Does God exist? (14 Viewers)

[Lukybear]

And again this thread finds a way of coming back to the old free-will vs predestination argument. Kudos to you all.
By the way Luke, you might want to stop contradticting yourself so many times. Or at least do it spread over multiple posts, rather than in two consecutive paragraphs.


Wanna hope for your sake he is, otherwise you might have to spend all of eternity with us infernally annoying atheists.
Oh Noes!

I hope you dont think my name is Luke, that would be horrendous. But if thats a short hand for Luky then so be it.

But there is no arguement with free-will vs predestination... no one can possibly understand it. Even now, brilliant philosphors fail to understand such concept, even without God in the picture. Leave it to the philosphors and Quantum Theorists. Just know that God in his infinite wisdom has all worked it out.

 

[BradCube]

What?

You originally wanted me to explain why I believe Gods non-existence has further reaching implications than a fairies non existence. I did so by outlining 4 implications that Gods non-existence has for us. That is 1. meaning 2. value 3. purpose and 4. forgiveness. You agreed with point 1's implication. On this basis, I have concluded that I have shown why God's non existence has further reaching implications than that of a fairies since you have agreed with an implication of Gods non-existence which is not applicable to fairies.

I don't understand why that would be the case or even if it was, an important one given it's.. not relevant to anything?

How is life having meaning not relevant to anything? Maybe if your definition of "anything" only includes scientific method than I could agree. I'm at a loss to think of how meaning is not relevant to most, if not all, of life. Have I misunderstood you?

In that case, why the need for an objective right or wrong, when everyone arrives at the same conclusion anyway as a product of our biology?

Because that conclusion we get to only really matters if it is the same as the objective moral values I am proposing. In other words, even if everyone arrives at the same conclusion via biological altruism this doesn't show that those values held to are actually "right" or "wrong". They are simply an aid to survival just like a weapon, athletic build or fertility. Right and wrong could have been completely different if our conditions for survival were different and so are arbitrary in this sense. It follows from this then that recognition of right and wrong is just an affront - an illusion - that prevents us from harming our own survival as a species.

Again, why the importance of objective morals?

Because all other forms of morality are only skin deep. They are arbitrary in one way or another.

I mean, your ultimate purpose to life could be to live your life, and that doesn't necessarily need a god. I don't understand why your God holds court over purpose, either.

Sure, just like morality, we can invent purpose for ourselves. However, just like morality, what this purpose is, is arbitrary. There is nothing beyond ourselves that really gives us any real meaningful purpose - it's a creation to entertain and make ourselves feel better about our existence.

Why? I mean, the victim or relatives of the victim can forgive - and that's their right more than any God's. Forgiveness does not rest on a God.

That's right, and I agree that this goes some way to amending any loss that would occur in regard to forgiveness by giving up belief in God. The only difference I suppose, is that, at least under Christian doctrine, God has the authority to forgive sins in an ultimate sort of sense since he has already "paid the price" by dying in our place.

Because atheism without agnosticism states quite frankly "there is no god", without any reference to our ability to know that or not. Expanded, agnostic atheism is "I don't think we can ever know if there is a God, but on balance with the extremely low likelihood of such a being's existence, I do not believe a God exists."

Ahh but Kwayera, don't you see the difference in this description and what you posted previously? I'll quote for you

Well, as I've said before, I'm technically an agnostic (we can't ever know if God exists or not) and a practicing atheist (taking the former in mind, and the lack of any evidence, I have an active lack of belief in the existence of God)

In one you claim lack of belief and in the other you claim that God does not exist. I agree with you that you are an atheist if you "Do not believe a God exists" since a common sense reading of this entails a positive epistemic claim similar to, "I believe that God does not exist". I also agree that this entails a "lack of belief in the existence of God". However "a lack of belief in the existence of God" does not entail that one believes "that God does not exist" since as we have seen, agnostics, dogs, cats etc would be labeled as atheists under this definition.

 

[BradCube]

ok thanks, not to be rude but isnt a subject like this very open to trolling because of the opinions of so many individuals who believe they are right and only their opinion is valid
(again i will delete)

Ha ha, yeah very much so. This is why many people are labeled as trolls when they are simply expressing their opinions.

 

[BradCube]

Sure it can. It's the antithesis of a definition (theism), and I don't know about you, but I don't know of any theist cats That's why I say atheism is a default position.

Ha ha

I wouldn't say that the antithesis of theism is lack of belief in God. The theist believes that God does exist, and so the antithesis to this position is the belief that God does not exist. Why does atheism need to be a middle ground when we have agnosticism? It's as though you want to claim to be an atheist, but don't like the epistemological responsibility of the claims that go with it, so instead try to dilute it until it indistinguishable from the agnostics own position.

I would say that there are no theistic or atheistic cats. They lack belief in God in the truest sense.

 

[Kwayera]

Ha ha

I wouldn't say that the antithesis of theism is lack of belief in God. The theist believes that God does exist, and so the antithesis to this position is the belief that God does not exist. Why does atheism need to be a middle ground when we have agnosticism? It's as though you want to claim to be an atheist, but don't like the epistemological responsibility of the claims that go with it, so instead try to dilute it until it indistinguishable from the agnostics own position.

Well to be fair, I'm actually trying to avoid intellectual dishonesty by saying "I don't believe in God" and not having any proof to back that statement up (not that one can prove a negative, but you get the point) - that's why I say you can be both agnostic (I don't think we will ever know either way) and atheist (but on the balance of probability, I don't believe in God, as I don't believe in fairies).

It's not dilution. It's... further definition.

I would say that there are no theistic or atheistic cats. They lack belief in God in the truest sense.

Exactly my point!

 

[BradCube]

Well to be fair, I'm actually trying to avoid intellectual dishonesty by saying "I don't believe in God" and not having any proof to back that statement up (not that one can prove a negative, but you get the point) - that's why I say you can be both agnostic (I don't think we will ever know either way) and atheist (but on the balance of probability, I don't believe in God, as I don't believe in fairies).

It's not dilution. It's... further definition.

So effectively what you're saying is: I don't see any reason for the belief in God, nor do I have any reason to disbelieve in God and so I regard myself as an agnostic that errs on the side of disbelief. One could always ask, why you err or on that side, but I am happy to leave it, as this makes your position a little more tenable - not to mention that it also means you are open to any proofs of God that you find warrant in believing (whether based in personal revelation, natural theology or a combination of the two). If you do agree with the implications of Gods non existence which I have listed, I would encourage you to keep your mind open in this regard - the theistic view is certainly my preferred world view (ignoring all the evidence) based on these implications.

 

[Kwayera]

So effectively what you're saying is: I don't see any reason for the belief in God, nor do I have any reason to disbelieve in God and so I regard myself as an agnostic that errs on the side of disbelief. One could always ask, why you err or on that side, but I am happy to leave it, as this makes your position a little more tenable - not to mention that it also means you are open to any proofs of God that you find warrant in believing (whether based in personal revelation, natural theology or a combination of the two). If you do agree with the implications of Gods non existence which I have listed, I would encourage you to keep your mind open in this regard - the theistic view is certainly my preferred world view (ignoring all the evidence) based on these implications.

Well, agnosticism is the only intellectually honest view (out of both theism and atheism); but when you consider that I apply atheistic agnosticism on the same level to things other than God, such as ye olde fairies, unicorns, ghosts, Santa Claus and Bertrand's celestial teapot, I think you'd find it a lot less flattering

You can ask why I err on the side of atheism, sure, and for that I'll offer up the same reason I am atheistically agnostic about the existence of say, ghosts: there's no objective proof for their existence, no scientific reason why they would or should exist, and I have no need to believe that they do exist. Ergo, I do not believe in ghosts; I do not believe in (any) God.

I don't agree with your "implications" as a whole because I don't think they're necessary for, well, anything really. Implications aren't a reason to believe, or disbelieve.

 

[BradCube]

And so the circle begins again...

Edit*
I should probably explain a little more. Plug, ghosts back into our original conversation in place of "fairies" and I think you will find we end up at the same point.

Also should mention that I did not mean to imply that implications in this sense are reason to believe. All I meant to say was that implications are reason to make sure you have reason to believe!

 

[Tully B.]

Just know that God in his infinite wisdom has all worked it out.

See, now that just annoys me. Putting aside the fact that I can't imagine myself believing in God, I really can't imagine myself adopting such a view as predestination.

 

[Kwayera]

And so the circle begins again...

Edit*
I should probably explain a little more. Plug, ghosts back into our original conversation in place of "fairies" and I think you will find we end up at the same point.

Also should mention that I did not mean to imply that implications in this sense are reason to believe. All I meant to say was that implications are reason to make sure you have reason to believe!

And that's because the existence of a God is about as important to me as the existence of ghosts, that is, not very, despite all of your "implications". I don't give a rats' about implications.

 

[BradCube]

See, now that just annoys me. Putting aside the fact that I can't imagine myself believing in God, I really can't imagine myself adopting such a view as predestination.

Thought I might quickly drop a line and recommend some reading and alternatives to a Calvinistic pre-destined doctrine. As far as I can see there are four main contenders (views) in the Christian realm on Gods knowledge of the future and the reconciliation of freewill within that. You have Open-Theism (also called the Openness view), Calvinism, Arminianism and Molinism. I have linked the relevant wiki pages if you would like an overview.

If you are interested enough, I would recommend picking up a book I am also reading through called: "Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views". I am finding it a pleasure to read through at the moment. It's quite informative and allows room for a response to each view from opposing sides.

For a more detailed introductory account of Molinism (which can be hard to find freely online) I would recommend "The Only Wise God: The Compatibility of Divine Foreknowledge & Human Freedom (authored by Dr William Lane Craig)". Despite owning the book, I haven't had a chance to read through it yet, but can heartily recommend it based on reading the preface and others of Craig's works.

Anyway, I'm off for the night. Hope this helps

 

[Brontecat]

Well, agnosticism is the only intellectually honest view (out of both theism and atheism); but when you consider that I apply atheistic agnosticism on the same level to things other than God, such as ye olde fairies, unicorns, ghosts, Santa Claus and Bertrand's celestial teapot, I think you'd find it a lot less flattering

You can ask why I err on the side of atheism, sure, and for that I'll offer up the same reason I am atheistically agnostic about the existence of say, ghosts: there's no objective proof for their existence, no scientific reason why they would or should exist, and I have no need to believe that they do exist. Ergo, I do not believe in ghosts; I do not believe in (any) God.

I don't agree with your "implications" as a whole because I don't think they're necessary for, well, anything really. Implications aren't a reason to believe, or disbelieve.

And so the circle begins again...

Edit*
I should probably explain a little more. Plug, ghosts back into our original conversation in place of "fairies" and I think you will find we end up at the same point.

Also should mention that I did not mean to imply that implications in this sense are reason to believe. All I meant to say was that implications are reason to make sure you have reason to believe!

as a roman catholic i would not 'plug ghosts back into fairies' historically it was correct to make the sign of the cross saying 'In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost' this practice continued for many years until the authorities deemed it to be slightly frightening and very unbelieveable hence the change to the Holy Spirit. Spirit sounding much more aweing and less 'scary' in a sense.

 

[Kwayera]

as a roman catholic i would not 'plug ghosts back into fairies' historically it was correct to make the sign of the cross saying 'In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost' this practice continued for many years until the authorities deemed it to be slightly frightening and very unbelieveable hence the change to the Holy Spirit. Spirit sounding much more aweing and less 'scary' in a sense.

I think you missed the point.

 

[Brontecat]

sorri

out of interest waht was the point?

 

[Kwayera]

I have as much belief in God as I have belief in ghosts, or other equally unlikely supernatural phenomena. That is to say, none.

The Holy Ghost/Spirit had nothing to do with the conversation.

 

[Iron]

The sparse furniture of her mind - the objects which barked the intruder's shins - had been acquired at the local High School and University; she presented herself to the world dressed and scented in obedience to the advertisements; brain and body were scarcely distinguishable from the standard product, but the spirit - ah, the spirit was something apart; it had to be sought afar; not here in the musky orchards of Hesperides, but in the mountain air of the dawn, in the eagle-haunted passes of Hellas. An umbilical cord of cafes and fruit shops, of ancestral shady businesses (fencing and pimping) united Aimee, all unconscious, to the high places of her race. As she grew up the only language she knew expressed fewer and fewer of her ripening needs; the facts which littered her memory grew less substantial; the figure she saw in the looking-glass seemed less recognizably herself. Aimee withdrew herself into a lofty and hieratic habitation...

 

[x.christina]

Ever since He can remember
People have died in His good name
Long before that September
Long before hijacking planes
He's lost the will He can't decide
He doesn't know who's right or wrong
But there's one thing that He's sure of
This has been going on too long

Lily Allen. Qft.

 

[sdcloud69]

Ever since He can remember
People have died in His good name
Long before that September
Long before hijacking planes
He's lost the will He can't decide
He doesn't know who's right or wrong
But there's one thing that He's sure of
This has been going on too long

Lily Allen. Qft.

Of all the people you could have quoted, you quoted that drugged up, no talent hooker?

Coolsauce bro.

 

[artist91]

Of course He exists!

 

[SylviaB]

Of course He exists!

O rly? Oh great kool as lolz!!


Oh btw can you show me a single scrap of evidence for your claim? kthxbai.