Does God exist? (13 Viewers)

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

Humans have morals, and can differenciate between what is right and wrong. These rights and wrongs often have nothing to do with the biological imperative of reproducing and advancing our own species at the expense of the others. We are able to show compassion, even to those who have caused harm against us. Also see 2nd paragraph above.

Some animals possess these characteristics.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

The human is driven to accomplish things in life that are not necessary to the biological imperative that is the goal of all other species: reproduction.

The human is able to experience love, able to make informed decisions based on its predictions of the future. The human is able to appreciate greater ideals exist in its life than its need to have sex and is capable for self-sacrifice.

The very fact that humans endeavour to explain the natural world around them and appreciate it and comtemplate our role in the cosmos in the way that we do, sets us apart from other animals.

Let's say there's a baby. He's an orphan and somehow ends up in the jungle and left to fend for himself. Would that baby automatically develop some of the things you mentioned above there or not?

 

[Name_Taken]

Let's say there's a baby. He's an orphan and somehow ends up in the jungle and left to fend for himself. Would that baby automatically develop some of the things you mentioned above there or not?

Tarzan did

But on a serious note. The problem with this suggestion is that a baby, especially for its first few years of life requries a parent in order to survive, and this dependence on other humans for the first part of its life means that it is impossible for the baby to live a life in complete isolation, at least for its whole existence.

For the individual to have the necessary knowledge to survive indapendantly in the jungle, it must be taught, and gain experience, under the guidance of another who does know.

Hypothetically speaking however, should the situation ever occur (which it cannot, but that is beside the point) I would think yes, the individual could come to grips with the concepts I have mentioned above, however it is a silly question because these characteristics are only really applicable in a social situation (e.g. self-sacrifice etc.) which wouldn't be relevant to the individual living in complete isolation.

 

[Riet]

The whole notion of a god that would give a shit about what we do on such a small planet in an immense universe is just an example of man's ego.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

Tarzan did

But on a serious note. The problem with this suggestion is that a baby, especially for its first few years of life requries a parent in order to survive, and this dependence on other humans for the first part of its life means that it is impossible for the baby to live a life in complete isolation, at least for its whole existence.

For the individual to have the necessary knowledge to survive indapendantly in the jungle, it must be taught, and gain experience, under the guidance of another who does know.

Hypothetically speaking however, should the situation ever occur (which it cannot, but that is beside the point) I would think yes, the individual could come to grips with the concepts I have mentioned above, however it is a silly question because these characteristics are only really applicable in a social situation (e.g. self-sacrifice etc.) which wouldn't be relevant to the individual living in complete isolation.

Lol, I had tarzan in mind as well.

So anyway... are you saying that children are able to develop their own notions of right/wrong, good/bad etc... by themselves? Would they be able to come up with "god" by themselves as well?

 

[BlackDragon]

Lol, I had tarzan in mind as well.

So anyway... are you saying that children are able to develop their own notions of right/wrong, good/bad etc... by themselves? Would they be able to come up with "god" by themselves as well?

I'm not sure that they would come up with the same moral notions at all. But I think that they would have the tendancy to posit that something is out there. Its all about how they interpret their surroundings. They could feel that there are spirits in the trees or something. But they wouldn't have these ground out concepts of things that we have with alot of cultural meaning behind them. Many of our concepts that we learn are things that have developed culturally and historically. Their concepts would probably be vague and mystical.

 

[Riet]

"The bible is the absolute word of god, we know this because it says so (in the bible) - that is why we shouldn't interpret it literally and instead how we see fit to oppress people who don't agree with us and force our views onto other people."

 

[Name_Taken]

Brief, simple lesson in faith:

God an an entity is not of this world. His exitence occurs on a seperate plane to ours altogether. I actually doubt his existence cannot be proved through methodolocial, scientific or mathematical principles. Its not like I can say because X > Y and Y does not equal Z therefore God = true.

Now I know I can't make the arguement, "because you can't prove he doesn't exist therefore he does", because the burden of proof is upon those who assert God does exist. However a lack of cold, hard scientific evidence to support the assertion that He does exist, does not mean that He does not exist. It simply means that as humans we have no evidence to prove either case, that is the only conlusion possible.

As such, you may have severe doubts yourself about the existence of God, but you will never be able to disprove Him, only convince others, and promote similar doubts in them, but this once again proves nothing, except that more people don't believe in Him than those who have faith.

This entire debate in the typical sense is meaningless in this regard as it cannot be proven beyond all reasonable certinty that God either exists or He doesn't.

Interestingly however, despite this, many of these and similar threads (lets all prove God doesn't exist etc.) are not started by people who believe in Him. Usually, it is those who believe in the assertion being made who would commence such such debates, but IDC that's a side point, just something I noticed.

The Christian faith asserts that God created man in his own image, to have a loving and real relationship with. This explains why God granted humans the gift of free will, something animals do not have. God gave them rules by which to live by, but being imperfect beings humans inevitably fell short of these rules and were tempted by evil away from Him.

Over time however mankind was increasingly tempted away from the one true God, and into lives of sin. This is documented in the Bible (should you choose to accept it), for example in relation to the city of Sodom, which was burnt to the ground, its sinful occupants destroyed for their perverse actions etc.

Gods harsh stance against sin may seem extreme (especially for a supposedly loving God), but is wholly justified, as man was created in God's image, and so, the misuse of the gift of free will to as a means to callously reject God from their lives and live against his rules is abhorrent and completely unjustifiable. As God is the creator of mankind, he would obviously hold to right to enact punishment and/or the destruction of individuals who have disobeyed His commands and rejected His love.

God however did not want to have to kill peole for their sins. This is because He loves us all as His blessed creations, made in his own image to live in a loving relationship with Him. Thus he sent Jesus down to reducate mankind about Him. Jesus died on the cross, to redeeme us from punishment for our sins. This does not mean that sin is allowed, simply that if we accept Christ as our Saviour and seek redemption through him from God, we will be forgiven for being tempted into evil.

It is up to the individual's faith in God, which will or not lead to that individual's salvation, which is the cornerstone of the Christian faith.

The individual has always had the option to abandon and reject God since the beginning, even the first people, Adam and Eve chose to disobey God.

God gave us free will because he wanted to have a loving relationship with his creations. He cannot have such a relationship, built on the foundation of "true" love with us, if we had no free will and couldn't not love Him.

I'm not trying to preech via the internet (you're choosing to read this post BTW), I'm merely demonstrating the futility of this debate, by explaining the bare basics of the faith to those who are unaware and willing to listen.

God will always love you, and you will always be forgiven for your actions, however heinous and evil they may be, if only you belive in Him and ask for his forgiveness

Be cool everyone.

 

[BlackDragon]

I don't think that was so much a lesson in faith but a lesson in theology. I think when people say "God will always love you" they are merely synthesising love for themselves..perceiving that they are loved. Its delusory comfort. Its like when people pray, they are really just talking to themselves.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

I wonder what god is doing at this very moment. I bet he's looking up at us right now...

 

[Name_Taken]

I wonder what god is doing at this very moment. I bet he's looking down at us right now...

Fixed.

 

[Riet]

God can't exist.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

God won't exist!

 

[Riet]

Ignoring the fact that an omniscient and omnipresent god makes human free will impossible, and therefore the concept of heaven and hell and faith redundant, it also makes gods own existence impossible as someone that knows everything can't have free will (since it knows what choice it will make, it isn't a choice), and therefore cannot exist.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

Someone has evened the scale on the polls!:mad1:

 

[BlackDragon]

Although I agree with your statement that god doesn't exist, god is not meant to have free will. He is just omnisience and omnipotence that exists not within our framework of spacetime.

 

[BlackDragon]

Someone has evened the scale on the polls!:mad1:

Nooooo. But I suppose that's free will..

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

Although I agree with your statement that god doesn't exist, god is not meant to have free will. He is just omnisience and omnipotence that exists not within the framework of spacetime.

So he exists in some form of parallel universe??? And why is it a he? Why not a she? Or some sort of genderless being?

And who created god?

Meh. The idea of God just seems too *convenient*.

 

[Riet]

If he exists in a parallel sphere of existence and has no connection with our universe, (and seemingly never has since there is no physical evidence to suggest otherwise), occam's razor makes it pretty simple to slice god off.

 

[BlackDragon]

Not in a parallel universe as such, just not within the concept of space time as we experience it. Especially time.

And yeah.. he, she, it, a monkey. Its just easy to use he. (plus the word god is charged with cultural and historical references to a man). But I prefer to think of it as pure ominsience and omnipotence, a force.