• Congratulations to the Class of 2024 on your results!
    Let us know how you went here
    Got a question about your uni preferences? Ask us here

Does God exist? (3 Viewers)

do you believe in god?


  • Total voters
    1,570

Lukybear

Active Member
Joined
May 6, 2008
Messages
1,466
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
Of course there's no proof for reality. It wouldn't be in the basket if there was. That was just stupid.
We're talking about probability here. From anecdotal and scientific evidence, an approximate chance can be created.
So, P(reality) = 99%
P(God) = 21% (for example; obviously looking at it from my view)
21% =/= 99%
.... God help me... There is NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for reality. And i know that we are talking about probability here. Probability needs data and we have non. Even you said yourself, anecdotal.

There is no mathematical formula for the existence of reality. You can just approximate their probability from no evidence... except your biased opinion. Therefore its is unproven on booth accounts.
 

moll.

Learn to science.
Joined
Aug 19, 2008
Messages
3,545
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
Fuck man, you are not getting this. What I said was opinion, not fact. Therefore, it doesn't need supporting evidence. I honestly don't care what you said above, but you can believe that I'm an idiot, but you can't assert that it's true unless you have evidence. I'm pretty sure we are speaking the same language so if you still don't understand this I'm going to give up with you.
But you didn't just state an opinion. You made a public claim. If you were stating an opinion, you would have said:
bell531 said:
I personally believe that there is a God for my own reasons which I shall not expand upon
And you would have been left alone, except maybe the odd query for you to tell what those reasons are.
Instead, however, you said:
bell531 said:
@OP - yes
This is not an opinion. This is a blatantly unjustified claim, and you subsequently got flamed for not providing evidence.
Lesson learnt: Don't make stupid (read: unjustified) claims.
 

Kwayera

Passive-aggressive Mod
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
5,959
Location
Antarctica
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
.... God help me... There is NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for reality. And i know that we are talking about probability here. Probability needs data and we have non. Even you said yourself, anecdotal.
If I could, I'd come over to where you live, pick up a heavy book, and smack you repeatedly with it yelling "IS THIS REAL? IS THIS REAL?!" but I'm guess that's not the "reality" you're talking about. We could be in a simulated reality, true, but there is no way we could ever prove it, by definition. It's not that there is no scientific evidence for reality; it's just that any evidence we come up with would be in the bounds of the reality we're trying to prove/disprove, and your brain implodes because that is a physical impossibility.

There is no mathematical formula for the existence of reality. You can just approximate their probability from no evidence... except your biased opinion. Therefore its is unproven on booth accounts.
Er, evidence != mathematical formula.
 
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
30
Location
west
Gender
Female
HSC
2009
But then you're not worshipping that biological construct, "love" - you're worshipping some nameless entity that you think created it.
We worship God (He is not some nameless entity) He is love and as iro quoted "He who does ot love does not know God, for God is love" 1 John 4:8

Think about it this way God or in this case Jesus is a friend He said " Greater love has o one tha this, than to lay down ones life for his friends"(John 14:13) God doesnt want us to fear Him and be scared of Him He wants us to love Him out of our free will ( if you think about God is omniscient and omnipotent if He want us to fear him He will).

I dont think this verse has anything to do with the person in the guote above but i really like it
"there is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment. But he who fears has not been made perfect in love" (1 John 4:18)
 

rant

&&&&&&&&
Joined
Nov 22, 2007
Messages
200
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
ffs, take allegory!!!!

.... God help me... There is NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for reality. And i know that we are talking about probability here. Probability needs data and we have non. Even you said yourself, anecdotal.

There is no mathematical formula for the existence of reality. You can just approximate their probability from no evidence... except your biased opinion. Therefore its is unproven on booth accounts.
i'll go on with your little charade

you and i both perceive reality, yes? hell, i bet the majority of people in this thread/site/world notices that water is drinkable or walls are hard. As far as we are concerned, reality exists. it doesn't matter if we're all just a dream, or trapped in the matrix etcetera, we perceive reality with our senses.

Okay watch close as I kill two illogical birds with one stone!

Now imagine an ice cream stand, distributing free ice cream to whoever walks to it. Then imagine children who can see, hear and smell. They walk to the stand everyday and they get free ice cream. All is well and fantastic. These are children with faith. Now imagine other children who are blind, deaf and devoid of any sense of smell since birth. These children will not go to the ice cream stand because they are unaware of its existence. They can't see it, they can't hear the ice cream man talk. They are unbelievers. Once in a while, a nice child will come to them and tell them (telepathically) that they should get some ice cream. The blind and deaf kids ask "What are you talking about?" They answer: "Ice cream! Over there! Don't you see it?" - "See? Hear? How? What does that even mean?" Of course, they are blind and deaf since birth, they have no clue about images or sounds, to them this is complete gibberish. In fact, they believe all other children are raging, deluded lunatics - if there was something to sense, wouldn't they sense it? In the end, they are left alone and they never get to taste ice cream, even though their taste buds are perfectly functional (well ok they can't enjoy it as much without smell but let's ignore that).

And then there is the ice cream man. The ice cream man loves children and he wants all of them to taste his ice cream, though they should do so by their own free will. He put in a huge colourful banner to attract children and every day he uses a megaphone to inform everyone of the day's special, delicious flavours. Of course, he sees the blind and deaf children, for he knows everything, including the rather obvious fact that these children will never see his banner and will never hear him. In his infinite wisdom, he could communicate telepathically with them, reassure them and tell them how to find him. But for some reason, he doesn't. Instead, he shouts in his megaphone: "Hey! Deaf kids! Why don't you come to me? Today, I have cookies and cream! It's delicious!". The blind, deaf kids do not answer, of course. And the ice cream man concludes that they want nothing to do with his ice cream. And he weeps!

The worst part is that some of these poor blind and deaf kids, every night, are dreaming of sweets. They have never tasted sweets, but they imagine, virtually, how their brains would be delighted by them. But since they see no evidence that sweets exist, they bitterly admit that they are only imagining them. The ice cream man hears their dreams, but does nothing - after all, it's not complicated, they just have to walk over there. How come they don't know? He set up such a pretty banner! And he talks to them everyday!

Seeing how religious people speak about their faith, this allegory is perfectly appropriate. People with faith "see" things that we absolutely do not. They see things that make no sense to us, things that we scoff at like we scoff at a mythomaniac's nonsensical stories. And then we conclude that they are deluding themselves, which is perfectly rational from our perspective.

If God is concerned - if he truly loves us - then why is he acting like the ice cream man in my example?
 
Last edited:

Lukybear

Active Member
Joined
May 6, 2008
Messages
1,466
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
If I could, I'd come over to where you live, pick up a heavy book, and smack you repeatedly with it yelling "IS THIS REAL? IS THIS REAL?!" but I'm guess that's not the "reality" you're talking about. We could be in a simulated reality, true, but there is no way we could ever prove it, by definition. It's not that there is no scientific evidence for reality; it's just that any evidence we come up with would be in the bounds of the reality we're trying to prove/disprove, and your brain implodes because that is a physical impossibility.



Er, evidence != mathematical formula.
Exactly, perhaps my post is a bit hazzy. But moll. cant just give something that cannot be proven a certain percentage of probability of existing. Its just not possible. Therefore reality = God. And contemplating God = brain imploding.

LOL
 

Iron

Ecclesiastical Die-Hard
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
7,765
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
it's like the 3 stooges are in my mouth
and everyone's invited!
 

tommykins

i am number -e^i*pi
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
5,730
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
short answer...yes
i do believe and when u look, the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming
alot of us has looked, and have come to the conclusion. what do you say to us? "not looking hard enough?" - define "hard enough" ?
Is this a joke? Are you just siding with moll? Or have i said something to offend you?

BTW, lol at becoming enemies with u and moll...for some reason.
no i just think you're an idiot for coming into a philosophical debate and providing an answer with no basis.

Fuck man, you are not getting this. What I said was opinion, not fact. Therefore, it doesn't need supporting evidence. I honestly don't care what you said above, but you can believe that I'm an idiot, but you can't assert that it's true unless you have evidence. I'm pretty sure we are speaking the same language so if you still don't understand this I'm going to give up with you.
you certainly don't need to but you're a retard.

okay - i believe the sky is green, you can't prove me wrong cause it's my opinion - see what i did there?
 

Lukybear

Active Member
Joined
May 6, 2008
Messages
1,466
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
Re: ffs take allegory!

i'll go on with your little charade

you and i both perceive reality, yes? hell, i bet the majority of people in this thread/site/world notices that water is drinkable or walls are hard. As far as we are concerned, reality exists. it doesn't matter if we're all just a dream, or trapped in the matrix etcetera, we perceive reality with our senses.

Okay watch close as I kill two illogical birds with one stone!

Now imagine an ice cream stand, distributing free ice cream to whoever walks to it. Then imagine children who can see, hear and smell. They walk to the stand everyday and they get free ice cream. All is well and fantastic. These are children with faith. Now imagine other children who are blind, deaf and devoid of any sense of smell since birth. These children will not go to the ice cream stand because they are unaware of its existence. They can't see it, they can't hear the ice cream man talk. They are unbelievers. Once in a while, a nice child will come to them and tell them (telepathically) that they should get some ice cream. The blind and deaf kids ask "What are you talking about?" They answer: "Ice cream! Over there! Don't you see it?" - "See? Hear? How? What does that even mean?" Of course, they are blind and deaf since birth, they have no clue about images or sounds, to them this is complete gibberish. In fact, they believe all other children are raging, deluded lunatics - if there was something to sense, wouldn't they sense it? In the end, they are left alone and they never get to taste ice cream, even though their taste buds are perfectly functional (well ok they can't enjoy it as much without smell but let's ignore that).

And then there is the ice cream man. The ice cream man loves children and he wants all of them to taste his ice cream, though they should do so by their own free will. He put in a huge colourful banner to attract children and every day he uses a megaphone to inform everyone of the day's special, delicious flavours. Of course, he sees the blind and deaf children, for he knows everything, including the rather obvious fact that these children will never see his banner and will never hear him. In his infinite wisdom, he could communicate telepathically with them, reassure them and tell them how to find him. But for some reason, he doesn't. Instead, he shouts in his megaphone: "Hey! Deaf kids! Why don't you come to me? Today, I have cookies and cream! It's delicious!". The blind, deaf kids do not answer, of course. And the ice cream man concludes that they want nothing to do with his ice cream. And he weeps!

The worst part is that some of these poor blind and deaf kids, every night, are dreaming of sweets. They have never tasted sweets, but they imagine, virtually, how their brains would be delighted by them. But since they see no evidence that sweets exist, they bitterly admit that they are only imagining them. The ice cream man hears their dreams, but does nothing - after all, it's not complicated, they just have to walk over there. How come they don't know? He set up such a pretty banner! And he talks to them everyday!

Seeing how religious people speak about their faith, this allegory is perfectly appropriate. People with faith "see" things that we absolutely do not. They see things that make no sense to us, things that we scoff at like we scoff at a mythomaniac's nonsensical stories. And then we conclude that they are deluding themselves, which is perfectly rational from our perspective.

If God is concerned - if he truly loves us - then why is he acting like the ice cream man in my example?
My eyes hurt after reading this... no offence its too long.

You saying if the ice cream man is all powerfull then why dosent he reach out to those deaf children?

Well firstly i hope you guys predicted this; why does the ice cream man have to reach out? What makes those deaf children so significant that HE have to reach out. What makes humans, the pinnicle of his life, the blood of his body that he has to look after them. In truth, we are insignificant beings of God. If he wanted, we would all die tommrow, but because of his love we dont.

How can we, put ourself on such a high priority that God must pay attention to us? I mean you could ask him when you die tho.

Secondly you didnt attack my arguement of unproven reality at all. Read Kywera's post and youll get it.
 

mal_tez92

New Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
4
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2009
All I can say is, all arguments for God's (or any superntaural thing) existence that I have heard do not put forward any evidence. Find some evidence of God and I will believe it. Until this proof is found, God is just a theory.

It is not a scientific theory in the same way Evolution or Gravity is, scientifically God is just a hypothesis with no background information, evidence or proof.

If in the case evidence is found, I will believe.
 

rant

&&&&&&&&
Joined
Nov 22, 2007
Messages
200
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
Re: ffs take allegory!

My eyes hurt after reading this... no offence its too long.
even after paragraphs? :(

What makes humans, the pinnicle of his life, the blood of his body that he has to look after them. In truth, we are insignificant beings of God. If he wanted, we would all die tommrow, but because of his love we dont.
lol what

in summary god loves us, but is apathetic

How can we, put ourself on such a high priority that God must pay attention to us?
allegory says: we are imperfect children, god is our loving father. why the hell were we created, the images of god, if he wasn't going to pay attention?

Secondly you didnt attack my arguement of unproven reality at all. Read Kywera's post and youll get it.
i did attack it, i said it doesnt matter because we all experience reality, while only a few experience 'god. (top of post)
 

Iron

Ecclesiastical Die-Hard
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
7,765
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Na mal, our scientific rules dont apply. The onus is on you to seek the truth. Failure to find evidence to satisfy and FILL the soul is entirely your fault - and a fault that you will be judged for. For, in OUR legal system, like God's, ignorance of the law is no defence
 

Lukybear

Active Member
Joined
May 6, 2008
Messages
1,466
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
no i just think you're an idiot for coming into a philosophical debate and providing an answer with no basis.
Yea his siding with moll.

okay - i believe the sky is green, you can't prove me wrong cause it's my opinion - see what i did there?
See, this is God were talknig about. Thats all good and well, but everybody deserves an opinion, and if you think its wrong then say it, rather then attacking the person.

But correct me if i am wrong, but the sky is not actually blue but black? You only percieve it as blue due to certain reasons. But then we gota define what the sky is.
 

moll.

Learn to science.
Joined
Aug 19, 2008
Messages
3,545
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
.... God help me... There is NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for reality. And i know that we are talking about probability here. Probability needs data and we have non. Even you said yourself, anecdotal.

There is no mathematical formula for the existence of reality. You can just approximate their probability from no evidence... except your biased opinion. Therefore its is unproven on both accounts.
We are, however, dealing with matters relating to subjective and individual consciousness, which in turn means that anecdotal and biased evidence from the individual is entirely submittable.
Let me explain. Because both reality and God deal with substances not a part of the physical world, they are undefined and highly ambiguous. I'm not just talking about being undefined in English language here, either. I'm talking about them being unimaginable constructs of an alternate or expanded dimension.
This means that the defintion of each substance is defined instead by the limits and breadth of the individual's imagination. Whilst something may appear obvious to myself, it may be hidden from you. Thus, in trying to prove either reality or God, we cannot prove it to each other, due to differing levels of consciousness and an inability to translate an imagined substance into words.
Instead, any proof will have to be reserved for the individual, and as such it can rely upon subjective evidence, as it is only appealing to the individual's own imagination and logic and it is entirely self-contained within the consciousness.
So, whilst to me the probabilities may be 21% and 99% for God and reality, respectively, they may be entirely different to yourself, for your own subconscious reasoning. That doesn't mean we are unable to attach a number to such probabilities, however, it just means that such numbers are unable to be justified between individuals due to the physically transcendant nature of the topic.




That said, however, you're still an idiot if you believe in God.
 

tommykins

i am number -e^i*pi
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
5,730
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
Na mal, our scientific rules dont apply. The onus is on you to seek the truth. Failure to find evidence to satisfy and FILL the soul is entirely your fault - and a fault that you will be judged for. For, in OUR legal system, like God's, ignorance of the law is no defence
why wouldn't it be God's fault? he created us.

See, this is God were talknig about. Thats all good and well, but everybody deserves an opinion, and if you think its wrong then say it, rather then attacking the person.
lol, thing is - he thinks it's 'okay' to put his opinion on a subject forth without any sort of backup. after being told it's okay to have an opinion, just at least put forth some evidence, he says it's not necessary - if so, gtfo the thread, we don't need anyone that has nothing to contribute.
But correct me if i am wrong, but the sky is not actually blue but black? You only percieve it as blue due to certain reasons. But then we gota define what the sky is.
took the analogy out of context, but the sky is blue due to the wavelengths emitted from somewhere - forgot.
 

bell531

Member's Member 2008
Joined
Nov 8, 2008
Messages
451
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
But you didn't just state an opinion. You made a public claim.

This is not an opinion. This is a blatantly unjustified claim, and you subsequently got flamed for not providing evidence.
Lesson learnt: Don't make stupid (read: unjustified) claims.
The point was that it wasn't a claim of truth or fact, but my opinion. The only mistake I made was to forget "..., in my opinion" at the end of my original post. Though, I had assumed it was implied.

i just think you're an idiot for coming into a philosophical debate and providing an answer with no basis.

okay - i believe the sky is green, you can't prove me wrong cause it's my opinion - see what i did there?
How don't you get this? Ok, we will use your example: you can believe the sky is green if you want, regardless of evidence, because it is merely a belief. However, if you said "the sky is green", then I would most likely tell you that you're claim was stupid. The God debate doesn't have enough evidence to support either belief 100%, therefore, this whole thread is opinionated, and although some elaboration is expected it is not necessary.
 

Iron

Ecclesiastical Die-Hard
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
7,765
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
why wouldn't it be God's fault? he created us.
.
Why do we keep coming back to this, like a dog to its vomit?
freewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewill
 

tommykins

i am number -e^i*pi
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
5,730
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
How don't you get this? Ok, we will use your example: you can believe the sky is green if you want, regardless of evidence, because it is merely a belief. However, if you said "the sky is green", then I would most likely tell you that you're claim was stupid. The God debate doesn't have enough evidence to support either belief 100%, therefore, this whole thread is opinionated, and although some elaboration is expected it is not necessary.
The sky IS green, it's my opinion - you can't refute it.

See what I did there?

And yes, the God debate doesn't have enough evidence on both sides (more so on the affirmative side as you can't really prove a negative...) but it is more of a RATIONAL and reasonable conclusion one can declare based on evidence at hand.
 

tommykins

i am number -e^i*pi
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
5,730
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
Why do we keep coming back to this, like a dog to its vomit?
freewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewillfreewill
didn't someone like own this argument already ? we've pretty much covered every base lol
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 3)

Top