Does God exist?

[C.James]

Define 'God' in depth... Then asks who believes God exists.

I don't believe in God as any religion puts it...But I believe in a superior force, in a universal energy. Something is there affecting and controlling parts of life and the world, but there is no definite way to actually know what that force/energy is or how it functions.

A fellow ignostic?

In my mind the question is not if god exists but how do you define god.

If you have a "god is the universe" pantheistic view god obviously exists.

I think the odds of god existing (solely my opinion) gets less the closer you get to traditional religion, I honestly don't think god would be so simplistic (creating world in seven days for example).

However I think there are afew good arguments for pantheism and deism and similar positions.

[Globe]

I don't think there could be a divine force. Personally, I base this largely on how biased of a 'god' that would be. Surely, the world has evolved, that need not be disputed hopefully on an intelligent forum such as this.. And if the world evolved, god would not have made it seem as if it had evolved just to prove a point, that makes god test us and be unsure of himself, which the Bible tends to say he is not.

I think, surely, some evolutionary aspects such as the evolution of the conscious cannot yet be fully explained by science, but I don't think that as a society we should take the "easy" way out and say it was all created by a divine being, instead I think we need to (and this is why I want to go into Evo Devo) find a scientific answer to it, as it must be there.

On another note, at least Christians, believe in talking donkeys. And, I'm not going to ridicule religion that much, but seriously Mormons? People on the moon? I think religion is too obsolete for todays world (Genesis saying that the moon is a light anybody?)

I dunno. I'm just saying stuff

[kingdomx]

Purely controversial. I definitely believe that there is a God out there. I would like to think of myself as a Christian, but I do not follow all of the Christian morales, such as going to church every Sunday and not drinking alcohol. Nevertheless, I do pray every night. I think that believing that there is a God is ones personal choice, and people shouldn't push someone to follow the path of athiesm or theism. God is there, if you believe that he is, and he isn't if you don't choose to believe that he is. I think that it's as simple as that.

[Daedalus]

tellingly, apostasy in islam is punishable by death.

[jbird]

I've done a lot of thinking on this topic and I think faith is honestly a lot like biology or history or something. Evolution is just a theory. It's the most likely theory given the evidence, but you can't PROVE it the way you can prove the quadratic formula. That's the way it is with faith in God. I have surveyed the evidence and I believe there most likely is a God. But I can't ever be 100% sure until I die, I suppose.

I also think that this question is infinitely important, and we can't pretend it isn't. If there is a Being whom we all owe are existance, why shouldn't we try to find this God and live for him as fully as possible? The opposite is true, too. If there is no God, religion is an awful waste of time.

I also think we need to beware of prejudice against the supernatural or miraculous. Why can't God or angels or miracles exist? If you start out assuming they can't, of course you'll prove yourself right. Just like when you're doing a science experiment, you can't begin assuming a certain hypothesis is true or untrue. You let the evidence speak for itself.

Such as morality. Why do we have an intrinsic sense of right and wrong if there isn't a higher power? Why do murder and rape and theft repulse us even if we don't believe in God? There is no evolutionary advantage to this. If I take a bullet for an old lady, aren't I wiping out a young, healthy member of the species for an old, weak member? Or, why should I care if I make somebody cry? We all have morality inside of us.

I believe in that old quote that the universe existing by chance is like an explosion in a print shop resulting in Webster's Dictionary. How can the amino acids and little organic particles lead to life without some kind of direction? I suppose it's possible, but the chances are astronomical!

By the way, I am a Christian and I don't believe in talking donkeys. I do believe the God who made the universe is capable of making a donkey talk if he wanted to, but so far I've never seen that happen. And I don't take the creation story in the Bible literally; it has a theological message, not a scientific one and the text makes that obvious. Adam is Hebrew for "man" and Eve for "life"; does that sound mythological to you?

Finally, I'm going to end by being controversial and saying the evidence for Jesus rising from the dead makes belief in Jesus as the Son of God the most intellectually reasonable option. His disciples almost certainly didn't steal his body. Why would they live and die for a lie? And we have 4 different traditions that record post-death appearences: John, Luke, Matthew, and Paul, in 1 Corinthians. If you think he didn't die but was just wounded, why would the disciples be convinced Jesus was God? He would be severely beaten and bruised! Even if the disciples said Jesus rose without proof, the authorities would just go to the tomb and produce his body. And of course Jesus really lived. How could a whole religion start up around a person who didn't live? Non believing scholars agree with me here. And remember, women, in all 4 gospels, saw Jesus first. If they were making things up, they wouldn't choose women to see Jesus. Women weren't always considered reliable witnesses, and they couldn't even testify in court!

I lay down a friendly challenge. Tell me, if you disagree, what really happened to Jesus?

[tatiana_sa]

Well, I think there is not a correct answer for your question. God is something very personal that each of us might believe in, or not. If questioning for the existence of God, you are probably a non believer. Typically, God exists for those who believe in Him. Simultanesouly, it does not exists for those who do not believe in Him, or those who probably doubt his existence. You can believe that God does not exist but you can never force someone to believe your arguments supporting his non existence. It is very strange... I am a Christian Orthodox but when it came to religion, i was never a fanatic supporter and believer trying to tell others what Jesus told his students, or being consistent in terms of praying. However, when i had to face a difficult and negative experience in my life that required a lot of personal strength i always asked God's help, automatically. Evetually, God might not have donne something that made me satisfied and happy but he gave me strength and force to face tthe difficulties of my life. This is MY God. Two days ago, my grandfather died. At the beginning i was devastated and i just wanted to give up everything. I am still but i think Someone's watching from the skies and his is giving me strength because i have dreams and potential.

[Sandwich]

I also think that this question is infinitely important, and we can't pretend it isn't. If there is a Being whom we all owe are existance, why shouldn't we try to find this God and live for him as fully as possible? The opposite is true, too. If there is no God, religion is an awful waste of time.

I also think we need to beware of prejudice against the supernatural or miraculous. Why can't God or angels or miracles exist? If you start out assuming they can't, of course you'll prove yourself right. Just like when you're doing a science experiment, you can't begin assuming a certain hypothesis is true or untrue. You let the evidence speak for itself.

To be honest, I think this argument is much more applicable the other way around. There's no piece of evidence which strongly suggests but fails to prove a higher being. There are pieces of evidence which strongly suggest (but again, fail to prove in the sense of an absolute mathematical proof, unless somebody invents the time machine) that the process of evolution is very likely. In my experience, people default to God as an explanation for life, and fit the evidence around it. They find evidence to suggest Creation didn't happen? Creation becomes a metaphor. They realise that the Old Testament's morality is extremely questionable when you try to apply it to modern day society? The Old Testament no longer counts. I've even read an article somewhere with people trying to claim that prehistoric seas were the 'flood' of Noah's ark. It seems to me like the more information we gather about the world, the more twisted the original story becomes to try and fit with it. I think if anything, the biggest problem people have with their reasoning is starting out with the assumption that everything in the Bible is true and then casually reinterpreting things which should be at odds with it.

What gets me is that, even if evolution turns out to be a theory which works only on a small scale, people snap the automatic assumption back to a Creation scenario when there's never been any evidence for it except for a lack of other explanation and an automatic assumption that it's a theory which is always right unless proven wrong.

Such as morality. Why do we have an intrinsic sense of right and wrong if there isn't a higher power? Why do murder and rape and theft repulse us even if we don't believe in God? There is no evolutionary advantage to this. If I take a bullet for an old lady, aren't I wiping out a young, healthy member of the species for an old, weak member? Or, why should I care if I make somebody cry? We all have morality inside of us.

For starters - some people don't have any sense of right and wrong at all. Nor does it seem to me that people have an intrinsic grasp of right and wrong. We know as right and wrong what our parents and society tell us is right and wrong. I am repulsed by rape because everybody else is repulsed by rape. Go back in time X hundred years, and people weren't repulsed by it. Women weren't considered in at all the same way as they are now. Same with theft and murder. In fact, murdering 'infidels' in the name of Christianity has definitely happened and still happens today, although for other religions such as Islam. Nowadays we would say it's a horrific idea, but we're not being influenced by some special internal shared morality, we're being influenced by the views and customs of society. Same with crying, that we need to get on with each other by being sensitive to each other's feelings in order to coexist. Same, even, with taking a bullet for an old lady in an attempt to protect the family unit. To me, the motivation for all these things stem back to society and the fact that we exist as a unit. You need to get on with people, co-exist and protect each other, because humans aren't equipped to live solo like Tigers and Bears. Natural selection is basically: if you're not very good at surviving, you don't. Society or basically just living in a group is an amazing survival mechanism employed by many creatures, all of them surviving better together by sharing and cooperating.

I believe in that old quote that the universe existing by chance is like an explosion in a print shop resulting in Webster's Dictionary. How can the amino acids and little organic particles lead to life without some kind of direction? I suppose it's possible, but the chances are astronomical!

Equally you could say, what's the probability of it happening twice? An all-knowing all-powerful creator being created somehow who then goes on to create a universe which contains life. I don't understand why saying that the probability is slim means that we must have had something akin to our own selves, only bigger, capable of designing it. Why does it have to have been designed? Appeal to probability is a weak argument (in that it's not an argument), and the Universe is unspeakably old. Even if the probabilities were low, it's had a ridiculously long amount of time to happen. Besides, if it hadn't happened, we wouldn't be here to debate these things!

And I don't take the creation story in the Bible literally; it has a theological message, not a scientific one and the text makes that obvious.

What is the import of a theological message anyway?

Finally, I'm going to end by being controversial and saying the evidence for Jesus rising from the dead makes belief in Jesus as the Son of God the most intellectually reasonable option.

The only evidence for Jesus rising from the dead is what's written in a single book of dubious origin and apparently authored by people we know nothing about. If Jesus did indeed rise from the dead by some otherworldly power (i.e. God), then I agree it's quite compelling. The only problem is that the evidence for this basically sucks. Much like gathering 100% perfect evidence for evolution, knowing the truth would require a time machine.

That's just what I think.

[Tilia]

I also think that this question is infinitely important, and we can't pretend it isn't. If there is a Being whom we all owe are existance, why shouldn't we try to find this God and live for him as fully as possible? The opposite is true, too. If there is no God, religion is an awful waste of time.

I also think we need to beware of prejudice against the supernatural or miraculous. Why can't God or angels or miracles exist? If you start out assuming they can't, of course you'll prove yourself right. Just like when you're doing a science experiment, you can't begin assuming a certain hypothesis is true or untrue. You let the evidence speak for itself.

To be honest, I think this argument is much more applicable the other way around. There's no piece of evidence which strongly suggests but fails to prove a higher being. There are pieces of evidence which strongly suggest (but again, fail to prove in the sense of an absolute mathematical proof, unless somebody invents the time machine) that the process of evolution is very likely. In my experience, people default to God as an explanation for life, and fit the evidence around it. They find evidence to suggest Creation didn't happen? Creation becomes a metaphor. They realise that the Old Testament's morality is extremely questionable when you try to apply it to modern day society? The Old Testament no longer counts. I've even read an article somewhere with people trying to claim that prehistoric seas were the 'flood' of Noah's ark. It seems to me like the more information we gather about the world, the more twisted the original story becomes to try and fit with it. I think if anything, the biggest problem people have with their reasoning is starting out with the assumption that everything in the Bible is true and then casually reinterpreting things which should be at odds with it.

What gets me is that, even if evolution turns out to be a theory which works only on a small scale, people snap the automatic assumption back to a Creation scenario when there's never been any evidence for it except for a lack of other explanation and an automatic assumption that it's a theory which is always right unless proven wrong.

Such as morality. Why do we have an intrinsic sense of right and wrong if there isn't a higher power? Why do murder and rape and theft repulse us even if we don't believe in God? There is no evolutionary advantage to this. If I take a bullet for an old lady, aren't I wiping out a young, healthy member of the species for an old, weak member? Or, why should I care if I make somebody cry? We all have morality inside of us.

For starters - some people don't have any sense of right and wrong at all. Nor does it seem to me that people have an intrinsic grasp of right and wrong. We know as right and wrong what our parents and society tell us is right and wrong. I am repulsed by rape because everybody else is repulsed by rape. Go back in time X hundred years, and people weren't repulsed by it. Women weren't considered in at all the same way as they are now. Same with theft and murder. In fact, murdering 'infidels' in the name of Christianity has definitely happened and still happens today, although for other religions such as Islam. Nowadays we would say it's a horrific idea, but we're not being influenced by some special internal shared morality, we're being influenced by the views and customs of society. Same with crying, that we need to get on with each other by being sensitive to each other's feelings in order to coexist. Same, even, with taking a bullet for an old lady in an attempt to protect the family unit. To me, the motivation for all these things stem back to society and the fact that we exist as a unit. You need to get on with people, co-exist and protect each other, because humans aren't equipped to live solo like Tigers and Bears. Natural selection is basically: if you're not very good at surviving, you don't. Society or basically just living in a group is an amazing survival mechanism employed by many creatures, all of them surviving better together by sharing and cooperating.

I believe in that old quote that the universe existing by chance is like an explosion in a print shop resulting in Webster's Dictionary. How can the amino acids and little organic particles lead to life without some kind of direction? I suppose it's possible, but the chances are astronomical!

Equally you could say, what's the probability of it happening twice? An all-knowing all-powerful creator being created somehow who then goes on to create a universe which contains life. I don't understand why saying that the probability is slim means that we must have had something akin to our own selves, only bigger, capable of designing it. Why does it have to have been designed? Appeal to probability is a weak argument (in that it's not an argument), and the Universe is unspeakably old. Even if the probabilities were low, it's had a ridiculously long amount of time to happen. Besides, if it hadn't happened, we wouldn't be here to debate these things!

And I don't take the creation story in the Bible literally; it has a theological message, not a scientific one and the text makes that obvious.

What is the import of a theological message anyway?

Finally, I'm going to end by being controversial and saying the evidence for Jesus rising from the dead makes belief in Jesus as the Son of God the most intellectually reasonable option.

The only evidence for Jesus rising from the dead is what's written in a single book of dubious origin and apparently authored by people we know nothing about. If Jesus did indeed rise from the dead by some otherworldly power (i.e. God), then I agree it's quite compelling. The only problem is that the evidence for this basically sucks. Much like gathering 100% perfect evidence for evolution, knowing the truth would require a time machine.

That's just what I think.

So basically: this can't be argued about since there are no evidence on either side. Science and religion are as far apart as two things can be.

[Sandwich]

So basically: this can't be argued about since there are no evidence on either side. Science and religion are as far apart as two things can be.

Or you could say that neither side has conclusive evidence, but one side has strong evidence and the other poor circumstantial evidence (or indeed an opposing opinion). Just because neither side can prove their case, it doesn't mean that neither side should make one.

I don't see why two things which are in a position to explain exactly the same sorts of questions should be cushioned against each other and spared from ever having to reconcile with each other. Not only because the questions they explain are important, but also because they would change a lot about the way people live their lives. I sometimes wonder whether people say they shouldn't be discussed because they challenge what people think and (as anything which would require a belief in two contradictory things at once should!) give people a headache. They may be far apart in some respects, but they definitely meet in the middle!

[jbird]

I made a mistake in articulating my view. I do believe in God, but I also believe in evolution. I disagree with conservative Christians who say creation excludes evolution. I believe God guided the processes of evolution and other natural processes to create the universe, the earth, and all that inhabits it. I believe this because I am convinced both by the evidence for evolution and for God.

I share your frustration, Sandwich, with people who dogmatically assert every word in the Bible is literally true. The purpose of the Bible is not report scientific fact, but to make us better people and to teach us about the God who loves us. That's what I meant about the theological message of the creation story. Its message is about God: his orderliness, his omnipotence, his love for his creation. Its message is not about the geology or biology or evolution.

I want to elaborate on my claim that people know intinsically right and wrong. We don't always act on it. But if I took something that's yours, you would be mad. You would say, That's mine. Our morality is probably shaped by cultural customs to an extent, but that is not the origin of ethics. All religions have ethical codes. Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, and Confucians the world over will teach you to treat others the way you would want to be treated.

Sandwich, you're implying, I think, that faith in God is nonsensical because how could God be created? This question used to bother me. But if God created everything, he stands outside of that creation. God created the law, in others words, the law of conservation of mass. God created the law that everything must be created.

Do you think that even billions of years is enough for random amino acids (even if they were generated from non-organic compounds, how did the non organic compounds get there?) to evolve into people? How could this process reasonably lead to an infinitely complex natural world without a guide? Finally, why is appeal to probability a weak argument? If it's more likely a God guided that process, why is it intellectually weak to believe in God?

You're right, Sandwich, that trusting a single book's testimony regarding Jesus is dubious. But the Bible is actually 66 books, and each of the New Testament's 27 books written by different people make it clear a large, diverse community put their trust in, risked their lives for and died for a man who was supposed to be dead. That requires an explanation, don't you think? Of course, we can't KNOW Jesus rose from the dead without a time machine. But we can't know anything about history without a time machine. It comes down to picking what makes sense given the evidence. I'm curious to know why you think that evidence for Jesus sucks, as a seeker of truth myself.

[Cynthia]

You're right, Sandwich, that trusting a single book's testimony regarding Jesus is dubious. But the Bible is actually 66 books, and each of the New Testament's 27 books written by different people make it clear a large, diverse community put their trust in, risked their lives for and died for a man who was supposed to be dead. That requires an explanation, don't you think? Of course, we can't KNOW Jesus rose from the dead without a time machine. But we can't know anything about history without a time machine. It comes down to picking what makes sense given the evidence. I'm curious to know why you think that evidence for Jesus sucks, as a seeker of truth myself.

Most of the evidence for Jesus' existence is in some way, naturally, religiously motivated as it is either from the Bible or from early church fathers. There have been charismatic figures throughout times that have convinced people to take risks and die for them (single-party leaders in the 20th century spring into mind, I like the comparison between political ideology and religion). In addition, the authenticity of early evidence by non-Christian authors about the existence of Jesus (Josephus and Tacitus' Annals) has been questioned, in my opinion, convincingly - it is not very hard to see why certain people might have had motives concerning falsifying historical writings.

Edited August 1, 2010 by Cynthia

[Sandwich]

I want to elaborate on my claim that people know intinsically right and wrong. We don't always act on it. But if I took something that's yours, you would be mad. You would say, That's mine. Our morality is probably shaped by cultural customs to an extent, but that is not the origin of ethics. All religions have ethical codes. Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, and Confucians the world over will teach you to treat others the way you would want to be treated.

Well I think if you nicked something of mine, I don't think I'd know it was wrong as much as be angry xP To be dispossessed of something isn't really exercising your ethical judgement so much as a kinda basic "grrrrrrr" moment

I agree with you that religion can be a source of an ethical code, and historically a very important source -- what I'd disagree with is that it is the only source, i.e. the origin of all ethics. The way I see it, the reason why religion has been such an effective enforcer of ethical codes is that it's often fricking scary what they come up with as to what'll happen to people who fail to stick to it. I hate to pick on Catholicism, but their fire and brimstone version of what happens to people who don't stick to the code is, were I a Catholic, enough to make me want to leave the most straight up life I possibly could. Absolutely no adultery or coveting other people's cattle, etc. However, religion isn't the only source of an ethical code -- I can (and do) believe that we should treat others as we wish to be treated, but I don't do it because I believe I will be rewarded in an afterlife for living this way, or because I'm scared of what will happen to me if I don't. At least not since I was little, back then I was definitely scared xP I do it because it's another aid to help me coexist with the people around me, and so for me, it is intrinsically right and just to enable us all to get along, with me a happy part of it. I'd say that the reason it's a recurrent theme in societies worldwide is because it's more or less essential for any thinking people who want to live in a group. If we couldn't all get along with each other, there'd be no society.

In modern-day British society, a lot of our ethical code comes from Christianity because England has been, in turns, a Christian country ever since the Romans came. I think it's certainly fair to say that religion and society have done a lot of hand shaking over the years, but also that despite their obvious influences on each other, they could both be split with no detriment to the ethics of one or the other.

Sandwich, you're implying, I think, that faith in God is nonsensical because how could God be created? This question used to bother me. But if God created everything, he stands outside of that creation. God created the law, in others words, the law of conservation of mass. God created the law that everything must be created.

Do you think that even billions of years is enough for random amino acids (even if they were generated from non-organic compounds, how did the non organic compounds get there?) to evolve into people? How could this process reasonably lead to an infinitely complex natural world without a guide? Finally, why is appeal to probability a weak argument? If it's more likely a God guided that process, why is it intellectually weak to believe in God?

Well there is a bit of an elephant and turtle situation with how God would have come to be -- in that to support the elephant, you need another turtle, and to support the turtle yet another elephant, and to support that... etc. -- but I've sort-of accepted that a God would, to be plausible at all, have to be immune to human faculties on that score. So assuming that he is (which I think is even more far-fetched than the probability thing, as it requires not only for every single bit of our Universe to have been designed, but also requires us to dogmatically believe in the existence of yet another thing), we would have to be incapable of understanding it. However, clearly it would have had to interface somehow with what we know to be the Universe in order to create and then later on continue to intervene in the Universe, which means that there would have to be things (or have been things) within our Universe which do not have to follow the laws of the Universe. Moreover, if things are given laws on a molecular level (in order to have these laws), why do we get things which are truly random (radioactive decay or particle collisions, for instance?).

Given that we know where molecules of different elements come from (stars), and that chemical reactions can happen, I find it significantly more probable that chemicals reacted with each other trillions of billions of times and hit lucky just once, than the following:

1. there is another universe we don't understand

2. it is an exception to all the rules of our universe

3. it can bend the rules of our universe and interact with our universe

4. but we can't see it or detect it in any way

6. our universe could only exist if it had been created

7. this other universe/being in it created our universe and has powers of creation which again go completely against all the rules of our universe

8. but it didn't have to be created itself

(9. this is kinda a side one, but that said thing then takes an interest in the daily lives and morals of everybody in our universe, as well as spending billions of years just observing our universe made of random sludge and elements until one day sparking off life and then watching the process of evolution)

And that's just looking at it from the perspective of probability. I mean it's infinitely more probable that molecules collided with each other in a favourable manner just once than that all the laws of our Universe need be rewritten, a whole new Universe invented etc.

I also don't see why our world needs to have had a guide to get to the stage it is now, or why anything complex automatically require something to have created it. I've always seen it as the ultimate assumption behind any attempt to include creation of any kind (even if it's simply just guiding evolution somehow). It's like me saying that the shells washed up by the tide must have been intentionally placed there because they're all in a line. I mean, clearly that example doesn't exactly hold (xP) but hopefully it illustrates what I mean: that we see intention where there doesn't have to have been any. I mean, somebody could have gone and put them all in a line. We happen to know otherwise, but if you assume that we hadn't yet seen the tide and didn't know otherwise, would you still say that because they're in a line, somebody must have placed them there and there's no explanation which doesn't involve intention?

You're right, Sandwich, that trusting a single book's testimony regarding Jesus is dubious. But the Bible is actually 66 books, and each of the New Testament's 27 books written by different people make it clear a large, diverse community put their trust in, risked their lives for and died for a man who was supposed to be dead. That requires an explanation, don't you think? Of course, we can't KNOW Jesus rose from the dead without a time machine. But we can't know anything about history without a time machine. It comes down to picking what makes sense given the evidence. I'm curious to know why you think that evidence for Jesus sucks, as a seeker of truth myself.

Well I don't pretend to know anything about the exact origins of the Bible --I don't think anybody does. However, it's precisely because nobody really knows that I think it's dubious. How do we know that 27 different people wrote it? How do we know that they weren't all sitting round a table somewhere colluding (paranoid, I know, but it's still a point)? How do we know that all 27 people are unbiased? Because 27 people tell us that the laws of the Universe were broken, they definitely were? To employ our favourite friend and do a bit of probability, it's stacked in the direction of the Universe continuing to follow the same rules it always has.

Usually in subjects such as History, we look for multiple pieces of evidence and check for bias. For all we know The Bible could be like taking an account of the Holocaust from the dethroned Nazi government -- I doubt it'd be a tale of terrible atrocities and woe. I'm absolutely not comparing the Bible to anything as awful as that, but my point is basically that people can write whatever they want, and even groups of people can write whatever they want. To say that the Bible is compelling evidence for anything is to jackknife away from the tests we apply to all other knowledge. When it's clearly not right to take the word of a single thing as the truth, and Historians dedicate their lives to trying to sift out the truth of events, why do we blanch from applying the same thoroughness to the Bible? All we have to suggest Jesus rose from the dead are perhaps a few eyewitness accounts written by an unknown and untested third party at some time which may or may not have been close to when the whole thing actually happened.

Even if the accounts are what those people genuinely thought, how many weird and wonderful things do we now know were mistakes? Like back when women were burned for being witches because they 'set people alight using their evil cats' or something. Human history is pretty woeful when it comes to having any idea what's really going on. Nowadays we laugh that people thought that when we know that petrol is colourless, very flammable and found in the same place that those people were. I did just invent that example, but hopefully it makes sense xP

If we treated the Bible the same way as we treat historical texts, then when it comes to evaluation of evidence, the whole thing would be like a sacrificial lamb :/

[Daedalus]

The thing that never ceases to confuse me about religion is how much people are willing to 'explain away'. Think about it. If there was a God...

1. Why did the Holocaust happen?

2. Why don't innocent people live longer than the guilty?

3. Why are people that break the laws in the bible not punished?

4. How can people be allowed to die from random events like a brick falling on their head?

5. Why was Bush re-elected?

...

the list goes on. If there IS a God I think it's fair to say he's pretty much given up on us. Which is no better then not existing, really. Especially if he (cough) "implanted" evidence for evolution while creating the earth in 7 days.

[jbird]

Let me indulge my inner bad girl. Sandwich, you say you care about getting along with other people. But why not just seek out your advantage always? If my brother came barging in while I was writing up an IA, I'd tell him to buzz off, in more colorful terms. I'd rob a few banks, litter, and break into the IB offices to get exam answers, if I knew I wouldn't get caught. But I, like you and all mentally healthy people, care about other people, or, at least, feel some obligation to.

I think the analogy about the shells in a line is interesting. But I think the Universe is more like an beautifully complex array of shells arranged in tons of unique and striking patterns. Could the shells have washed up like that? I suppose. But what are the chances?

I agree with you that people who don't put the Bible to critical tests aren't being intellectually honest. If Jesus is God's Son, then the Bible, and the gospels in particular, can handle it. But there's a good way to know almost for sure a group of people didn't cook up the Bible in a smoke filled room one afternoon. It contradicts itself! Sounds like I'm shooting myself and Jesus in the foot. But it's true. The book of John says Jesus carried his own cross, but Mark says a foreigner did it for him. Matthew and Mark says Jesus' last words were a quotation from Psalm 22, but Luke says he simply yelled. John records Jesus talking to a disciple on the cross, but Luke says he talked to a theif. The books differ on details, the way witnesses of a crime might not agree on what the guy wore or something like that. But they agree on the main details. So that, combined with different literary styles, shows the books were written by different people at different times.

So, as a historian would demand, there is evidence from different sources. And there is evidence from archaeology and secular sources that the Christian community definitely existed, that somehow, Jesus of Nazareth had deeply devoted followers, willing to totally change their Jewish beliefs because of him, shortly after his death. I don't really see what that has to do with people burning witches, though. Sure, big groups can get crazy. But the early church was diverse- Roman, Greek, Jewish, male, female, old, young, rich, poor, from all over the area, which should provide checks on the potential for mental imbalence to cause people to believe in Jesus. Plus, the people who burned witches killed for their beliefs, while early Christians died for their beliefs, giving up their former faith and, if necessary, hostile family and friends. I think that's a lot harder than going along with a crazy plan to kill people for no reason, a plan everyone else is going along with.

Hey, justanotherone, I agree on people trying to explain away the stuff you bring up about God. Christians who do that aren't very biblically literate, because the Bible says people who say, "God was punishing you" or "Just praise God and it'll go away" when something terrible happens are being dishonest about God, which gets on his nerves. That's what the book of Job says, anyway. The Bible says that God gives us free will, and sometimes we use that free will to do horrific things. But God chooses not to punish terrible people now, in this life, to give them a chance to reform and because if doing the wrong thing leads to automatic punishment, people will do good out of fear instead of love for God. So from an abstract viewpoint, I think it makes sense that God chooses that. I wish God changed his mind with Hitler. But God, the Bible says, is in control and is able to work good out of tragedy. He uses the tragedy to discipline us, make us grow from spiritual babies to adults, or work some other good. But sometimes, the world God created sucks. Still, I don't think God's given up on us. I believe Jesus, God on a cross to win our hearts, is proof.

What an interesting debate. I feel like I'm in TOK, only this is 10x better! Since in TOK, the conversations's about a dead philosopher or whether we really exist.

[Daedalus]

Hey, justanotherone, I agree on people trying to explain away the stuff you bring up about God. Christians who do that aren't very biblically literate, because the Bible says people who say, "God was punishing you" or "Just praise God and it'll go away" when something terrible happens are being dishonest about God, which gets on his nerves. That's what the book of Job says, anyway. The Bible says that God gives us free will, and sometimes we use that free will to do horrific things. But God chooses not to punish terrible people now, in this life, to give them a chance to reform and because if doing the wrong thing leads to automatic punishment, people will do good out of fear instead of love for God. So from an abstract viewpoint, I think it makes sense that God chooses that. I wish God changed his mind with Hitler. But God, the Bible says, is in control and is able to work good out of tragedy. He uses the tragedy to discipline us, make us grow from spiritual babies to adults, or work some other good. But sometimes, the world God created sucks. Still, I don't think God's given up on us. I believe Jesus, God on a cross to win our hearts, is proof.

I hate people like you. "He uses the tragedy to discipline us..." your God, your little creature with the capitalized name, is willing to allow six million people to die in the worst of conditions, not knowing what they were headed for until the last second, clawing at the walls and screaming, some dying from starvation, others opened up alive for 'research', and many, many people 'lucky' enough to survive left psychologically scarred forever, just to discipline us?

What the **** is this? Please, I don't care if you believe in your God or not. But never, ever say the Holocaust was a lesson to discipline us.

[saunders is god]

hey bec i believe the statement you just made is of a racist nature

[deanp]

i'm strong atheist

from the definition on http://www.thefreedictionary.com/exist 'exist- to have actual being; be real'

god is merely a made up being that people have made up because they can not go on living without thinking that they are in this world for a purpose, hence they have made up this fairytale perfect god where if you pray to him, it makes you feel as though you are doing everything you can. When in-fact instead of praying, you should really be doing everything you can for the person you are praying for.

eg. someone is praying for their daughter to go well in IB

INSTEAD that person should be catering to their daughters every need if they truthfully want their daughter to go well, not resting on their knees at the side off their bed speaking to the ceiling and convincing themselves that there is someone listening.

someone asked me today whether i believe in god, my response?

i don't believe in fairytales.

i completely agree rebeccachristinamay, some people just need to wake up to reality.

[Windstorm G-man]

A divine deity may very well exist.

Indeed, I tend towards the ignostic view - that a supreme 'thing' (I couldn't bring myself to being) exists but we at the present will have no notion of it's motivations or how it functions.

Belief in a God is not unreasonable at all. However, absolute belief in a specific religion's idea of god is utterly ridiculous (I'd argue that there is a difference between believing in a religion and believing in it's God).

EDIT:

Christianity is the dumbest of them all, though. Jorge Luis Borges said that the great irony of the Christian religion is that it would take a miracle for people to believe in it.

Why would a God create fallible beings and then punish them for being fallible?

Edited August 4, 2010 by Windstorm G-man

[Windstorm G-man]

Let me indulge my inner bad girl. Sandwich, you say you care about getting along with other people. But why not just seek out your advantage always? If my brother came barging in while I was writing up an IA, I'd tell him to buzz off, in more colorful terms. I'd rob a few banks, litter, and break into the IB offices to get exam answers, if I knew I wouldn't get caught. But I, like you and all mentally healthy people, care about other people, or, at least, feel some obligation to.

I think the analogy about the shells in a line is interesting. But I think the Universe is more like an beautifully complex array of shells arranged in tons of unique and striking patterns. Could the shells have washed up like that? I suppose. But what are the chances?

I agree with you that people who don't put the Bible to critical tests aren't being intellectually honest. If Jesus is God's Son, then the Bible, and the gospels in particular, can handle it. But there's a good way to know almost for sure a group of people didn't cook up the Bible in a smoke filled room one afternoon. It contradicts itself! Sounds like I'm shooting myself and Jesus in the foot. But it's true. The book of John says Jesus carried his own cross, but Mark says a foreigner did it for him. Matthew and Mark says Jesus' last words were a quotation from Psalm 22, but Luke says he simply yelled. John records Jesus talking to a disciple on the cross, but Luke says he talked to a theif. The books differ on details, the way witnesses of a crime might not agree on what the guy wore or something like that. But they agree on the main details. So that, combined with different literary styles, shows the books were written by different people at different times.

So, as a historian would demand, there is evidence from different sources.

Sorry for the double post, but this is one of the stupidest arguments in favor of Christianity I've heard.

The story of Oedipus, indeed just a legend, differs from Pindar's Second Olympian Ode to Aeschylus' trilogy and to, of course, Sophocles' three plays. Is that, by your logic, evidence enough to suggest it actually did happen? Some of the details have changed but the core story and message stays the same.

You are quite an idiot.

And your second paragraph brands you even more as such.

The world would be better off without ignorant fools who believe god is an interventionist, having some affect on human affairs. I mentioned in my previous post that I believe in the general idea of a divine being, but that diving being intervening on human affairs is quite ridiculous. Indeed, if it did intervene, it would be with a degree of randomness and probably for sheer amusement rather than for love of it's creation. Only Humanity exists, and Humanity is the only reason we move forward.

I have Jewish relatives that died in the holocaust. You're essentially saying that Hitler and the Nazi regime were the tools of some all-loving Deity to demonstrate something to us? Get the **** out, and please, for the love of Humanity, think about what you're saying and what you believe.

"DEAD ARE ALL THE GODS, NOW DO WE DESIRE THE OVERMAN TO LIVE" - Friedrich Nietzsche.

Edited August 4, 2010 by Windstorm G-man

[jbird]

justanotherone,

I'm sorry if you hate me. I can understand that if you thought I was trying to justify the Holocaust, the most terrible thing done in the name of Christ. I didn't mean to imply the Holocaust in particular is God's way of disciplining. Or that God was trying to punish anyone through it. I certainly have no idea why God allowed the Holocaust to happen, and don't want to act like I do. I simply meant that God can use tragedy and suffering, horrible as they are, to make the individual stronger, better. I know he has in my own life.