Does God exist? (4 Viewers)

[Mr Gumby]

I meant the green guy made of clay

Excuse me? What green guy made of clay? If I'd known there was a green guy made of clay called Mr Gumby, I wouldn't have chosen that name. You could have told me sooner!

 

[Enteebee]

I geuss there are certain levels at which things get messy and the very notions of 'evidence' and 'justification' come into question.

I can't see reasons for not placing god etc in the same 'messy' category... IMHO to be sensible you have to treat them all the same, which requires non-belief in them just as you have functionally non-belief in the claim that there is no world external to your mind. Of course this doesn't go any way to proving God doesn't exist really, but it does force people in a position to accept God's non-existance as the most logical answer... else they must accept their own mistake in other instances of their thinking.

I can prove it doesn't exist because I can trace the source of it as a myth.

That doesn't prove it doesn't exist at all, in fact we could easily posit that what you trace of the myth is a rouse put in place by the omniscient FSM to ensure only those with true faith maintain their belief.

Thus many different cultures came to a similar conclusion, that theism is valid, without any interaction with each other,

It makes sense really.. We make things, there are these other things out there, something had to make them.

But conversely, I could go into a courtroom and say that I am not guilty of murder because the video camera which allegedly caught me killing someone is a creation of little green men, who want to frame me. So why wouldn't this fly?

In the past such things have actually flied... i.e. witch trials, exorcisms etc

Obviously this defense is insane because we are capable of calculating probabily and logic.

It's really no more insane than anything else on a purely logical level, it's just that we don't really always operate on such a level or apply the same logic.

People should be claiming why it is probable that God does not exist, in my opinion.

Of course, that's what they're doing. I place the level of probability of God's existance up there with any other mythical/supernatural creation of human thought, given that they're fairly analogous together.

The logic that theism is wrong - because a similar scenario can be fabricated (although obviously falsely) - is very bad.

It isn't that theism is wrong because another scenario can be fabricated, it's that you're being illogical to accept X over Y when they both have what is ultimately equal evidence. You can level the same argument at atheists, I agree, however here's where I'd go into an argument about consistency as I have been just recently here.

The FSM analogy actually shows a common logical fallacy that, simply because something else as allegedly stupid can be made up, theism is wrong.

You're looking at it wrong, it isn't to show that theism is wrong, merely that you're illogical to accept one and not the other. It's not a matter of 'hey we can make things up so god doesn't exist', it requires the respondent to reject the FSM.

How many people here subscribe to the "Pratchett Thesis"

Essentially, whatever you believe, it becomes true because the existence of a transcendental being, for all intents and purposes under the limitations of human logic is predicated entirely by belief (Yes I am aware this is a solipsism).

Thus by believing in the FSM it comes into existence.

http://www.traceyhabron.com/images/the%20secret.jpg

lolz

 

[Enteebee]

God is not a bicycle.

Your mum's my bicycle.

 

[Mr Gumby]

God is not a bicycle.

Quite true. We can prove the existence of bicycles.

And by the way, well done Enteebee.

 

[Enteebee]

The question is, do you believe in love ntb?

I tend to believe the reality is probably something akin to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliminativist_materialism ... However I also believe much of human interaction is a construction Basically, I believe in love but I believe it's something I've created.

 

[Mr Gumby]

That wasn't the argument I was making. It's a matter of maturity, and acceptance of people that are religious and those that are non-religious.

You can't ever force people to do anything, you can, however, lead by example in your lack of faith.

Think of it as the Austrian tradition of leading by doing. We create a proper system and in turn others are tempted to join it motivated by their own reasons.

Thus it all works out.

Shroedinger,
Perhaps you've misunderstood me too. I don't have anything personally against religious people. My problem is the proposition of God itself. I have no desire to force people to give up their religious beliefs, because what they do with their time is their business. Nevertheless, the question of God's existence is an enormously important one philosophically. It will not do just to say that people are entitled to their beliefs, so we must leave the topic alone. When there are people who are so vociferous in their conviction in their faith as to drown out all opposition, and who are determined to impose their views on the community, the idea of faith needs to be challenged openly. Leading by example would obviously be the ideal, but the religious are not content to settle for that. At the risk of engaging in what is, I admit, a childish game of tit-for-tat, such loud, insistent religiosity needs to be confronted on its own terms.

 

[Enteebee]

you're just a sticky river

k

 

[xeuyrawp]

Chadd, I cbf reading your post because it quotes like 3 different people without saying who you're quoting...

You can't ever force people to do anything, you can, however, lead by example in your lack of faith.

IMO, conversions away and towards religion are negligable.

Even the 10-15% of the world which is non-religious will still be trapped in religious dogma and practice simply because that's what their parents encouraged, and they'll do the same to their children.

There's also an inherent problem that the the Abrahamic theological religions are the only established religions anyone will encounter, apart from local belief. There's no intrinsic difference in the Abrahamic religions, really, yet many people see one of them as the only real choice. So you have such similar religions, all hard monotheistic, which are all the same.

This contrasts with any local belief. Say you live in China 200 years ago, and you see a missionary for Christianity. Generally what happens is that the missionary will start to sprout a bunch of crap about how the local religion's inferior and primitive.

Since Christianity - moreso than Judaism and Islam - teaches that one must spread the word, you essentially have wiping out of all but Judaism and Islam. Islam tends to spread via conquest, see north Africa and East Asia, and Jews generally don't encourage conversion.

Er, I don't remember where I was going with this, but the bottom line is that Christianity especially lends itself to destroying the local faith. As well as this, it also lends itself well to adapting to the pressure of science and rationality. I think it's also a very tempting religion to follow.

 

[Enteebee]

http://community.boredofstudies.org/showpost.php?p=3008080&postcount=4492

done, read if u want.

 

[Benji89]

Everyone in this forum will eventually find out the truth... stop using links to videos and web pages to prove your point...after all it is your point...use your own brain and stop being so narrow minded and stupid, how about for once in your lives you forget all the things that have so far influenced your opinions and make up your own mind. if you dont believe...your screwed...thats the long and short of it...enjoy your 80 years of pessimism...

 

[Riet]

Agnostic. I win.

 

[xeuyrawp]

http://community.boredofstudies.org/showpost.php?p=3008080&postcount=4492

done, read if u want.

Thanks. Sorry I didn't mean to be annoying. I'll respond later tonight I think.

 

[xeuyrawp]

Everyone in this forum will eventually find out the truth... stop using links to videos and web pages to prove your point...after all it is your point...use your own brain and stop being so narrow minded and stupid, how about for once in your lives you forget all the things that have so far influenced your opinions and make up your own mind. if you dont believe...your screwed...thats the long and short of it...enjoy your 80 years of pessimism...

That's a pretty ironic post.

You're saying:

a) Use your brain.
Using my brain at this very moment, I cannot decide whether there is a God or not. Nor can anyone else, I believe.

However, say if I grew up never hearing of religion, only ever being taught about chemistry, physics, history, etc... I would say 'I have never heard of such a thing, there is no evidence for it, therefore I must say it probably does not exist'.

b) Don't be influenced.
I'm sorry to tell you, but religion is born from influence; it spreads by parents and missionaries intellectually oppressing children and communities.

c) If you don't believe, you're screwed.
Well where is that in your theological doctrine? I think that Jesus would be accepting of an athiest if they led good lives. In fact, I know that Jesus was accepting of far worse (pagans!); people who had commited murder and rape.

I'll also point out that the idea of hellfire does not exist literally in the Gospels. The only usage of hell in Jesus' teachings is metaphorical and describing a horrible life, or the void (not hellfire) of not being in the kingdom of God.

d) Atheism = pessimism.
Many atheists lead happier and more optimistic lives than theists.

I'm also confused that you see your own beliefs as optimistic...

 

[KFunk]

I can't see reasons for not placing god etc in the same 'messy' category... IMHO to be sensible you have to treat them all the same, which requires non-belief in them just as you have functionally non-belief in the claim that there is no world external to your mind. Of course this doesn't go any way to proving God doesn't exist really, but it does force people in a position to accept God's non-existance as the most logical answer... else they must accept their own mistake in other instances of their thinking.

Keep in mind that I believe in those things in a practical sense without having a committed philosophical view that there are other minds and that there is an external world. If we take discussion in a formal direction then yes, I retract my belief in other minds and realism.

 

[Mr Gumby]

Agnostic. I win.

Agnostic is okay - I would describe myself as an agnostic, but only in the technical sense that I cannot rule out His existence. On the basis of the current evidence, however, I do not think there is any reason to believe that there might be a God. So, while I admit that agnosticism is, strictly speaking, the only correct position to take, atheism is more reasonable in practice.

 

[nathan71088]

It is a matter of faith whatever position you take.

Having said that, one must take in to account that while we attempt to discuss this through logic and reason, religion is irrational amd ilogical. I am not saying that as a condemnation, I am just stating a fact. This fact is underpinned by our our contextual understanding of what is and what is not rational. This presents a problem whereby rationality is a contenxtual issue, and religion is timeless.

I always hate it when people come onto a thread and say something like "this is pointless for such and such a reason". So I am not saying THAT but do remember that in essence, it is impossible to try to synthesise a rational answer to this question, it should not exist. Think of this question: does dry water exist?

Once again I believe all positions are based on faith.

 

[LEGENDofKOSTIN]

It is a matter of faith whatever position you take.

Having said that, one must take in to account that while we attempt to discuss this through logic and reason, religion is irrational amd ilogical. I am not saying that as a condemnation, I am just stating a fact. This fact is underpinned by our our contextual understanding of what is and what is not rational. This presents a problem whereby rationality is a contenxtual issue, and religion is timeless.

I always hate it when people come onto a thread and say something like "this is pointless for such and such a reason". So I am not saying THAT but do remember that in essence, it is impossible to try to synthesise a rational answer to this question, it should not exist. Think of this question: does dry water exist?

Once again I believe all positions are based on faith.

I would strongly disbute your assursion that religion is irrational and illogical. Religion, at least christianity as I know it, though based on certain faith-based postulates follows a logical course from there on. E.g. God created the world and controls all things, therefore he has power to be feared, and is therefore worthy of respect and honour. Further, they are the only viable explanation for the beginning of the universe since all scientific theories begin by breaking the first law of science, namely cause and effect.

 

[LEGENDofKOSTIN]

That's a pretty ironic post.

You're saying:

a) Use your brain.
Using my brain at this very moment, I cannot decide whether there is a God or not. Nor can anyone else, I believe.

However, say if I grew up never hearing of religion, only ever being taught about chemistry, physics, history, etc... I would say 'I have never heard of such a thing, there is no evidence for it, therefore I must say it probably does not exist'.

b) Don't be influenced.
I'm sorry to tell you, but religion is born from influence; it spreads by parents and missionaries intellectually oppressing children and communities.

c) If you don't believe, you're screwed.
Well where is that in your theological doctrine? I think that Jesus would be accepting of an athiest if they led good lives. In fact, I know that Jesus was accepting of far worse (pagans!); people who had commited murder and rape.

I'll also point out that the idea of hellfire does not exist literally in the Gospels. The only usage of hell in Jesus' teachings is metaphorical and describing a horrible life, or the void (not hellfire) of not being in the kingdom of God.

d) Atheism = pessimism.
Many atheists lead happier and more optimistic lives than theists.

I'm also confused that you see your own beliefs as optimistic...

A) Having not heard of it, you would not know whether there was evidence or not, therefore you would be in a very poor place to judge whether God exists or not

B)Conversion is born of The Spirit, a christian is called to proclaim the Gospel to unbelivers, but only the workings of the Holy Ghost within their heart can make them believe

C)"I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the father except through me"

D)Atheists face at there death a black oblivion of nothing. Christians face after death an eternity of joyous splendour in the prescense of the Almighty God

 

[Josie]

Everyone in this forum will eventually find out the truth... stop using links to videos and web pages to prove your point...after all it is your point...use your own brain and stop being so narrow minded and stupid, how about for once in your lives you forget all the things that have so far influenced your opinions and make up your own mind. if you dont believe...your screwed...thats the long and short of it...enjoy your 80 years of pessimism...

Wait, so you're telling us to make up our own minds, okay.

Now you're telling us that if we don't pick what you think is the right answer, we're doomed?

Nice logic.

 

[nathan71088]

I would strongly disbute your assursion that religion is irrational and illogical. Religion, at least christianity as I know it, though based on certain faith-based postulates follows a logical course from there on. E.g. God created the world and controls all things, therefore he has power to be feared, and is therefore worthy of respect and honour. Further, they are the only viable explanation for the beginning of the universe since all scientific theories begin by breaking the first law of science, namely cause and effect.

Ok, I would like to re-establish what I meant. Religion is of such a nature that we are unable to fulfilling discuss it with human logic and human reason e.g. Human logic denotes that when a bush is lit on fire, it burns. I was mearly trying to assert that all points raised here are undermined by the fact that they attempt to rationalise what is 'unrationalisable' by human reason. "though based on certain faith-based postulates" Just a thought: even though religion has attained a solid structure as a 'thing' to live by where, to those that follow it, it is as reasonable as everyday life, you have still noted that it is based on "faith-based postulates". Leading on from my previous point, the basis on this principle of faith, even though religion today seems so reasonable, is what makes religion so hard to fathom. By analogy, a house built on a jelly like substance, no matter how strong the house is, cannot stay standing. Yes, I just compared faith to jelly. Why? Both are hard to grasp and do not have a single unique form and both, while appearing solid, cannot support a "house" built by humans and human laws.

"Further, they are the only viable explanation for the beginning of the universe since all scientific theories begin by breaking the first law of science, namely cause and effect."
You have used the word namely here to imply that this is one of the major points for gods existence.
I thought maybe you had heard this but maybe you haven't so here it is. It is understandable to say that science breaks the cause and effect rule. But this does not mean that god is the only way to explain the universe and everything else in existence. In fact, the notion of god also breaks this cause and effect rule: what created god? Is there an infinite chain of gods that created each other one after the other or is there no god at all? And if you were to say: God is an exception! Then why is god the exception? Why can't the universe be the exception as well, why can't you or I be the exception? Why did it stop at god?