of Christianities problems I blame on the Semitic roots that it has, and there is nothing sicker than the Abrahamic religions, which have arisen. I find the Buddhist tradition to be the noblest of the religious traditions in the world.


Judeo-Christian principles and ideals have used Graeco-Roman thoughts to justify their own rational principles to be divine maxims, when they are nothing more than their anthropological projections. At the same time they wish to stress the appearance of divine into the anthropological and physical, because it allows them to justify their own contradictory and hypocritical claims.

[rhiannon]

You atheists do need pity. But one other problem I have with atheists is their arrogance in that they think that they can choose their own fate and shirk the gods, who they owe everything to.

And the religious aren't arrogant about their beliefs?

Now that is laughable.:coffee:

[Eva]

Yes God exists, if you want very much He comes closer and then any doubts shed away...

[Heart of Oak]

And the religious aren't arrogant about their beliefs?

Now that is laughable.:coffee:

If you believe in the city of Satan(Babylon)
Then you must believe in the city of God(Syon)
I am not arrogant only factual.

[Hurrem sultana]

Yes i do believe in God,no doubts at all

[Joe McCarthy]

William James (1842-1910): Belief in the existence of God is something that the intellect cannot decide. But because such a belief can make a major difference in how one lives, a choice (or volition) must be made, one that because of the situation would be a justified (i.e., meaningful) decision. The belief in God's existence "works" (and thus is true) if it satisfies our expectations and is consistent with other beliefs. The question about whether there is a God, then, is not really the issue; what is more important is whether one should believe that God exists, and that choice is determined as justified based on what kind of life would follow from having made such a commitment. The believer will think that his or her life has a purpose, meaning, and outcome that the non-believer will not experience. And that is significant enought for James to be the basis for deciding in regard to situations in which there are no intellectual grounds for deciding one way or the other.


This can be considered logical and rational in the same way one has confidence that a task, previously untried, can be accomplished. It involves an effort of the will.

[Heart of Oak]

Yes I believe...

[Argyll]

Correct, and telling someone you pity them is a personal insult.

Take it how you will. I'm not meaning it as an insult, really, just my own personal feelings towards this matter.


Then you don't know what tolerating other people's positions really means. You lack a fundamental respect for other people and their viewpoints.

I am tolerating other people's positions. It's just that you love to play the victim card all of the time and whine and insult someone who doesn't follow your beliefs.


You "humble yourself", as you call it, but don't you want something in return?

What they give me is acknowledgement of my existence, they answer my prayers, and they bless me. Thos are the rewards of having a religion. All I want in return is what they have given me.


Say what? I don't pity you, kid, even though I may be justified in doing so. I just don't show that level of arrogance and disrespect towards the beliefs of others.

If you can't take someone else's argument, then don't argue in the first place. You, of all people on here, should know that the users on this forum are very opinionated and will defend and voice their opinions on such matters.


It's all a matter of perspective and personal opinions, but generally people seek something, which is why they believe in deities in the first place. It could be comfort, power, a sense of unity etc.

What I seek with my gods is personal enlightenment. I guess non religious people can understand what that means to a religious person.


Belief that a god cares about you and your needs also expresses immense self-importance on the part of the believer.[/quoet]

Truly, it is the reverse of what you think. Since we are the gods' children, many deities have shown their love and affection for their kind, as good parents do. Gods have even taken mortal mates before. Gods who do not generally care for humanity as much as the creator deities did are the ones who didn't really have a hand in creating them.


[quote]I'm speaking of the universe, and not the little spherical lump of material we're anchored to.

Is Faerie not a whole different realm/plane of existence than our own? I have been talking about the whole universe at large. No doubt there are pantheons upon pantheons of deities that have created various species in the world.


Science cannot "think", nor is its place to measure the metaphysical (at least not now).

That is extremely arrogant on science's part to think it can ever measure the paranormal and metaphysical.


Science is merely an instrument of knowledge and reason. It's a tool used to differ fact from fiction. Nothing more and nothing less.

Just because someone is religious doesn't mean they have to disbelieve in everything scientific. We just know that science's attempts at trying to explain existence and related matters is merely not true.


If you consider yourself spiritual, then you should consider strengthening your spirit by not going around pitying others and being patronising. It seems desperate on your part. Be happy with what you are and what you believe in.

I am, and I pity those that do not seek enlightenment.


And the religious aren't arrogant about their beliefs?

Now that is laughable.:coffee:

If you think believing in powerful forces that can easily crush humanity is arrogant, then so be it.

[rhiannon]

If you think believing in powerful forces that can easily crush humanity is arrogant, then so be it.

You clearly think atheists/agnostics are arrogant for not having any religious beliefs....see this post:

You atheists do need pity. But one other problem I have with atheists is their arrogance in that they think that they can choose their own fate and shirk the gods, who they owe everything to.
yet, most atheists/agnostics I know aren't trying to do crazy things like....legislate their beliefs, thereby forcing other nonbelievers to live their lives and abide by laws based on some crazy-ass religious ideology.

That is arrogance, personified.:coffee:

Argyll, some of those very same religious zealots who you are siding with in this argument are those who wish to ensure Gay marriage NEVER sees the light of day because *The Bible says it's a sin"

KWIM?

[Teyrn]

You clearly think atheists/agnostics are arrogant for not having any religious beliefs....see this post:
yet, most atheists/agnostics I know aren't trying to do crazy things like....legislate their beliefs, thereby forcing other nonbelievers to live their lives and abide by laws based on some crazy-ass religious ideology.

Agnostics and skeptics simply say, at least I do, the so-called evidence given by a religion (Christianity, heathen religion, etc.) doesn't support the contention that there is a creative/controlling/causative power or powers (God or Gods). This is a huge contention, the hugest of all to make. Intuiting the existence of God is one thing and I have a gut feeling that there's some kind of higher existence but it's got to be more than the usual appeals to scripture or tradition or the teachings of some holy person.

[Hevneren]

Take it how you will. I'm not meaning it as an insult, really, just my own personal feelings towards this matter.

The keyword here is "feelings", You feel that you're right and that we don't deserve respect but pity.


I am tolerating other people's positions.

No you don't, because if you did you wouldn't be pitying people and telling us we don't want enlightenment.


It's just that you love to play the victim card all of the time

Playing the victim card is a Theist pass-time. You're the majority in the world but whine and cry because people don't accept your claims without question. You cry when some of us don't want to mix politics and religion. You cry when one religious sect gets more attention than your religious sect. You cry when any non-religious themed message is conveyed through popular media.


and whine and insult someone who doesn't follow your beliefs.

Again, we can say the same thing about Theists. I can tell you that every time I've had a discussion about religion and it ended in insults, it was the Theist who started insulting and judging me, not vice versa.


What they give me is acknowledgement of my existence, they answer my prayers, and they bless me. Thos are the rewards of having a religion. All I want in return is what they have given me.

Exactly. You mention "rewards" and getting something in return, as if your belief is supposed to "pay off" in some way. What's spiritual about that, Argyll? That sounds more like a business transaction.

When I look at nature and see the stars up in the sky, I don't expect the universe to give me anything, because I've already been given the gift of life and even if I believed nature and the universe had a consciousness I wouldn't ask it for anything.

The universe and nature owes us nothing. Not because we don't "deserve" anything, but because we are nature, Argyll. We are a part of everything.


If you can't take someone else's argument, then don't argue in the first place. You, of all people on here, should know that the users on this forum are very opinionated and will defend and voice their opinions on such matters.

Thank you for the advice, but why tell me this? I haven't attacked you. It was you who started off by insulting Atheists by stating we are pitiful.


What I seek with my gods is personal enlightenment. I guess non religious people can understand what that means to a religious person.

Yes, you expect a reward for your belief.


Truly, it is the reverse of what you think. Since we are the gods' children, many deities have shown their love and affection for their kind, as good parents do. Gods have even taken mortal mates before. Gods who do not generally care for humanity as much as the creator deities did are the ones who didn't really have a hand in creating them.

Ah, so you see the deities as parent figures then?


Is Faerie not a whole different realm/plane of existence than our own? I have been talking about the whole universe at large. No doubt there are pantheons upon pantheons of deities that have created various species in the world.

I wouldn't know. I haven't seen them. I'm talking about lifeforms on other planets.


That is extremely arrogant on science's part to think it can ever measure the paranormal and metaphysical.

First of all, stop treating science like it's a being. It's not. It's a process. Science therefore cannot be "arrogant".

Second of all, religion claims to have the answers on the metaphysical and paranormal, science doesn't. So, isn't it more accurate to call religious practitioners arrogant?


Just because someone is religious doesn't mean they have to disbelieve in everything scientific. We just know that science's attempts at trying to explain existence and related matters is merely not true.

How do you know these things? And what things are they?



I am, and I pity those that do not seek enlightenment.

How do you know what other people seek or do not seek? How can you judge what is a path of enlightenment and what isn't? Are you qualified to judge all of humanity and every idea within it?

My path to enlightenment, as you call it, goes through reason and science rather than religion. What of it?


If you think believing in powerful forces that can easily crush humanity is arrogant, then so be it.

If you believe you can commune with these powerful forces and have them listen to you, then yes, it's arrogant.

[Teyrn]

Let me give a couple of points:

Believing in UFOs is not the same thing as believing in the possible existence of alien life. << Credulity/gullibility required, also what is called faith.

Believing in God is not the same thing as believing in the possible existence of a higher order in the universe. <<Open-minded uncertainty.

Little green men in UFOs or angels or apparations sent by God is pure wishful thinking to me where the honest uncertainty of asking questions like "Are there people on other planets?" or "Is there a God and if there is what is he/it like?" Question asked which opens up room for exploration. Faith-based statements can't be explored; they simply have to be taken as-is with no room for debate (i.e. "Jesus said so so it's the truth!").

Taking it "on faith" is inferior to me than asking questions and no it's not arrogant to want answers about ultimate questions like "Is there a God?" Faith is a poor substitute for simple common sense and reasoning ability, both of which tell me to be wary of faith statements. This is especially true of those belief systems that tell people to not trust human knowledge/wisdom, which is done in the Bible in some places, as if people are somehow lazy intellectual defects (this is true to some extent as people tend to prefer to simply believe what they're told rather than to find out on their own).

[Magyar the Conqueror]

The way I see it, religious people need some some comforting that God will come and rescue them if they mess up or something. That God will always be there for them, sort of like a magic blanket.

Religious people also need to follow books and live their life by them, instead of making their own decisions. Religion enslaves people's minds.

Personally I am a strong believer in Blood and Soil, and could not care less about some paedophile or some Jewish carpenter from the Middle East.

Also I have lived my life more morally than most Christians I know, but just because of the fact that I don't believe in the Magic Sky daddy, I wont get to go to Disney Land and instead I will roast in Legoland :( (according to your religion anyway)

[Insuperable]

Religion or at least faith in God is not based on PROOFS, but on historical EVIDENCES and on ARGUMENTS. Thats why it is called a faith and a good number of Atheist can not understand this.
Agnosticicism and/or Atheism is based on proofs and/or arguments.
The arguments for the existence of God are in fact much stronger.

[Christian552]

This argument will go on for years and years to come. I see no point in arguing it, because people will believe what they want regardless.
I do believe in God!

[Hevneren]

The arguments for the existence of God are in fact much stronger.

Let's see them. ;)

[Magyar the Conqueror]

Let's see them. ;)


God exists
Jesus said so
The pope says so
It says so in the Bible


;)

[Teyrn]

Let's see them. ;)

"You called?"

http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Science/images-3/god-monty-python.jpg

I think it's something universally agreed on (existence of God or Gods) and so that there's probably something to it. Also the centuries of philosophizing and theologizing about the divine shouldn't be dismissed simply because the modern tendency to divide science from these areas. Some of the greatest minds of all time were scientist-philosophers to use a convienient term.

[Insuperable]

Let's see them. ;)

The existence of awareness.
An apparent design of the Universe and therefore the existence of fundamental laws and constants.
The ultimate beginning of the Universe.

[Magyar the Conqueror]

The existence of awareness.
An apparent design of the Universe and therefore the existence of fundamental laws and constants.
The ultimate beginning of the Universe.


:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Heres proof for Atheism:

Humans need oxygen to live.
Kittens are cute.
The sky is blue.
The grass is green.

[Hevneren]

The existence of awareness.

The existence of awareness doesn't prove or disprove anything. If the existence of awareness is linked to the existence of a god, does that mean that your god didn't exists before humanity? Next!


An apparent design of the Universe

"Apparent" being the key word here. The word "design" is based on an assumption alone. What evidence is there that the universe was created by a god? Next!


and therefore the existence of fundamental laws and constants.

Fundamental laws of nature and constants need a god? Why?


The ultimate beginning of the Universe.

Even the word "beginning" is contested in scientific terms, because we simply cannot know what constitutes the beginning of the universe, what was before and so forth, and even if the universe began at some point, it doesn't prove anything in the way of an all-powerful deity kick-starting anything. Again, this is conjecture.

[Insuperable]

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Heres proof for Atheism:

Humans need oxygen to live.
Kittens are cute.
The sky is blue.
The grass is green.

If I think about it you are all the proof that is needed for theism:thumb001:

[Insuperable]

The existence of awareness doesn't prove or disprove anything. If the existence of awareness is linked to the existence of a god, does that mean that your god didn't exists before humanity? Next!



"Apparent" being the key word here. The word "design" is based on an assumption alone. What evidence is there that the universe was created by a god? Next!



Fundamental laws of nature and constants need a god? Why?



Even the word "beginning" is contested in scientific terms, because we simply cannot know what constitutes the beginning of the universe, what was before and so forth, and even if the universe began at some point, it doesn't prove anything in the way of an all-powerful deity kick-starting anything. Again, this is conjecture.

No shit Sherlock,
thats why they are called arguments in a favour of the existence of God, not proofs
There was an ultimate beginning of the Universe. Nothing before that. Proven.

[Magyar the Conqueror]

No shit Sherlock,
thats why they are called arguments in a favour of the existence of God, not proofs
There was an ultimate beginning of the Universe. Nothing before that. Proven.

Wheres the proof then?

[Hevneren]

No shit Sherlock,
thats why they are called arguments in a favour of the existence of God, not proofs
There was an ultimate beginning of the Universe. Nothing before that. Proven.

Nobody knows that, sorry.

[Insuperable]

Nobody knows that, sorry.

Look,
when the Big Bang theory was proposed ( by a priest physicist I may add called Lemaitre ) it was thought for some time that it was an ultimate beginning of the Universe. Even one of the most famous atheist at that time Fred Hoyle ( who coined the term the Big Bang ) became an deist ( I think ) because of that and became even more famous because of his saying "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein".

It seemed that the existence of God is inevitable so atheists came up with an another theory called Multiverse, the notion that there is an infinite numbers of the Universes and that we accidentally live in one where fundamental forces combined in a such a way that our Universe gave us life ( of course the existence of awereness has been put asside ),
It is even said by those scientists that we may never have an evidence of the existence of any other Universe besides ours.
Now, this multiverse idea is still considered a pseudoscience and it is not part of any standard model. In fact it is rejected my many scientists whether atheists or non atheists.
I only want to show you how far can something go only because someone does not like the idea of the existence of God but instead it is needed to postulate something equally impossible to proven called multiverse. And yet theists are those who can be irrational.

And yes it seems that there is an ultimate beginning which was proven in 2003 by Arvind Borde, Alexander Vilenkin and Alan Guth. They managed to prove that IF even there is this so called multiverse there has to be an actual beginning of multiverse or Universe as a matter of fact.

Remember,
Borde is a Indian physicist. He is Christian.
Vilenkin does not believe in a personal God but is puzzled by the existence of awareness and the fact that there is a point where everything started, matter, space and even time. He could be even Deist.
No one knows what Guth but people assume he is an Atheist.

Their theorem is called Borde-Vilenkin-Guth theorem and they proved the theorem. 2+2=4. Mathematics is a bitch.

Look what even Guth says. Start watching from 3:20 till the end.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aemfYmusSY
He admits that there has to be an actual beginning with no history before it.

[Minesweeper]

God exists, if you believe in him.

I know some very(and truly) religious people, their decency, calmness and dedication to work and family are very rare among non-religious or semi-religious people, who usually tend to be corrupted to some extent, because the society they live in is rotten to the core.

[Argyll]

You clearly think atheists/agnostics are arrogant for not having any religious beliefs....see this post:
yet, most atheists/agnostics I know aren't trying to do crazy things like....legislate their beliefs, thereby forcing other nonbelievers to live their lives and abide by laws based on some crazy-ass religious ideology.

No one here is forcing anyone to adhere to another's beliefs. I am voicing my opinion and the atheists are taking it way to far off of the mark.


That is arrogance, personified.:coffee:

Argyll, some of those very same religious zealots who you are siding with in this argument are those who wish to ensure Gay marriage NEVER sees the light of day because *The Bible says it's a sin"

I am a pagan/heathen. Christianity does not apply to me so I do not side with christians on such matters.


KWIM?


The keyword here is "feelings", You feel that you're right and that we don't deserve respect but pity.

I can't entirely respect and ideology that I find blasphemous, so there's your answer.


No you don't, because if you did you wouldn't be pitying people and telling us we don't want enlightenment.

If I didn't tolerate it, I would be spazzing out and pounding on the keyboard, going on and on about how wrong you are without providing any evidence to support my claims or having a good argument to back it up.


Playing the victim card is a Theist pass-time. You're the majority in the world but whine and cry because people don't accept your claims without question.

I don't care wheather people don't question my religion or not. They can believe what they want.


You cry when some of us don't want to mix politics and religion.

I'm against mixing politics and religion, though the two are invariably mixed and religion has always influenced politics. I'm not a theocratist.


You cry when one religious sect gets more attention than your religious sect.

It's no secret that I want a pagan/heathen majority, though I think that we don't need a constant spotlight on us to show what our religion is. If you feel it, then you find us, not the other way around.


You cry when any non-religious themed message is conveyed through popular media.

Not really. I don't really watch or entertain myself with religion. It's something personal and private, though I like to have discussion and debates over it.


Again, we can say the same thing about Theists. I can tell you that every time I've had a discussion about religion and it ended in insults, it was the Theist who started insulting and judging me, not vice versa.

If you want to take being told you are being pittied as an insult, fine.




Exactly. You mention "rewards" and getting something in return, as if your belief is supposed to "pay off" in some way. What's spiritual about that, Argyll? That sounds more like a business transaction.

When I look at nature and see the stars up in the sky, I don't expect the universe to give me anything, because I've already been given the gift of life and even if I believed nature and the universe had a consciousness I wouldn't ask it for anything.

The universe and nature owes us nothing. Not because we don't "deserve" anything, but because we are nature, Argyll. We are a part of everything.



Thank you for the advice, but why tell me this? I haven't attacked you. It was you who started off by insulting Atheists by stating we are pitiful.



Yes, you expect a reward for your belief.



Ah, so you see the deities as parent figures then?



I wouldn't know. I haven't seen them. I'm talking about lifeforms on other planets.



First of all, stop treating science like it's a being. It's not. It's a process. Science therefore cannot be "arrogant".

Second of all, religion claims to have the answers on the metaphysical and paranormal, science doesn't. So, isn't it more accurate to call religious practitioners arrogant?



How do you know these things? And what things are they?




How do you know what other people seek or do not seek? How can you judge what is a path of enlightenment and what isn't? Are you qualified to judge all of humanity and every idea within it?

My path to enlightenment, as you call it, goes through reason and science rather than religion. What of it?



If you believe you can commune with these powerful forces and have them listen to you, then yes, it's arrogant.

I'll answer the rest because I have to leave for the moment.

[Hevneren]

I can't entirely respect and ideology that I find blasphemous, so there's your answer.

Atheism isn't an ideology, it's a lack of a belief in a deity or deities. Calling Atheism an ideology is like calling not speaking Spanish a language skill or bald a hair colour.


If you want to take being told you are being pittied as an insult, fine.

I take it as an insult because it is. If I called you pitiful, Argyll, wouldn't you see that as a form of insult against you? It's a disrespectful attitude, and you keep defending that disrespectful attitude towards us non-believers.

[Argyll]

Atheism isn't an ideology, it's a lack of a belief in a deity or deities. Calling Atheism an ideology is like calling not speaking Spanish a language skill or bald a hair colour.

Believing in no deity(ies) is an idea. Someone came up with such a thing, so therefore, it is an idea. And how did someone come up with it? Those scientiest and other folks who decided that deities don't exist made it into an idea.



I take it as an insult because it is. If I called you pitiful, Argyll, wouldn't you see that as a form of insult against you? It's a disrespectful attitude, and you keep defending that disrespectful attitude towards us non-believers.

Like I said, take it however you will.

I personally believe that people who claim to be atheists have had some bad experience with religion and distrust it today.

[Magyar the Conqueror]

Believing in no deity(ies) is an idea. Someone came up with such a thing, so therefore, it is an idea. And how did someone come up with it? Those scientiest and other folks who decided that deities don't exist made it into an idea.





LOL, I am pretty sure not-believing came before believing.
Religion is to explain what what people dont know.

I mean, the first Pagans must have thought, " Why does it sometime go dark and sometime its light?", "It must be the sun God going to sleep, if we keep worshipping him he wont sleep, so we will have light all day"

[Amapola]

The proof that God exists is beating and kicking inside me. A miracle, sparkle of life. :heartbea:

[Hevneren]

Believing in no deity(ies) is an idea. Someone came up with such a thing, so therefore, it is an idea. And how did someone come up with it? Those scientiest and other folks who decided that deities don't exist made it into an idea.

Idea =/= ideology.


Like I said, take it however you will.

I personally believe that people who claim to be atheists have had some bad experience with religion and distrust it today.

I can't speak for all Atheists, but I'll say that I personally haven't had any bad personal experiences with religion. How do you explain me?

Besides, the "why" behind your lack of belief isn't important. It's how you go about it when in discussions and so forth. I think some Atheists are non-believers but they don't use logic to determine their point of view.

I think it's a good idea to think through your position and find logical reasons for your position.

[Magyar the Conqueror]

I personally believe that people who claim to be atheists have had some bad experience with religion and distrust it today.

Not me personally, but Priests are known for their paedophilia.
Most priests are homosexuals who don't want to come out.

[Argyll]

LOL, I am pretty sure not-believing came before believing.
Religion is to explain what what people dont know.

I mean, the first Pagans must have thought, " Why does it sometime go dark and sometime its light?", "It must be the sun God going to sleep, if we keep worshipping him he wont sleep, so we will have light all day"

Or maybe the gods came before the humans, taught them some things, and then left them to do as the gods laid out and to lead their lives?

Idius, I thought you were a fundamentalist christian :(

[Siegfried]

Not me personally, but Priests are known for their paedophilia.
Most priests are homosexuals who don't want to come out.

Some, not most, Magyar.

[Magyar the Conqueror]

Or maybe the gods came before the humans, taught them some things, and then left them to do as the gods laid out and to lead their lives?

Idius, I thought you were a fundamentalist christian :(

Seriously, why do people think I am a Christian?

[Argyll]

Idea =/= ideology.

They share the same root word so they are invariably linked :shrug:


I can't speak for all Atheists, but I'll say that I personally haven't had any bad personal experiences with religion. How do you explain me?

Your hate for religion speaks otherwise.


Besides, the "why" behind your lack of belief isn't important. It's how you go about it when in discussions and so forth. I think some Atheists are non-believers but they don't use logic to determine their point of view.

I think it's a good idea to think through your position and find logical reasons for your position.

You can stop trying to tear down my argument with telling me that I don't have a good position. Sorry, that doesn't work with me. Usually people who use that are on the loosing end and want to break down someone else's argument.

You have insulted religious people on this forum before. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

[Hevneren]

They share the same root word so they are invariably linked :shrug:

:rolleyes2:


Your hate for religion speaks otherwise.

And you can state this because you know me so well? ;)

If I hated religion so much, I wouldn't respect people's right to believe.


You can stop trying to tear down my argument with telling me that I don't have a good position. Sorry, that doesn't work with me. Usually people who use that are on the loosing end and want to break down someone else's argument.

I don't know what you're trying to argue here, sorry.


You have insulted religious people on this forum before. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

I have? Well, sometimes the truth hurts.

[Argyll]

:rolleyes2:



And you can state this because you know me so well? ;)

If I hated religion so much, I wouldn't respect people's right to believe.

See below.


I don't know what you're trying to argue here, sorry.

*Hevneren mode on* Then you should have prepared you position better. *Hevneren mode off* ;)


I have? Well, sometimes the truth hurts.

Like I said, if you can't take the heat, don't deal it out.

[Barreldriver]

When it comes to the subject of the existence of a god or gods I have often committed argumentum ex silentio and have been turned away from pursuing further evaluations based on others committing argumentum ad baculum in order to sway my decision.

Given my more recent undertakings in the field of logic I am currently weighing my decision on the subject, in order to give a most informed answer to the question at hand I need to engage in more studies however that does not mean that I have no presuppositions.

The main draw back in this sort of study is that conclusions from circular reasoning often result and it becomes a discouraging venture.

[Ar-Man]

Beyond this we just have a vast unknowable space of being, and it has yet to occur what this being is. This void is interpreted as a nothingness in Eastern traditions, and takes on the value of something in more Western traditions or Westernized traditions like Christianity. This being has already been there, but its merely a static force, which coincides with the dynamic flow of natural events in the succession of time.


Are you referring to the Concept of Shunyata in Buddhist tradition ?

[Teyrn]

The existence of awareness.
An apparent design of the Universe and therefore the existence of fundamental laws and constants.
The ultimate beginning of the Universe.

What seems to be an apparent design to the universe as you call it is called stuff like spontaneous generation, gravitation, and so on and I agree that things look to be very well-organized: how certain electron/proton configurations create such-and-such an atom and only that kind of atom; how the evidence points to evolution of lifeforms over hundreds of mllions of years from unicellular to multicellular life of increasing complexity and variety. It's at this point when a person starts to get familiar with science that the idea of a God as its commonly presented makes less and less sense.

The theists like to refer to science often I've noticed but how many of them actually know anything about it? I know what I've put into my head as a layman by studying some different areas of science (basics of particle physics, astronomy, theory of gravitation, the dark matter, etc.) and it's not like this stuff isn't available at the library, in a book store, on the net... Anyone with the desire can learn and I want to learn enough to satisfy my own curiousity. :) It's mildly frustrating to me to see people say "God created the universe" and make inferences to science as if simply saying the word "science" or implying it automatically ends the issue right there: "Yes Mr. Atheist science says the universe is finely-turned and this proves there is a God." :rolleyes: But ask this theist particular questions about particular topics like I've suggested and he or she looks like this: :eek:

[Mercury]

Most Atheists don't assert there is no god.

Do you affirm God does not exist? Or withholding of belief, i.e. Agnosticism? Most Atheists fall within that Agnostic category. If you're affirming God does not exist, what brings you to that conclusion? Saying lack of evidence proves there is no God doesn't quite cut it for me. As many Christians say, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.


The ones who make the claims are the ones who have the burden of proof, and extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

It doesn't require extraordinary evidence at all, that is very unscientific. Just substantial evidence should do.


In addition, non-belief isn't a claim. I can't "prove" than I'm a non-believer. It makes no sense. However, I can ask believers if they can prove whether a god exists or whether there is an afterlife. That makes sense.

There is some interesting evidence of an afterlife, however whether it's proved or not, I'm not sure. After all, people are still trying to prove the existence of black holes. It's somewhat hard proving something that is so far away from Humanity. Such as the afterlife.

[Supreme American]

Yes God exists, if you want very much He comes closer and then any doubts shed away...

I don't see this as being the case.

[Insuperable]

What seems to be an apparent design to the universe as you call it is called stuff like spontaneous generation, gravitation, and so on and I agree that things look to be very well-organized: how certain electron/proton configurations create such-and-such an atom and only that kind of atom; how the evidence points to evolution of lifeforms over hundreds of mllions of years from unicellular to multicellular life of increasing complexity and variety. It's at this point when a person starts to get familiar with science that the idea of a God as its commonly presented makes less and less sense.

The theists like to refer to science often I've noticed but how many of them actually know anything about it? I know what I've put into my head as a layman by studying some different areas of science (basics of particle physics, astronomy, theory of gravitation, the dark matter, etc.) and it's not like this stuff isn't available at the library, in a book store, on the net... Anyone with the desire can learn and I want to learn enough to satisfy my own curiousity. :) It's mildly frustrating to me to see people say "God created the universe" and make inferences to science as if simply saying the word "science" or implying it automatically ends the issue right there: "Yes Mr. Atheist science says the universe is finely-turned and this proves there is a God." :rolleyes: But ask this theist particular questions about particular topics like I've suggested and he or she looks like this: :eek:

No, I do not know anything deeply about particle particle physics, astronomy only superficially. I have a Masters in el. engineering I must admit and thats why I am not knowledgeable about astronomy, cosmology, only superficially.

I bet that only a small minority of Christians will assert that there is a God saying simply "God created Universe". I do not know that, I simply believe in it. I also think that a majority of Atheists ( Agnostic Atheists) wont assert that there is no God, they will simply say "I do not believe in the existence of God".
Therefore you can not assert that the Universe was created by spontaneous generation. You do not know that nor do I.
Ofcourse in science textbooks wont say that God created Universe so it must be said that it was spontaneous generation. The reason could be spontaneous generation but it could not be. We do not know that.

I am not a Creationist nor do I deny evolution.
Please explain to me:
There are 10^80 particles in the observable Universe and calculated chance that life occured by itself, purely by chance ( if it was chance how does awareness arises ) is 10^-40000. Now we now that the Universe is accelerating and therefore the possiblity that our Universe was eternally contracting and expending is rejected. It is a good argument for the existence of a God.
Can such a thinking be avoided without postulating pseuoideas like multiverse which I may add also has an ultimate beginning with no prehistory?

Do you believe that awareness can arise purely from matter and energy?
Why do I ask that, you know that:D

[Teyrn]

I am not a Creationist nor do I deny evolution.
Please explain to me:
There are 10^80 particles in the observable Universe and calculated chance that life occured by itself, purely by chance ( if it was chance how does awareness arises ) is 10^-40000. Now we now that the Universe is accelerating and therefore the possiblity that our Universe was eternally contracting and expending is rejected. It is a good argument for the existence of a God.
Can such a thinking be avoided without postulating pseuoideas like multiverse?

I believe these values are based on Hubble's constant aren't they? That's where the idea of the expanding universe comes from, which is a part of the standard cosmology. There are variants of cosmology that aren't widely accepted but which generate some discussion- just like the idea of parallel universes.


Do you believe that awareness can arise purely from matter and energy? Why do I ask that, you know that:D

Dunno if awareness can arise from matter and energy but I smell a trick question. :p Matter is energy but in a fixed/condensed form, right?

[Insuperable]

I believe these values are based on Hubble's constant aren't they? That's where the idea of the expanding universe comes from, which is a part of the standard cosmology. There are variants of cosmology that aren't widely accepted but which generate some discussion- just like the idea of parallel universes.



Dunno if awareness can arise from matter and energy but I smell a trick question. :p Matter is energy but in a fixed/condensed form, right?

Hubble realized that galaxies are distancing away between themselves. Physicists thought until 1998 that the Universe is slowly deaccelerating because of gravity and that it will collapse or contract into the Big Crunch ( again into "singularity" which started the Big Bang ) after many years after the Big Bang. Physicists them assumed that this Big Bang-Big Crunch phases were happening for eternity.
If this was the case I would stop being a Chrisitan and I would probably be an Agnostic.
In 1998 it was discovered that not only does the expansion of the Universe not deaccelerating but instead it is EVEN accelerating with constant acceleration.
This was a shock for physics community. People who discovered that won last year a Nobel prize in physics. It is their research which started all these theories about dark energy, dark matter and so on.
So I ask again neglecting the notion of awareness.
So, there are 10^80 particles in the observable Universe and the chance for life to start ( one Big Bang because of the accelerating speed of the Universe ) is as small as 10^-40000 ( for atoms to form chromosomes and so on...) why would not I believe in God.
So what do atheists do?
They come up with the idea of multiverse even by saying that we may never have any proof that there is any other Universe besides ours.
So, they postulated something equally unprovable only to dismiss the idea of a Creator.
And what again they do.
They prove in 2003 that even IF there is a multiverse even multiverse needs to have a finite beginning and therefore it can not be past eternal.
So, if before the beginning of the Universe or Multiverse there was only eternity and when you have eternity the chance for the Universe to begin by itself is zero. If that is true why did it suddenly start?
Correct my if I am wrong. I repeat I am only superficially imformed.

It seems that these last years in science are truly mind twisting.
Scientists start to realize that the Universe is not made up of matter nor energy but guess what, it is made of the information.
Great mathematician Norbert Wiener said 70 years ago something like "There are three main elements in the Universe, MATTER, ENERGY AND INFORMATION.
Scientists ( like Mark Raizen ) in the recent years have successfully transformed information into energy and energy into information.
In other to do that there has to someone aware like Raizen who will demonstrate that. Read Maxwell Demon.
Ofcourse we are still talking about physical information but still something to think about.

Let me tell you something more about "rationality" of atheists.
When the theory of inflation was developed ( extension of the Big Bang ) scientists started to extend the theory of inflation to multiverse notion, they came up with the idea of an eternal inflation back in 1980s or 1970s.
Two years ago it was discovered that the main premise of these theories is incorrect by advanced astronomical observations.
30 years of physics and 30000 papers on the subject simply fell into water.
Yes, they are very rational.

[Teyrn]

So, there are 10^80 particles in the observable Universe and the chance for life to start ( one Big Bang because of the accelerating speed of the Universe ) is as small as 10^-40000 ( for atoms to form chromosomes and so on...) why would not I believe in God.
So what do atheists do?


Isn't this where the dark matter comes in? If I remember my facts the belief is that most of the universe is made up of visible and undetectable dark matter and that matter as it's normally known is only a very tiny portion of the universe. The belief was that galaxies would slow own after a period of billions of years from the Big Bang but you point out this isn't the case- the vast distances involved mean that atoms are often located far apart in space (proportionate to their size). Hence the medium of dark matter or dark energy that fills in the holes.

The expansion of the universe can be detect via dopplering and red shift but dark matter can't be detect to my knowledge. :confused:

[Insuperable]

Isn't this where the dark matter comes in? If I remember my facts the belief is that most of the universe is made up of visible and undetectable dark matter and that matter as it's normally known is only a very tiny portion of the universe. The belief was that galaxies would slow own after a period of billions of years from the Big Bang but you point out this isn't the case- the vast distances involved mean that atoms are often located far apart in space (proportionate to their size). Hence the medium of dark matter or dark energy that fills in the holes.

The expansion of the universe can be detect via dopplering and red shift but dark matter can't be detect to my knowledge. :confused:

Dark matter was proposed way before 1998 to explain the rotation of the galaxies. The Dark matter is not yet discovered. Some physicists believe ( even the one who discovered this anomaly ) that it is simply needed to extended or upgrade the Newton laws to account for that anomaly.
And yes there are several theories which fully agree with the experimental observations without postulating the Dark matter.
If there is the Dark Matter it is believed that about 90% pf the Universe is made of it and the remaining 10% is our visible Universe.

Dark energy is something totally different. When it was discovered that expansion of the Universe is not deaccelerating but instead it is accelerating with constant acceleration physicists postulated that there has to be some sort of dark energy which is pulling the Universe apart.

Yes, thats why it is called dark.

[Teyrn]

Dark matter was proposed way before 1998 to explain the rotation of the galaxies.

Which is now believed to have to do with a supermassive black hole at the center of a particular galaxy. Dark matter is supposed to be intert and not be able to interact with normally-known particles.

[GeistFaust]

I think human would be much better if we took on a Deistic approach to God. Not affirming or negating his existence would do us a world of wonder, and would allow only to strive for the practical and real instead of constructing castles in the sky. This is just my perspective and you can take it for what it is worth, but I think learning discipline, self-mastery, morality, intellectually training yourself, and becoming a cultured person are more important.


Unfortunately many people have little concept of these traits and qualities so they are left to wandered loss in what appears to be a meaningless world. I just think humanity needs to stop over anthropologizing abstract divine beings, and to stop theologizing every matter concerning our sense experience, and the object of it with the context of the world.


I think we would save ourselves a lot of problems, but alas I am given up hope that humans will ever stop doing such a thing. Moderation is a impossible thing to achieve with humanity, and it is its major fault, but I don't hold it against humanity for being so. Life is crazy and irrational, and sometimes immediates a crazy and irrational response in order to grasp and understand the self in the context of it.

[Sarmatian]

Anyways, does God exist?


Sure. And there are many of them.

Just last night a was talking to one of them (no sarcasm)

[Teyrn]

I think human would be much better if we took on a Deistic approach to God.

This is probably the most sensible approach to take. Beliefs in the divine based upon scriptural wishful thinking rather than, say, human reason are largely subjective and easily open to doctrinal imposition, clericalism, biblical forgery, etc. Starting with Paul Apologetics™ largely entered the world with Christianity and the apologists have been working tirelessly to defend a silly religion ever since. :eek: Faith is more important than reason, gut instinct, and common sense it seems and you'll see many, many Christians who live in mortal terror of the freethought approach and given that there are admonitions in the Bible against trusting human wisdom and human knowledge it's not hard to see why.