Does God exist?

[Mahuta ♥]

For anyone who believes that everything should follow laws of physics, science...etc, they would definatly not say anything about a God looking over us. But I guess that is up for them to answer.

I'm not an athiest I believe in a specific god.

[GNRS]

Yeah, but when you say 'science' and 'real laws of physics'..remember there were put by human beings so they just go as far as our brains do. If we assumed that anything beyond the laws of physics and science is just not true, or doesnt exist or whatever, then I dont see how emotions exist. Not the scientific/chemical process behind it, but the emotion it self. I cant apply these laws on..say...'LOVE'..so no, it doesnt exist?

But there are scientific facts that are true, not established by human beings (e.g. gravity exists, it's a fact). This is the reason why I said that god should contain the "real laws of physics"; physics exist, but we don't know it properly.

Yeah, emotions and all these things related to the mind are the problem. I said that it's a belief because of the body-mind problem.

[SharkSpider]

I havent been on here for ages and I couldnt read all this. But by skimming through, I have a reply.

I just dont see it valid comparing unicorn existence to God's. We see the effect of God's existence but we dont see that of the unicorn.

You cant apply such things on 'religion/faith' issues. It's different.

Some people believe in what they call the "coincidence theory"..can this earth, universe, animals, planets, humans and animals be a result of mere coincidence? Well tell me, then. How come humans are made in the same way over and over and over. How come the plantes' orbiting around the sun has not ONCE gone out of track? Do you think this amount of preciceness amd detail like the mechanism of rain, our blood circulatory system is "coicidenece"? No way. So how come coincidence hasn't shown us the crashing of planets yet? Tell me. Coincidence should result in anything and everything, right?

(I know I said this before, but I'm saying it because it seems in context, mostly for the people who arent bothered to read the full thread before 'butting' in)

Well, generally learning science would completely dismiss most of your points, but for fear of handwaving I'll give a short reply.

Planets don't go out of orbit because of the physical laws that keep them in orbit. Humans are born the same way over and over again because human DNA causes it to be that way. First off, appealing to common sense is a fallacy. Second, you can't prove that existence wasn't a coincidence, and your so called rhetorical question can be answered with "yes" with just as much accuracy as "no," and you didn't supply any reasoning for your answer other than an appeal to something being self-evident, when indeed it is not self-evident in the slightest. That being said, you're setting up a major straw man argument against the idea of coincidence, without making any attempt to understand why so many people actually believe that theory.

Coincidence doesn't mean the entire universe does random things, and I can't really see how you got that idea from reading anything about the materialist theories. What it actually means is that existence itself is a coincidence, and that the laws of the universe came to be as a result of whatever caused it. That means that while existence is a coincidence, everything in the universe follows the laws of physics. The idea then states that life was created on the surface of a young earth, which science has shown to have the exact compounds needed to create basic cells. As a final fallacy to point out, coincidence should not result in anything and everything, because if what exists now is the result of randomness, then we can't say that randomness would have acted differently, because although it may have, by our own existence and the existence of the universe we've locked it in. Say I rolled a ten trillin sided dice and got an eight. Then, we have this number eight, and one man claims god gave us the number, and he rejects my claim that it was a dice, because "A dice should have been random, why would it roll an eight?"

[Mahuta ♥]

whatever caused it

what is this thing?

This is what we should answer. You cant say the alw of physics and just pause. Who made these laws?!

I dont take physics so I dont know much of the equations and stuff.

[SharkSpider]

what is this thing?

This is what we should answer. You cant say the alw of physics and just pause. Who made these laws?!

I dont take physics so I dont know much of the equations and stuff.

If you don't take physics then don't base arguments off things that require knowledge of it.

That being said, "this thing" is a question that literally defies logic. Either the universe exists without being created, or it was created, by something in turn that would have had to be created, etc. This means that either there was an infinite chain of creators, or that something came in to being uncaused. Neither are supported by any form of logic, and thus we find that the existence of the universe cannot follow the laws within the universe, which are by extent the laws followed by our own logic. The question of who made the laws is rather ridiculous, seeing as we attributed the names to the properties of existence. You can say god did it, but then you would need to explain the origion and purpose of god. Should you simply stop there, you may as well have stopped, whith the same uncertainties, before you even introduced the idea of god. In short, saying that god did everything is just as bad as saying that everything happened by chance, but it's not like we're going to be more certain than either of those.

[NBTATER]

It doesn't matter if a god exists. Here's why:

If human beings cannot comprehend the power/greatness of a god, then why should we try to relate to it? This is a futile attempt that will get us nowhere.

Cruelty, suffering, and injustice exist. If an all-powerful god exists, it must then have created such injustices. I would rather spend an eternity in hell than submit to such an insensitive and sadistic entity.

Everything, including the creation of the universe, the abiotic genesis of life, and more can be explained logically and experimentally proven by science. The concept of god is useless to human society. (and don't make the morality argument... that's just stupid. There are plenty of examples of "moral" atheists and "immoral" religious people.)

Yes, there are limitations to how far the human mind can go. However, going back to my first point, what is the reasoning behind trying to exceed those limits. If you can't comprehend it, you can't relate to it, and you shouldn't waste your time trying.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't pray or have a spiritual life. I think that many religions can help people deal with stress and can guide them down paths of happiness, Buddhism and Daoism especially. I'm just saying that, for those of us who don't need to mumble to the sky asking for divine intervention, we should not be concerned with god.

For the record, I am an atheist after my parents pushed me through 16 years of first Christian, then Jewish indoctrination.

Science conquers all.

[SharkSpider]

For the record, I am an atheist after my parents pushed me through 16 years of first Christian, then Jewish indoctrination.

Science conquers all.

Reading this makes me sigh a bit, because you're pretty much exactly how I was when I was around 15ish. It's a phase that people from religious families go through, when they dislike religion and the idea of god, and when they want to reject everything that they believe has wronged them. I used to think religious people were dumb star-speakers too, and that I was somehow better for being an atheist. In short, I was dead wrong, and well, here's why:

It doesn't matter if a god exists. Here's why:

If human beings cannot comprehend the power/greatness of a god, then why should we try to relate to it? This is a futile attempt that will get us nowhere.

Cruelty, suffering, and injustice exist. If an all-powerful god exists, it must then have created such injustices. I would rather spend an eternity in hell than submit to such an insensitive and sadistic entity.

Your arguments are attacks against a strongly literalist impression of the God described in the bible. The majority of religious people will tell you that god doesn't control how you act, and that if people are evil, they've only themselves to blame. People say that you can't comprehend the power/greatness of god, and they're true, because if god exists, it can't possibly be in a material sense of the word. The only futile argument is telling people not to look beyond the material for the origins of consciousness and free will, because you've proven nothing, and you only show your own ignorance by being unable to wrestle with existentialism. We can't realistically envision a world in four dimensions, yet our own plane of existence includes more than the dimensions we can percieve. Heck, try visualizing our 3d universe as the surface of a sphere, and then figuring out where the fourth axis goes. And yes, that's actually relevant to the god question. Learn before telling people not to think about things. We may not be able to comprehend its entirety, but we can look at the effects of a potential god, and we can philosophize and theorize all we like, and it's far from pointless.

Everything, including the creation of the universe, the abiotic genesis of life, and more can be explained logically and experimentally proven by science. The concept of god is useless to human society. (and don't make the morality argument... that's just stupid. There are plenty of examples of "moral" atheists and "immoral" religious people.)

First off, you should know that science can't actually prove anything. Second, science has not been able to produce a living organism from nothing, so your point is invalid. Second, it is hardly stupid to make the moral argument, because in a philosophical sense, the discussion of whether or not there is a god is extremely important to standards of morality. If you want to be a materialist, then how do you reconcile that with free will and nihilism? Unless you've thought of that, you have no right to be telling anyone what arguments are or aren't stupid. It's an ad hominem attack, an appeal to intuition and a false dilemma all rolled up in to a nice fallacy package.

Either way, your faith in science is rather disturbing, seeing as you're one to preach open-mindedness and a move away from absolutism. Ironically, you probably have one of the most absolutist stances I've seen on these forums. Unless you've done alot more thinking to come to the conclusion that the idea of god is worthless, you have no right to state that it is, and by the fact that you provided no evidence save possibly asking someone to "prove you wrong" (a major fallacy in itself) it is apparent that you don't fall in to the category of someone who is justified in making absolute and blanket statements in a discussion.

That being said, god is as useful to society as the study of literature. Think about it before you dismiss the point, which I'm almost certain you will, regardless.

Yes, there are limitations to how far the human mind can go. However, going back to my first point, what is the reasoning behind trying to exceed those limits. If you can't comprehend it, you can't relate to it, and you shouldn't waste your time trying.

We have yet to fully comprehend ourselves. Does that mean that we can't relate? You place limits where no limits should be placed, as we are limited by perception, and not by rational power in any way. You question the validity of questioning things, yet when you question, you realize that everything you see may not actually exist. Asking questions and trying to find answers is the key to becoming an enlightened, educated and mature individual, and as such it has a profound impact on society. Yes, we are not omniscient, and we have very little real knowledge, but unless you can tell me the limits you speak of, there is no need to state that they have the power to devalue any discussion of things greater than human perception. Even our own consciousness is an unexplained mystery in itself, and one that could potentially be answered in such a way as to make us consider that which we cannot percieve. That'd definitely beyond whatever bounds you have applied to the human mind.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't pray or have a spiritual life. I think that many religions can help people deal with stress and can guide them down paths of happiness, Buddhism and Daoism especially. I'm just saying that, for those of us who don't need to mumble to the sky asking for divine intervention, we should not be concerned with god.

Intelligence has nothing to do with atheism. There are tons of people much smarter and wiser than either of us who all have differing beliefs and views on god. To claim that not only does god not exist in any form, but that it's worthless to even consider the possibility, is to claim superiority to just about everyone who doesn't agree with you. You seriously insult every religious or agnostic person, without considering the fact that you may be wrong, and you can't prove yourself right. You claim to have knowledge that you don't actually have, and you use it as to place yourself on a level higher than someone else, who might even be superior in the way that they question their beliefs. I don't pray, nor do I consider the possibility of some authority figure influencing my life, but I still consider the possibility of a dualist existence, and how that affects what we may perceive as god.

That being said, I spent ten years of my life in a protestant church, where the ministers would come with questions, and leave us with even more unanswered ones. Most religious people aren't fundamentalists, in fact, many groups don't even believe that the bible is a historical record of anything, but instead a book of metaphors and ideas that can be applied to life. These people don't pray for divine intervention, they pray because they believe in a higher order that connects people, namely a collective consciousness that they call "souls." They may be wrong, but if you spend time in a church like that, that accepts gay people, drug addicts, differing view points, you come to realize that it really is filled with nothing but good thoughts, good intentions, and a will to understand the world while reconciling our own views to fit our knowledge. Heck, I kept on going to a christian church even after I stopped believing in their concept of god. For anyone who wants to become intellecutally developed, considering the idea of God is a definite must-have, as is the realization that nothing you or anyone else can do will prove any of it.

So please, before you write insults, make blanket statements, and deny everything, consider different perspectives than your own.

[moneyfaery]

Intelligence has nothing to do with atheism. There are tons of people much smarter and wiser than either of us who all have differing beliefs and views on god.

Absolutely correct. In fact, I'd argue that the most intelligent (not IQ-wise) people are those that accept differing views that contradict and oppose their own views, because there is some truth and knowledge to be gained by being open-minded.

NBTATER, you are silly if you think 'Science conquers all' because frankly, it doesn't. It may be the closest thing we humans (read: morals) have to prove "certainty", but it is certainly not infallible. I am atheist like you; the only difference between us is I am not as bigoted or arrogant as you.

[purple]

Even though we're slightly off-topic, I sort of want to take this opportunity to ask a question. I have a friend who wishes for a world without religion. However, just looking at the world today, I'm not sure this is a good idea, regardless as to whether or not God/gods exists. For one short example, most work to aid Africa is some sort of Christian missionary work. I certainly don't see many atheistic groups stepping up to help. Of course, this is probably because of the lack of organization in the atheistic community, but the fact stands. So my question is: regardless as to whether or not God actually exists, is it necessary to have religion?

Ps. Another example: my mother recently contracted bone cancer, and despite never having been religious before in her life, she turned to God. She seems happier. Who am I to take that away? Perhaps debating whether or not God exists is (ultimately) useless. We all end up believing what we want to believe anyways.

[Ashika]

Even though we're slightly off-topic, I sort of want to take this opportunity to ask a question. I have a friend who wishes for a world without religion. However, just looking at the world today, I'm not sure this is a good idea, regardless as to whether or not God/gods exists. For one short example, most work to aid Africa is some sort of Christian missionary work. I certainly don't see many atheistic groups stepping up to help. Of course, this is probably because of the lack of organization in the atheistic community, but the fact stands.

Umm, seriously?

I don't think people need to band together under a religion or lack thereof to do something good for the world.

I know a bunch of people going to Africa this summer to do humanitarian work. They don't have a religious affiliation... but they're doing it out of the kindness in their hearts and the desire to see change in the world.

I don't think they would go in and say "HAY GUYZZ WE'RE ATHEISTS AND WE'RE GUNNA DO SOMETHHING GUDDD"

Why atheists even need a group is beyond me.

I seriously hope that goodness =/= religion.

Otherwise I will be one sad panda the day when people say it does equal just that.

Edited February 25, 2009 by Ashika

[moneyfaery]

I seriously hope that goodness =/= religion.

Otherwise I will be one sad panda the day when people say it does equal just that.

I'd say it's exactly the opposite. Most people aren't kind because they want to be. It's more like because they don't want to be bitches and end up in hell/some other goddamned nasty place.

Doing things in fear =/= goodness, even though the acts themselves may be "good" (which is what purple was trying to say, I think?)

[Ashika]

Doing things in fear =/= goodness, even though the acts themselves may be "good" (which is what purple was trying to say, I think?)

I agree with you on that... which is why my wishful thinking is that people should be doing good because they feel it's the right thing to do. Such as helping those in Africa and other third world countries.

But yes, maybe that's why these Christian groups band together and try to be good... because they fear hell?

[Abu]

Okay, I'm actually going to continue with off-topic-ness and if any of you have watched Friends, do they remember the quote from Joey that "All good deeds are selfish" and that there are no selfless good deeds.

That was a spot on comment, since in actual fact, we don't do good deeds because we're inherently 'nice'. We do them to: look good, stay out of hell or whatever, and stay in the right side of Karma.

C'mon, the wow factor of saying 'I was in Africa in the summer helping poor Orphans' is pretty large. Yes some people enjoy doing that kind of activity, but deep down it is some other reason.

[SharkSpider]

Ethical Egoism, it's called, and there's nothing wrong with it. The idea is that altruism, which states that everything that benefits other people is ethical, can be explained by saying that it's impossible to do something ethical without some sense of satisfaction. If humans are naturally triggered to feel good while helping the needy, then helping the needy is not selfless. People who do these things don't necessary do it for wow factor or any other reason but the feeling that they're making a difference. It makes more sense if you connect it to a purpose in life, with the question of whether or not living for yourself only can bring real happiness. Nietzche, Einstein and Plato (and many more philosophers, actually, but there's a healthy mix) would agree that unless you live for others, you live for no one.

[purple]

I don't think people need to band together under a religion or lack thereof to do something good for the world.

I know a bunch of people going to Africa this summer to do humanitarian work. They don't have a religious affiliation... but they're doing it out of the kindness in their hearts and the desire to see change in the world.

Of course, I completely agree. And I'm overjoyed to hear that there are groups that go that aren't under the banner of religion; I've never heard of any until now.

I'd say it's exactly the opposite. Most people aren't kind because they want to be. It's more like because they don't want to be bitches and end up in hell/some other goddamned nasty place.

Doing things in fear =/= goodness, even though the acts themselves may be "good" (which is what purple was trying to say, I think?)

Well, it could be looked at whatever way. If you want to ask this question, then the relevant question would be: Does religion promote "goodness" or simply fear of punishment? Although I've heard of several stories of people who had nightmares due to their fear of sin and hell (see: hell house), there are also those who appear to genuinely just want to spread love and joy and unicorns or whatever around. Although the argument that atheists are without morals is completely false, when I talk to several of my friends who are Christian, they say that if they ended up believing there was no god, they would probably go out and steal and commit crimes or whatever because there was nothing stopping them.

[Ashika]

Of course, I completely agree. And I'm overjoyed to hear that there are groups that go that aren't under the banner of religion; I've never heard of any until now.

Really? I can name quite a few. I'm actually with a group that promotes human rights and international development... and there is about 6 groups in my campus that promote the same thing and do humanitarian work. None of these are under the name of religion. Haven't you heard of Oxfam? Amnesty International? Engineers/Doctors without Borders? Youth Challenge International? And that's just to name the ones I've been working closely with for the past 2 months.

Although the argument that atheists are without morals is completely false, when I talk to several of my friends who are Christian, they say that if they ended up believing there was no god, they would probably go out and steal and commit crimes or whatever because there was nothing stopping them.

This is what makes me so sad.

I have no words for that because it hurts my heart to hear that SOME people are only good because of religion.

That being said, a lot of my Christian (and other religious) friends think that goodness is a moral everyone should have regardless of religion.

[Mahuta ♥]

I agree with that, about the morals and goodness.

Although, I do kind of think Religion enforces that.

Personally, I was raised to know that our religion doesnt allow raping, stealing, killing, harming any living thing,ignoring people, being arrogant..etc..etc. Yet, right now, if i became an athiest, i wouldnt go do those things.

I dont see why people dont do certain things JUST BECAUSE religion stops them. If you dont believe what this religion told you not to do is wrong, then just do it, because there's no point.

Similary, i see no point of a religion that only concerns itself of stopping people from doing certain things without really raising them to understand WHY its wrong.

(about the off-topicness, i think the thread name should be changed into something more general)

[avident]

I used to believe in God (but not in Jesus), but then some things happened in my life that God would've never put on me had he been the person I thought he was. So no, I don't believe in God nor any ''all happens for a reason'' stuff going around. I rest my case.

[dexter]

Dude...God puts you in hard stuff so that he sees what you do.... its to see what you can handle dont expect lfie to be all peachy?!

[Mahuta ♥]

I wouldnt base my this statement just on something that happened. Some believe that god is testing his worshippers to see if they really believe in him.