Does God exist?

[dexter]

That is what i meant!! nice Explanation.... yea God is seeing how you get through it....In this life you must have faith in something to keep you living!

[avident]

That's what they all say. And I partly believe that. But when God could've given you something that would've made your dreams true, but didn't give it to you though you were so so close and deserved it - that's when I'm done with him.

[Mahuta ♥]

*sigh* its like someone is testing you, and you failed at the final level. the hardest one

[avident]

You really believe in that? Tell me then, why should we be tested? To make us stronger? If everyone wasn't ''tested'' all the time we wouldn't need to stronger. I just think it's the most stupid theory ever.

[moneyfaery]

That's what they all say. And I partly believe that. But when God could've given you something that would've made your dreams true, but didn't give it to you though you were so so close and deserved it - that's when I'm done with him.

You make God sound like some fairy godmother. When you don't get your wish - oh, I don't believe in you anymore - disappear, you!

Perhaps the other person deserved it more than you. You can't get everything all the time. Life's tough. Suck it up.

Edit: Anyway, God doesn't necessarily have to be benevolent or whatever. There have been 'bad' Gods in Greek mythology... they are still Gods nonetheless.

Edited February 25, 2009 by Irene

[purple]

Isn't God supposed to be all-knowing? Why does he have to test us? Plus he doesn't test everyone equally. o.O

[moneyfaery]

Isn't God supposed to be all-knowing? Why does he have to test us? Plus he doesn't test everyone equally. o.O

That's the Christian (and similar) God, I think? Greek gods, to the best of my knowledge, weren't perfect and had flaws. Not sure if other gods are like this as well.

[GNRS]

An advice for everyone: forget the God known until this moment, and create your own idea of what God is. Don't give him the human attitudes without hesitating about it. It could be something abstract, without mind, without capacity for judging, etc.

It's only an advice.

Edited February 26, 2009 by GNRS

[moneyfaery]

An advice for everyone: forgot the God known until this moment, and create your own idea of what God is. Don't give him the human attitudes without hesitating about it. It could be something abstract, without mind, without capacity for judging, etc.

It's only an advice.

That wouldn't work for everyone. My God wouldn't exist.

[GNRS]

That wouldn't work for everyone. My God wouldn't exist.

Well, it's not a bad idea of what God is. Simply for you God would be nothing. And this opinion can be more valid than the ideas before forgetting the known concept of God.

[FML]

That's what they all say. And I partly believe that. But when God could've given you something that would've made your dreams true, but didn't give it to you though you were so so close and deserved it - that's when I'm done with him.

Using God for your personal means is what's wrong. When God could've given you something to make your dreams come true? What's the desires/motives behind them?

[FML]

Isn't God supposed to be all-knowing? Why does he have to test us? Plus he doesn't test everyone equally. o.O

There's a concept known as free will. The freedom to choose between right and wrong. God wants love. TRUE love. Not programmed love. What good is love when it's not heartfelt and sincere? When God tests us, it's to test our faith and trust in him. The harder and darker your life is, the brighter the light becomes when you make it through his tests. When he tests you, it's so that you can come to appreciate and love him more rather than taking him for granted as a lot of Christians do.

[Mr. Shiver]

I haven't posted anything in this thread for the last few pages.

But I do feel compelled to point out one thing.

If one were truly serious about learning, understanding, and analyzing the aspects that govern human behaviour and influence human thought and perspective, and truly appreciating the the role these aspects play in shaping our conception of God, discussion about the existence of God on an objective level would seem like a completely futile endeavour other than for pragmatic implications. And I have encountered no compelling arguments to suggest that this isn't the case. So if social usefulness is the only real outcome of this whole debate, then what makes theorization about God's existence, in its crudest form, anything other than ever-more-refined mythology?

Keep in mind that we humans are probably the only creatures on Earth that have consciously questioned our own existence. That alone should indicate that we're pretty darn arrogant for even trying. But if the perspectives we have on the matter are themselves subject to the factors influencing our existence, then the amount of superiority we take for granted when we assume we can talk about God objectively really is, in my opinion, absurd.

There is, of course, practical value in trying. But humility is of the essence. In fact, I find the most internally consistent approach is to not even make the attempt. I'd rather put my efforts into understanding, among other things, how limited by our nature and experience we really are.

Edited February 26, 2009 by Mr. Shiver

[SharkSpider]

That would be valid, if it weren't for the fact that our own existential status affects how we understand ourselves. Taking the pragmatic approach can be one of two things. From a materialist perspective, the pragmatic approach is the only one, since we measure only effects and causes that exist in a material sense, and by that regard, a materialist will not necessarily understand the philosophical approach to whether or not there is a god. If you ask the question "how does it change how I live" whenever you get in to a philisophical talk, you might be disappointed by how long it takes to arrive at the answer. Sure, religion can be looked at objectively, and yeah, we get in to morals, ethics, and the effects of religion, without going in to what philosophy really is. Philosophy is asking questions. "Is there a greater power than that of the material" is a pretty good question, and although you might think it to have no direct effect on life, it does, when you go through the process of looking at it. There is no absurdity or superiority in asking a question or discussing potential answers, as superiority comes after leaps in logic that lead to the belief that you are right and no one else is.

Anyways, now to actually justify some of that. First off, dualism, materialism. Yeah, the basics, but it ends with one thing, and that is the question of purpose and value. Why does life exist, and what does it exist for, and what determines whether or not a life is good. Do we embrace nihilism, do we accept that human expression is the meaning of life, or do we think of something else entirely? Nietzche focused most of his carreer as a philosopher trying to reconcile the idea of nihilism with human morality, and came to the conclusion that art is the meaning of life. I'm not saying he's right, but what I am saying is that the origin, purpose and value of life determines how we behave. The god question works on all three of those. Without going in to specifics, the nature of the mind and the body determines the answer to the question of how other people are valued, the nature of consciousness after death determines how we see consequences and actions as affecting us, and the question of whether or not the universe exists for the sole purpose of housing consciousness really affects what we can morally do inside this world. Already, entaglement theory has shown that it is possible for matter to be affected by something that is literally not encompassed by our definition of material, and at the same time, quantum mechanics and relativity have shown that the very aspects of existence are relative to an observer. If a tree falls in the forest, does it even exist unless someone is there to see it? That's a good question, and it really helps determine what you're allowed to do to the tree before you turn your back on it.

In short, the universe is incredibly complex, the question of god perhaps is even more so. You can make claims of arrogance, but you can't refute the claim that discourse on existentialism is the founding pillar of philosophy, and that results of such discourse have strongly influenced the way we run societies. Yes, we need humility, but no, it is not wrong to think beyond our scope of knowledge sometimes.

[Laborare Nolo]

...wow. After all these well-written, eloquent posts, I wonder if I should even contribute my thoughts to the thread. +_+;

I happen to be agnostic, so I'm forever in the middle on an issue like this. Believing in God(s) requires blind faith and nothing else. There is no way to prove that there is, in fact, a god, or many gods, or anything beyond the clouds or below the earth other than...well, sky and dirt. But the idea of God is so comforting and appealing -- the idea of an afterlife and eternal happiness is so attractive, one can't help but believe in an all-knowing, all-loving being.

In my opinion, the only way to know is to...well...die. o_o;

But, I guess I just stated the obvious here. Sorry, guys. *scurries back under rock*

[Mahuta ♥]

heylo! you're knew welcome

No, you're making sense, and I agree with you .

Edited February 27, 2009 by *~*MaHuTa*~*

[balloon]

I never have understood why it would be impossible for something to exist without having been created. I always thought that the jump from 'nothing can create itself' to 'everything must have a beginning' therefore 'nothing can simply 'exist' without a beginning' or other thought sequences that reach the same conclusion seem indicative of the restriction of the human condition. We TOK-ers and other philosophers are often viewed by others or view themselves as 'more aware' or 'more open to consideration' when it comes to knowledge issues. If this is so, then why do we fail to entertain -- reject as 'ridiculous' -- the notion that something may exist without beginning? I know there is no definitive proof as to why we should accept this, but nothing but experience of this world explains why we should reject this, and doing TOK, we see that experience (the cognition of sense perception) is fraught with faults.

Furthermore, does not a vast majority of western thinking propound that space is infinite? Do we know this? Not really. Do we believe this? Mostly yes. Why then? None of our experience has taught us about anything infinite. Is it merely because the sky seems so big? You might be wondering where I am going with this, and really I am trying to attack our whole knowledge system (in complete awareness of the contradiction of using this knowledge system to reason against itself). Why do we so often reject things, including the belief that something cannot exist without a beginning, as 'not able to be rationally entertained'? In my opinion, the system of though on which we judge our perceptions is flawed.

I have recently researched the 'Gaia Hypothesis' which is the alternate hypothesis to nature being a machine. The Gaia hypothesis propounds nature as a living, changing entity. In my opinion, this is very similar to the human brain. It does not work like the machine we once thought it to be. It lives and grows and learns. People born with half a brain have survived, by the brain developing to carry out all necessary functions. Clearly, we are in possession of a remarkable faculty. Why then do we lock it up in our form of reasoning that fails to entertain the 'impossible'? Isn't that like planting an oak seed in a flower pot?

So after much circumlocution, is it possible that there really could be something that exists without a beginning, including God, but that our whole system of thought, while working on our 'planar' level, is 'blinding' us to even considering the possibilities? Taking this line of reasoning, it is true that the alternative could be equally as possible, but it is at this point I like to stand by the precautionary principle. If there is no God, and we spend our lives believing in Him, sure, we feel a little silly after we die (assuming we 'feel' at all), but no one on earth would really know that we were wrong. No harm done. But if there is a God, the implications are gargantuan. If there is the possibility that He actually does rule the world and He actually does want us to follow Him, and there actually are somewhat painful consequences if we deign to comply, isn't it simply a lot safer to... have 'faith'?

Anyway, I'm sorry it was terribly long, and you probably want to strangle me for making you sit through that, but just remember that I have more fervor that confidence in this argument, probably because it is mine rather than because it is right. I do, however, believe in God, none-the-less, and will continue to do so, my life through.

[SharkSpider]

Before I have the time to post a full response, consider two fallacies. One, Pascal's wager, and two, the assumption that accepted rationality believes the universe is infinite. Science specifically states that the only infinity is the space in to which the universe could theoretically grow, and even that idea in itself is completely inconceivable by the human mind. For reference, the current model for the universe is that our three dimensional plane of existence is the surface of a sphere in four dimensions, in which density determines how far in to the sphere any given point sinks. That's why the model for a black hole shows a 2d surface with an indent, and the third dimension, being density, allows the real third dimension to be implied.

As such, some of your arguments are invalidated, and I would prefer to respond to them after you've had a chance to fix the problems with them.

[Tarz]

I'll just leave this here.

[Julian]

Well, it all depends on the person if you are the type that wants evidence in order to believe something it will be really difficult to get concert evidence that God exists. But to some its their belief even though they cant prove it they believe that he exists and try to find ways to justify their believes.

It all depends on you; yes there are things that you can use as evidence to prove Gods evidence but it can always mean different things to different people.