Does God exist?

[Galapagos]

There are many definitions of God and I choose to go with the scientist and philosophers who use the definition of God I am using. This is not something I have to prove and you have absolutely no authority to deny an accepted understanding of God. You are no better than the men of church who prevented discussion of anything not accepted by the church. They were sure they knew truth too.

You have an ever-mercurial definition of the word God that will transmutate or simply become more nebulous when exposed to public criticism. As peers observing your reasoning, we have all of the authority necessary to dismiss bad ideas once you bring them up in a discussion.

Also, it doesn't matter who accepts your murky definition of god if your reasoning can't hold water. I'm glad you've found a forum in which people will validate your presumptions, but don't pretend as though you have put forth any arguments of unique merit(hint: no philosopher has put forth a sufficient argument for the existence of a god).

 

And as for your poor analogy between the conversational intolerance of your fallacious reasoning by members of this forum and the inquisition or whatever church intolerance you had in mind-- I think this little saying sums up the feelings of most of the Hypographers who have shot you down:

"I am a militant agnostic. This means that I don't know, and you don't either."*

Fine, no one can disprove or prove the existence of deities. But the greatest scientists(those who understand our universe best) do not see any indication of beneficence or design in the properties of our universe, so take that as you will.

YouTube - Neil deGrasse Tyson - Stupid Design http://youtube.com/watch?v=C1cKD93W3yg

 

*Must give credit for this one, I heard Michael Shermer mention it in a lecture. He said he saw it on a bumper sticker somewhere.

[nutronjon]

I think this point of view is interesting, because of how associates love with nature.

 

In the 4th century BC, the Greek philosopher Plato argues that love, in a way, directs the bonds of human society. In his Symposium, Eryximachus, one of the narrators in the dialog, states that love goes far beyond simple attraction to human beauty: It occurs all throughout the animal and plant kingdoms, as well as all throughout the universe. Love directs everything that occurs, in the realm of the gods as well as that of humans (186a-:phones:.

 

Eyrximachus reasons that when various opposing elements such as wet and dry are "animated by the proper species of Love, they are in harmony with one another . . . But when the sort of Love that is crude and impulsive controls the seasons, he brings death and destruction" (188a). As it is love that guides the relations between these sets of opposites throughout existence, in every case it is the higher form of love that brings harmony and cleaves toward the good, while the impulsive vulgar love creates disharmony.

 

He concludes that the highest form of love is the greatest; when love "is directed, in temperance and justice, towards the good, whether in heaven or on earth: happiness and good fortune, the bonds of human society, concord with the gods above- all these are among his gifts" (188d).

[JDawg]

love goes far beyond simple attraction to human beauty: It occurs all throughout the animal and plant kingdoms, as well as all throughout the universe.

 

Well, I have no idea how he would know that loves occurs throughout the plant and animal kingdom. We know that love serves the purpose in humans as the means to maintain family bonds, but what evidence is there for such an emotion in flowers? Or trees? And how would he know it spread throughout the universe? If there is life out there elsewhere, who says love is a part of their life? Perhaps it is something else entirely that maintains their connections. Maybe it is a rigid social structure that does not allow one to break bonds.

 

I just never saw the reason to assume that love was this universal thing. It obviously has a purpose, and yes, it is absolutely wonderful...but come on. This philosophy crap is absolutely mind-boggling sometimes. It's like, get your head out of the clouds for a second.

[Grains]

"god or whatever one believes in exist for each individual person in their own individual way....nothing can prove that otherwise...it is senseless debating...."

 

That doesn't make it true...which is the primary point of this debate.

 

and it dosnt make it false....

 

I believe in god, tell me why that is false.....unfortunately in your case you have to prove me wrong before you can be proven right! By the way you can never prove me wrong...my faith is way to strong!!!!

[ughaibu]

By the way you can never prove me wrong...my faith is way to strong!!!!

There you've identified your problem, I wish you all the best for your success in rectifying your relationship with reality.

[LJP07]

and it dosnt make it false....

 

I believe in god, tell me why that is false.....unfortunately in your case you have to prove me wrong before you can be proven right! By the way you can never prove me wrong...my faith is way to strong!!!!

 

No, but the point the man was making there was that it was reason enough to be true for oneself but overall his argument doesn't make it true which is what he lead people to believe.

 

I can't disprove God, in the same way you cannot prove the existence of God. Therefore it comes down to EVIDENCE...in the absence of evidence, you have FAITH...and faith alone is reason enough not to believe in God.

 

As a person of strong faith, maybe you can answer this question:

If God is a creator which the Holy Book leads us to believe, then he created man and knew how about man would be created through divine intelligence far beyond us. Why would he create the "chance" for Homosexual people to be created and then contradicts his creation by saying we should kill it in the Bible?

[Grains]

No, but the point the man was making there was that it was reason enough to be true for oneself but overall his argument doesn't make it true which is what he lead people to believe.

 

I can't disprove God, in the same way you cannot prove the existence of God. Therefore it comes down to EVIDENCE...in the absence of evidence, you have FAITH...and faith alone is reason enough not to believe in God.

 

As a person of strong faith, maybe you can answer this question:

If God is a creator which the Holy Book leads us to believe, then he created man and knew how about man would be created through divine intelligence far beyond us. Why would he create the "chance" for Homosexual people to be created and then contradicts his creation by saying we should kill it in the Bible?

 

if faith alone is reason enough not to believe in god then its enough to believe in god...

 

In regards to your Homosexual people scenario that branches off into a different debate...now your getting into christianity and the writings of the holybook and how they are interpreted.....I was simply talking about God.

[REASON]

I believe in god, tell me why that is false.....unfortunately in your case you have to prove me wrong before you can be proven right! By the way you can never prove me wrong...my faith is way to strong!!!!

 

Everyone knows the burden of proof is on whomever is making the claim. If you claim there is a god, then the burden to prove it is yours. Obviously, you will fail in that endeavor. If you are simply claiming to believe in god based on faith, then you carry the burden of that belief for yourself. It doesn't matter whether someone else thinks it's false.

 

If the latter is your position, why then do you choose to believe in god on faith alone?

 

What comfort does it bring you?

[Galapagos]

if faith alone is reason enough not to believe in god then its enough to believe in god...

 

I'm not making a faith claim when I say that the Loch Ness Monster probably doesn't exist. Its existence is a scientifically untenable proposition(given the trophic levels of the lake, there is not enough food for one or several giant dinosaurs), and the only evidence supporting it is very poor. The same goes for people claiming to have psychic abilities or who have been abducted by aliens. Regardless of what they believe, or what compelling personal experience they think they had, without evidence the claims are void(a healthy adult does not take seriously the claims by homeless people about speaking to aliens through tin foil hats, etc).

 

The same goes for your faith claims or personal experience claims about the existence of whatever deity it is you are arguing for(I'm assuming Yahweh).

 

As Reason has posted above, the burden of proof is on those making bold claims, and as Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

 

Russell's Teapot argument settled this discussion over half a century ago:

 

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

[Boerseun]

Wow, thanks for the reply! I'll try not to abuse my right to multi-quote...but I won't make any promises. :eek_big:

No worries, mate - multi-quote away!

They don't really help the poor. And maybe this is a morality debate, but how the hell does feeding a homeless man or woman help? These groups are giving a fish, as opposed to teaching how to fish. Putting bread in the mouth of a starving person without the promise of their next slice is only enabling them to suffer again in a day or so. These organizations don't really help, they prolong the suffering.

Too true. Although the emotional aspect of appealing for help to feed the starving, with all the footage of hungry eyes splashed over all the TV channels and in the print media does make the donations pile in. A recent investigation illustrated this cold fact: Of all the money donated by churches in the West for hunger in Africa, less than 10% actually makes it to the intended recipients. The rest simply evaporates as "administration fees". You do the math. The Church, as we know it today, is one big money making machine. Cynically, they exploit human misery in the biggest money-making racket since the Dawn of Time.

That's not entirely true. It depends on how the apply their faith in their lives. The man credited for decoding the human genome happens to be a theist. I don't know what role he exactly played in the project, but the fact that he is associated with it should be proof enough that good science (even great science) can be done so long as God is kept out of the lab.

I understand your point, but the above simply underscores my initial point. According to the Bible, God features in each and every event in your life. Therefore, a scientist able to keep God out of the lab, is a good scientist. But a very bad Christian. And those who let God into the lab, as the Bible demands of them, are good Christians, but terrible scientists.

I believe we need people taking every route to reach the same ends.

What end? The end of reaching the moral high ground, reaching immortality, reaching happiness? Not wanting to sound too rude, but I fail to see how the belief in an imaginary being can lead to any of the above.

And as I said, the more these scientific truths become common knowledge to the population, then these religious dogmas will crumble.

I have argued in another thread, quite a while ago, that God can be defined as the following:

 

If x is the totality of possible knowledge, and y is the totality of human knowledge, then God is simply x-y. God accounts for that for which we currently have no other explanation.

 

Or, put more simply, God is the totality of human ignorance. And with each and every scientific theory that gets validated or invalidated, we shift the boundaries of God back a little. y might simply be an asymptotic approach to x, but assigning an intelligent mind to the gap between x and y is a bit of a leap.

 

So, I agree with you with the above, but I don't see any reason to give any creedence to any churchs' claim that they have any special insight into the boundary between x and y.

And as the trends have shown, despite the fact that something like 90% of the US claims to be religious, churches are closing at an astounding rate.

The same thing is happening in my neck of the woods, in South Africa. But established churches are closing down only to make way for the incredible growth in new start-up charismatic churches. Which, is far more dangerous than the old, established ones. They are less subtle about being a money-making racket, and they haul in the bucks at an incredible rate. So-called "pastors" and "preachers" are driving around in their Mercedes-Benzes, BMWs and Jaguars, whilst promising everlasting life to the poorest of the poor, hauling out their last cents to "buy" the preacher's blessing. How's the ratio between the closing of established churches and the rise of the charismatic ones in the US? I suspect there's a big corrolation there.

I honestly believe we are seeing the last vestiges of the old guard, and the beginnings of a new one. Perhaps even a new, less formal brand of Christianity, or even religion in general, where their faith is just an afterthought, and wholly unobtrusive on societal affairs.

However their faith might feature, and be expressed in their daily affairs, the point remains that it's still a fallacious premise. There is no need for believing in fairies.

And I have no problem with that. We need to understand and accept that there will always be a desire to shield ourselves from the hardest truths.

That shield only comes from education, and by thoroughly interrogating nature. We should not condone, nor even tolerate, not just the growth of human ignorance, but the mere existence thereof. In this day and age, there is no excuse for having your kids grow up with skew teeth if you have access to an orthodontist. That could rightly be termed child abuse. Similarly, there is no excuse for denying your child access to the truth, when you have access to libraries, schools and universities. I think a very sound and valid argument can be made that allowing your kids to become believers is also child abuse.

We can't fight it, we have to accept it. Religion truly does provide the desired results on those issues.

Religion only provides the illusion of results on those issues. If you really believe that a fairy godmother will protect you at night, you will, indeed, sleep more soundly. But you won't be any safer, in the least. The bears, tigers and lions will still creep into your cave and rip your throat out. Rubbing two sticks together to make fire will, however, keep them away, and make you safe. Religion is the godmother, science is the fire. I know which one I'll pick.

And I don't want to be the one to tell someone they can't have those beliefs, because trust me, when I lost a friend in a fire years back, I needed to believe that there was something else, some sort of afterlife, some sort of redemption for that kind of horrible suffering. And even if I don't believe it now, it helped me then, during the difficult time.

...and here we come to the gist of religion. Although I am very sorry to hear about your friend, and you have all my sympathies, I'm afraid he's not in heaven, nor hell, for that matter. He's simply dead.

 

And I believe that this particular fear is the most important origin of religion. We grow fond of people, we grow to love them, and we simply can't accept that once they're dead, they're dead. Nothing more, zilch, nada. You don't want to struggle for ages before shaking off this mortal coil, simply to disappear into nothingness. We want to know that death is not the end. And, luckily, it isn't. Human being can achieve immortality, and many have done so. And no, not immortality in the religious sense. I'm talking about people like Archimedes. Like Euclid. Like Newton, Einstein, Haber & Bosch, Winston Churchill, and the like. They have achieved immortality through their actions during their lifetimes. Two thousand years later, we still study Julius Ceasar, and everybody knows who Cleopatra was. That should serve as an inspiration for every atheist to achieve greatness in his own lifetime. That's the only time you have, make it count. If you want people to remember you after your death, do something great with your life. I think this is a much more powerful argument for moral behaviour than trying to achieve that with praying to your imagination.

So I don't think it would take the total collapse of the churches to bring about a new enlightenment. It will just take more of us telling the religious to keep their faith where it belongs--in the closet.

Once again, I see your point. But a child molester keeping his weakness in the closet, so to speak, doesn't make him any less dangerous in the vicinity of children. If it's wrong, it's wrong.

 

Sorry for the long post, by the way.

[HydrogenBond]

Humans are the most natural as babies and small children. They are too young to be molded by culture, yet, and tend to be natural and less of a specific cultural herd animal. Children at that natural age have an affinity for fairy tales and other things that are considered nonsense. Ironically, the equation adds up; the most natural state of a human likes this nonsense. Where we start to shift, is where a blend of peer pressure, training and willpower leave behind the natural child.

 

Here is a scientific experiment. We will teach small children, when they are natural, about God and not God, and let natural pick natural. We will assume the other is unnatural. The children will use natural instinct.

[InfiniteNow]

Children at that natural age have an affinity for fairy tales and other things that are considered nonsense.

 

Oh yeah? Prove it. How can you know that it's not just one of the cultural biases you referenced, where the parents select such stories?

 

I posit that it has nothing to do with the wants of the child, but instead, the wants of the parents.

 

There's little or no evidence suggesting that children would not be equally well entertained if you read them the Feymann lectures. So, I put this call out to you. If you want to stand on that premise, support it.

[Galapagos]

Humans are the most natural as babies and small children. They are too young to be molded by culture, yet, and tend to be natural and less of a specific cultural herd animal. Children at that natural age have an affinity for fairy tales and other things that are considered nonsense. Ironically, the equation adds up; the most natural state of a human likes this nonsense. Where we start to shift, is where a blend of peer pressure, training and willpower leave behind the natural child.

Children believe what their parents tell them for the most part, and anyone who has looked at a map of the distribution of world religion knows that for the majority of the people on this planet, their religion is the result of an accident of birth.

Your point about children is also wrong; every human being wants to know the truth, or at least a good story to answer questions we naturally ask. Missionaries travel to places like Africa and indoctrinate ignorant and impoverished adults with their own religious fantasies, which then spread like contagious viruses(In the case of Catholic missionaries in AIDS Africa, the ideas are often followed by contagious viruses, thanks to the Catholic dogma about contraception). Pretty much anyone who doesn't know any better will accept religious stories(or scientific ones, people just like reasons/explanations), and religion survives only by way of indoctrination or an exploitation of ignorance.

 

Here is a scientific experiment. We will teach small children, when they are natural, about God and not God, and let natural pick natural. We will assume the other is unnatural. The children will use natural instinct.

Teaching your child some cultural mythology as truth that can compete with confirmed scientific knowledge is wrong, and children should not be subjected to such ridiculous "experimentation".

I'd also like to point out that even if something is natural, for example, believing in goblins, ghosts, or an invisible planner/leader, it is not necessarily a good thing. Every culture has the common cold, but the common cold is not something we are interested in preserving. Rape may come naturally to males, derived from the way in which we use violence to reach goals(such as sex), or the behavior for opportunistic rape may have been selected for as those genes were passed on. This does not mean rape is excusable or something we should describe as a reasonable alternative to courtship to children who don't know better.

[Grains]

Everyone knows the burden of proof is on whomever is making the claim. If you claim there is a god, then the burden to prove it is yours. Obviously, you will fail in that endeavor. If you are simply claiming to believe in god based on faith, then you carry the burden of that belief for yourself. It doesn't matter whether someone else thinks it's false.

 

If the latter is your position, why then do you choose to believe in god on faith alone?

 

What comfort does it bring you?

 

In reference to what comfort does it bring you there are no words that can explain the true feeling it gives me. When Nadal won Wimbeldon today he told the reporter he couldn't even begin to explain what he was feeling. When a scientist makes a breakthrough discovery after years and years of work no one else can feel how he feels. Him simply explaining how he feels with words. Explain happiness, sadness, loneliness, etc. I don't know how to explain this to you it's for me personally and could never be explained.

 

I read this once and I think its a great explanation.

 

Science is limited to the physical (material) world and therefore has no knowledge, function or authority outside those bounds.

[InfiniteNow]

Probably has something to do with the fact that there is nothing "outside those bounds."

[Thunderbird]

Probably has something to do with the fact that there is nothing "outside those bounds."

Not for you..:Exclamati

[InfiniteNow]

Not for you..:Exclamati

 

Nor anyone else who chooses to live in reality and disengage from the ridiculous wish thinking which has stood in the way of our culture for far too long.