• Best of luck to the class of 2024 for their HSC exams. You got this!
    Let us know your thoughts on the HSC exams here
  • YOU can help the next generation of students in the community!
    Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
MedVision ad

Does God exist? (5 Viewers)

do you believe in god?


  • Total voters
    1,568

Sy123

This too shall pass
Joined
Nov 6, 2011
Messages
3,730
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
No you haven't proven god exists at all and your refusal to show how the Islamic god in particular exists means that you can't say that truth is the purpose of our existence. Nor have you at any point shown that we need some objective purpose in our existence.
Which is why its a side point that you pressed for some strange reason, illustrating your ignorance

And again, that is just an elaborate way of avoiding the point, the point being that if god exists and god knows our fate that means a pre-determined destiny exists which contradicts our ability to have the free will to change it.
It is not avoiding the point, its like someone saying, "the fact that apples are red shows that in fact oranges taste nice"
The two points have no relevance whatsoever, you must show with proof why free will, if we cannot change whatever is in God's knowledge, then, does not exist

Your talk about this has consisted of you just repeating the statement that the big bang needs a cause because it happened without actually at any point showing why. Repeating your statement as fact without showing it is not in any way proving it.
I said that the 'big bang' has a cause because it is an event that began to exist, please refer to my defenses of the first premise of the argument
I am talking with meaning, by definition the cosmic hooker is different from the hookers we know of on earth. You can't argue with that because that's the definition.
Please try to disprove the cosmic hooker for me o wise one.
Then what makes it a hooker if its not a hooker

If you say that this 'cosmic hooker', is something that is immaterial, transcendent, has perfect knowledge and perfect power and has a Will, then what you are calling a cosmic hooker is really what others call God

Meaning your point is a completely dead one, the fact that you don't see it shows you do not understand very easy and basic facts
 

iBibah

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2012
Messages
1,374
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
I'm starting to think George Orwell plagiarised 1984 out of the Bible.

Why is it that human nature seems to be defined as sin (ie having sexual fantasies)? What kind of God creates people to instinctively behave in a way that he says is sinful?
Human nature is not defined as sin, but as humans we have a temptation and potential to sin.

I've said it too many times now, the thought is not the sin, its how you act on that thought. You cannot be judged on feelings beyond your control, whether good or bad. But the thing is, there comes a point when you have control over that thought, in the case of lust, when someone fantasises about another person for a period of time it's entirely in their control, they chose to indulge in such thoughts.

So God didn't create people to behave in any way, He gave them a choice to behave how they like. And only when an action or thought is out of free will is one held accountable for it.
 

Chocolatebubble

Active Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
157
Location
Sydney, Australia, Australia
Gender
Female
HSC
2014
Uni Grad
2019
I'm appalled that there are still 50% of young people who believe in a god or many gods according to this poll. My parents are chinese folk buddhist and they believe in 108 spirits and faeries that act as gods and guardian angels, and whilst it's cool and all, it conflicts with all the other mainstream religions, except maybe the ancient religions, which honestly doesn't improve anyone's case.

So no, a God doesn't exist. If a God existed, we would have no idea of her existence anyway. Yes if there is a God, i'd consider her female because she's a creator. Many gods exist in the eyes of my parents. I don't hold any belief other than "I really really hope reincarnation exists"
 

Amundies

Commander-in-Chief
Joined
Jul 29, 2011
Messages
689
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
Uni Grad
2018
Guess you could say that you're... a-polled.

Also you didn't actually prove that God doesn't exist.

Also (now referring to your second sentence in your second paragraph), you haven't read through the last few pages in this thread clearly. Sy123 brought up some great points.

Also, you literally said these 3 things in order. "God doesn't exist. Wait no, we don't have proof that God exists. Wait no, God's a girl. Oh wait, I don't really hold any belief." That's a solid circle that you went through.
 

dan964

what
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
3,479
Location
South of here
Gender
Male
HSC
2014
Uni Grad
2019
Human nature is not defined as sin, but as humans we have a temptation and potential to sin.

I've said it too many times now, the thought is not the sin, its how you act on that thought. You cannot be judged on feelings beyond your control, whether good or bad. But the thing is, there comes a point when you have control over that thought, in the case of lust, when someone fantasises about another person for a period of time it's entirely in their control, they chose to indulge in such thoughts.

So God didn't create people to behave in any way, He gave them a choice to behave how they like. And only when an action or thought is out of free will is one held accountable for it.
:)
may I also stress, that humans only choose in accordance with their desires.
Yes, humans may desire good things or may desire bad things for others or for themselves.
But when it comes to God, no-one (as a default) desires God, and thus rejects him in some way. That is sin.

Why do people not desire God, well ask an atheist, they probably give a really good answer to that.
 
Last edited:

Menomaths

Exaı̸̸̸̸̸̸̸̸lted Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2013
Messages
2,373
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
I'm appalled that there are still 50% of young people who believe in a god or many gods according to this poll. My parents are chinese folk buddhist and they believe in 108 spirits and faeries that act as gods and guardian angels, and whilst it's cool and all, it conflicts with all the other mainstream religions, except maybe the ancient religions, which honestly doesn't improve anyone's case.

So no, a God doesn't exist. If a God existed, we would have no idea of her existence anyway. Yes if there is a God, i'd consider her female because she's a creator. Many gods exist in the eyes of my parents. I don't hold any belief other than "I really really hope reincarnation exists"
I can't even
 

dan964

what
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
3,479
Location
South of here
Gender
Male
HSC
2014
Uni Grad
2019
in response to one of the original posts on page 1:
The First Cause Argument
Claim:
Every event has a cause. The universe itself had a beginning, so it must have had a first cause, which must have been a creator God.

Typical Response:
1. The assumption that every event has a cause, although common in our experience, is not necessarily universal. The apparent lack of cause for some events, such as radioactive decay, suggests that there might be exceptions. There are also hypotheses, such as alternate dimensions of time or an eternally oscillating universe that allow a universe without a first cause.
2. By definition, a cause comes before an event. If time began with the universe, "before" does not even apply to it, and it is logically impossible that the universe be caused.
3. This claim raises the question of what caused God. If, as some claim, God does not need a cause, then by the same reasoning, neither does the universe

Rebuttal of Response:

Opening Statements
Statement #1 is partially valid but as there is no evidence as of now, to verify these hypotheses, and that neither does verifying these hypotheses answer/refute the above claim, I ask is it is an attempt by some scientists to somehow avoid the issue at hand.
The apparent lack of cause for some events is it not explainable (or at least attempted to be explained) in the methodology of science.

Thus science looks for a cause, and extrapolates backwards.

But the issue comes is, not that there isn’t a cause to these events, is that we assume sometimes that because one event is caused by one agent, a repetition of that event must be caused by the exact same agent. Now this issue is, is the creation of the universe, a repeated event in its fullest extent – of course not. So can the scientific method be actually valid for extrapolating backwards to the beginning of the universe.

Statement #2 and #3 are based on the assumption that God is limited by time and space, since it is reasonable to say that all things explainable by science serve a purpose and have a cause. Evolution will verify that an animal does something because it is beneficial for themselves, or their species. Sciences validates that “order cannot come from chaos”. If God has indeed created the universe, i.e. caused it to come into existence (whether that be by the current scientific explanation or otherwise), then there must be a purpose behind it. These will be addressed more in detail in following statements

I will quickly address Statement #3 because I believe it fallacious and erroneous. If I claimed that something caused a particular event to occur, the following statements need to be made:
1. Everything which has a beginning (i.e. an event) has an efficient cause
2. God is defined as existing from eternity past*, i.e. had no beginning
3. Therefore God doesn’t need a cause

* A term used to describe his continual eternal existence, stressing more so, his precedence over creation

While for the universe it is not the same:
1. Everything which has a beginning has an efficient cause
2. The universe is ordered, as observed by science
3. The universe has a defined beginning as proven so far by science, and can validated from (2)
4. Therefore the universe has a cause

Statement A: All events even unordered ones have a cause. Ordered events have a purpose*

* Note: some events are defined as random because they have no purpose. However, some random events do indeed serve a purpose, even though they might seem unordered.

- A cause is defined as an agent or anything that provokes or initiates the occurrence of a particular event or circumstances.
- Science validates (and this is especially true in natural selection) and can explain all events that have a distinct cause or purpose. For example it can explain why a person gets hungry, why an animal does this.
- What it (science) cannot and fails miserably to explain is the human reality, in particularly suffering. Suffering is a reality, that does need verification from science, but is unexplainable by science because there is not a cause or consistency to these events always (sometimes there is, sometimes there isn’t).
- Therefore if an event is ordered and has a defined purpose, it is explainable by the mechanism of cause and effect i.e. it has a cause, an effect and a purpose. Science can therefore apply the laws and known facts to explain the cause of this event.
The distinction between an ordered event and an unordered event is the following characteristics:
- An ordered event has an explainable cause, defined beginning and a defined end, but not necessarily a known end, and functions/occurs for a particular purpose of that event.
- An unordered event may not necessarily have an explainable cause, although because it does have a defined beginning and an end, it still has a cause. It has no purpose
- An ordered event always has a defined and a (usually) explainable structure and has a defined and a (usually) explainable purpose.

Statement B: All events defined in time and space have a cause and therefore a beginning and end*.

*by end I am making a distinction between if one event causes another, that new event is defined relative to the first event, and independently in the sense that its beginning is defined as the application of the agent (cause). This statement is REVERSIBLE.

- Originally science had theories similar to those mentioned i.e. “eternally oscillating universe”. By observing the ordered nature of the event i.e. the order in the universe – the laws of physics (as presented in the section A), it is illogical to propose theories such as the “steady state theory” which is effectively the same theory as those other hypothesis, and has been strongly disproven by science.
- Unless something existed for eternity, it must have a beginning by definition of an event, not necessarily a cause. Even events that appear to go for long periods of time but yet did not happen for eternity must have a beginning.
- Events that do not have a beginning, i.e. God’s existence, do not need nor can they be explained in terms of cause or effect, because firstly there is no cause to any event that does not have a beginning. In the case of God’s existence, God’s existence is not an event because it is defined independently of time and space, and is either established as a fact and truth (as Christians like myself believe) or not.

Statement C: Unordered events* cannot be the direct cause of an ordered event.

*An unordered event is defined here as one without a purpose.

- This statement is consistent with science. There are several instances that indicate that if an event is ordered, then the agent or thing that caused it must also be ordered in “causing” the event.
- However one of the things about the nature of the current explanations of the origin of the universe is it seems to contradict this.


Conclusion/Summarisation

The three statements A–C are agreed to be true and can be validated using science and logic.

Science is defined as the study of all things observable or explainable by its methodology, bound in space and time, as they can be extrapolated or verified directly using experimentation and by analysing repetition of cause-effect chains in ordered events. Science cannot attempt to explain every facet of these events, regarding their purpose, and sometimes the cause is not necessarily explainable or derivable using its methodology.

1. The universe is ordered and consistent with all laws of physics. Thus the origins of the universe must also be an ordered event from Statement C.
2. As we can claim to understand and extrapolate back to the beginning of the universe, then it must therefore be defined in time and space. Statement B verifies this.
3. Since all events that have a beginning are defined in time and space, because that “beginning” is defined relative to time and space, the universe must have a cause. Statements A and B verify this.
4. An event that caused the creation of time and space (beginning of the universe) can only be caused by an agent (i.e. God) that is not dependent on time and space; otherwise this would be an obvious contradiction of statement A.

Conclusion: Therefore if the universe has a beginning, it must have a cause and a purpose. That cause and purpose must be defined independently of time and space. As Christians, we know and affirm that the God (i.e. Jesus) as in John 1:1-10, Colossians 1:16-23, is not only the creator (cause) of the universe and its purpose (reason why it exists, because he spoke), and also that he sustains his Creation with his Word.

Side Note 1: God is a God of order, and that is the purpose of Genesis 1. (It is also what discredits other creation accounts, because of Statement C – these accounts tended to have multiple Gods waging war against each other).

Side Note 2: I haven’t attempted to explain here, sin or why the world is not perfectly ordered.

Side Note 3: It is erroneous to as some do, look at the effect and assumes a cause, and yet both sides of the argument do that. I have attempted to reason why, the only possible solution

Side Note 4 (important): May I add that stating God caused the universe does not invalidate science, and neither does the science behind cosmology (which I am aware does the exact same reasoning as the initial claim) invalidate the existence of God. It is plain ignorance to say the two are incompatible, just because science cannot definitely prove that God was the cause of life.

To finish with the words of Genesis 1:3-5 (niv):
“And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.”

----

If you wish to read more I suggest actually reading one of the Gospels
Mark is the easiest to read and the shortest.
 
Last edited:

Sy123

This too shall pass
Joined
Nov 6, 2011
Messages
3,730
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
I'm appalled that there are still 50% of young people who believe in a god or many gods according to this poll. My parents are chinese folk buddhist and they believe in 108 spirits and faeries that act as gods and guardian angels, and whilst it's cool and all, it conflicts with all the other mainstream religions, except maybe the ancient religions, which honestly doesn't improve anyone's case.

So no, a God doesn't exist. If a God existed, we would have no idea of her existence anyway. Yes if there is a God, i'd consider her female because she's a creator. Many gods exist in the eyes of my parents. I don't hold any belief other than "I really really hope reincarnation exists"
Polytheism = Atheism + Supernatural pantheon of 'god's

Where 'god' is actually a finite being like us

Whereas serious religions, like Judaism, Chrisitanity and Islam, and beliefs like Deism affirm a perfect Being with Omnipotence, Omniscience etc. etc.

So you have a lot more in common with your parents than you think
 

iBibah

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2012
Messages
1,374
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
:)
may I also stress, that humans only choose in accordance with their desires.
Yes, humans may desire good things or may desire bad things for others or for themselves.
But when it comes to God, no-one (as a default) desires God, and thus rejects him in some way. That is sin.

Why do people not desire God, well ask an atheist, they probably give a really good answer to that.
To not desire God does not imply rejection of Him.

Apparently, if you replace "aliens" with "God" in that meme, it becomes a perfectly valid means of understanding the universe.
God is not a means of understanding how the universe works. Never has been. It's common belief that God and religion is just a gap filler until we learn everything.

There are some gaps science can't fill, nor does it try too. And that is the concept of purpose, the question of why.
 

JohnMaximus

shepherd of the people
Joined
Mar 28, 2013
Messages
585
Location
Elysium
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
its settled folks, let's pack up and go home /s

(nevermind the fact that humans selectively bred bananas from wild ones, lel)
If a banana was tame enough to let a human choose its breeding partner it wouldn't be very wild now would it?
 

futuremidwife

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2013
Messages
1,021
Gender
Female
HSC
2012
Uni Grad
2017
I am agnostic. I can neither deny or accept the existence of a greater power as this greater power, may or may not exist.

This is pretty interesting to take a look at. Professor William Gane suggested that "there are good reasons to support the exsistence of God as God is the best explanation of:

(I) Why anything at all exists.

(II) The origin of the universe.

(III) The applicability of mathematics to the physical world.

(IV) The fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.

(V) Intentional states of consciousness.

(VI) Objective moral values and duties.

Moreover

(VII) The very possibility of God’s existence implies that God exists.

(VIII) God can be personally experienced and known.

© Prof. William Lane Craig, 2013"

Directly quoted from: https://philosophynow.org/issues/99/Does_God_Exist
 
Last edited:

Sy123

This too shall pass
Joined
Nov 6, 2011
Messages
3,730
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
I am agnostic. I can neither deny or accept the existence of a greater power as this greater power, may or may not exist.

This is pretty interesting to take a look at. Professor William Gane suggested that "there are good reasons to support the exsistence of God as God is the best explanation of:

(I) Why anything at all exists.

(II) The origin of the universe.

(III) The applicability of mathematics to the physical world.

(IV) The fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.

(V) Intentional states of consciousness.

(VI) Objective moral values and duties.

Moreover

(VII) The very possibility of God’s existence implies that God exists.

(VIII) God can be personally experienced and known.

© Prof. William Lane Craig, 2013"

Directly quoted from: https://philosophynow.org/issues/99/Does_God_Exist
Well you still would have inclinations to either side, whether atheism or theism, I doubt you are dead center right in the middle between them, the evidence for both weight out exactly...
 

futuremidwife

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2013
Messages
1,021
Gender
Female
HSC
2012
Uni Grad
2017
Well you still would have inclinations to either side, whether atheism or theism, I doubt you are dead center right in the middle between them, the evidence for both weight out exactly...
Nope. Right in the middle. As you said, the evidence for both weighs out exactly.
 

Sy123

This too shall pass
Joined
Nov 6, 2011
Messages
3,730
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
Nope. Right in the middle. As you said, the evidence for both weighs out exactly.
That's pretty unrealistic

Especially since there are 10s of arguments for the existence of God in all their variations, and the number of arguments for atheism is basically "evil =(" which isn't actually an argument against God, and moreso against a specific rendition of God (and some others that no one argues for because they are pretty bad arguments)
 
Last edited:

jdennis

Active Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Messages
204
Gender
Male
HSC
2014
there are good reasons to support the exsistence of God as God is the best explanation of: ...
This is all an argument from ignorance and means very little. Because something is the best explanation does not mean it's true - in most cases we don't know enough about the thing in question for anyone to say that God is the correct explanation of it beyond reasonable doubt. Not to mention the number of scientific theories that are now wrong because we've now got more correct information with which to make an informed judgement.

(VII) The very possibility of God’s existence implies that God exists.

(VIII) God can be personally experienced and known.
The first of these is not worth responding to but I will just say this - the very possibility of unicorns, fairies, magic, Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny does not imply that they all exist. As for the second, this is why I don't like Craig - because he presents "personal experience" as an objective argument, when it is by definition subjective.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 5)

Top