Does God exist? (16 Viewers)

[Pubert]

WTF? Shouldn't be a crime? LOL??? Like thats some freaky shit, there are seriously some disturbed people out there :S

 

[Lundy]

but i beg of you look at all the evidence- read the bible- dont make a decision against God because you think it sounds like rubbish ...

What evidence is this?

And don't just tell me to "read the bible." I have read and studied the bible, and I've yet to find any evidence of god in its pages.

 

[BradCube]

What makes something right or wrong? There is nothing in the world that tells you it is right or wrong.

Your dead right, which is why if there is any real moral truths, it will not come from this world but from someone beyond it. This is where I believe real truth is inspired from, but since you do not believe that God exists, it would have no impact upon you. Instead you have to suggest that there are no ultimate truths because your sense of right or wrong is no more valued than anyone else's point of view.

You just contradicted yourself. You claim that god created right and wrong. Ergo, he could make right and wrong anything he wants.

No, I suggest that if God is perfect he has to be both. One cannot exist without the other. He is the creator of right and wrong, not because he chooses what is right and wrong, but because he is the very essence of right. Perfect means right with no faults whatsoever. Because of this it means that everything not of him is wrong. He cannot "make right and wrong anything he wants", because he is perfect and can only do right.

This "conscience" is nothing logical, it is only the feeling of disapprobation that one gets, as a result of empathy with other creatures.

If that were true than I would never feel guilt from acts that I have committed that affect no-one else but me. Let’s give speeding as an example. Let’s say I was on an open country road with no other cars for hundreds of miles. Would it be right for me drive at 220 km/h all the way to my destination? I did not crash, I did not hurt anyone, yet I would still feel guilt for disobeying the laws set down in this country. There is no empathy for another being in that situation yet my conscience still comes into play.

There are no "truths implanted in a consciousness".

You are again suggesting that someone put them in there, which again turns on God. Since you cannot prove the existence of god, you cannot rely on that as a foundation for moral claims.

I would suggest that a unanimous worldwide conscience from early child-birth is evidence that there are truths implanted within us. We only have to create this utilitarianism system when people decide that they can create their own right and wrong, therefore a majority of right and wrong opinion rules supreme. This does not create a workable world, this creates anarchy. Can you not see it happening before you? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armin_Meiwes

How foolish are we being in ignoring our most deepest sense of right and wrong to create our own system in which everybody's truths equal out to give a majority morality?

However, without the existence of a God all of this is meaningless as you suggest. Morality has no value because there is nothing higher than ourselves to be measured against. Whilst a majority of people may agree on a particular area does not make it right or true.

Of course it doesn't

Then why would we adopt this system to decide something as key as our morality? To keep the majority happy? I doubt the credibility of this solution as it is impossible to please a majority who independently decide their own moral values.

I have one more question for you, if I or anyone had the ability to prove that God exists 100%, would you follow him?

The question is hypothetical because it seems to me that God can be scientifically proved no more than what science can in relation to the purpose of our existence. The only way you will know that God exists is when you have a spiritual encounter with him. If you are not looking for him though, your going to have an extremely hard time finding him. To say that there is no proof without searching for him will leave you with no proof. If you want to find God then you are going to have to look at both point of views equally rather than taking one side and seeing how it can be opposed to the other.

A belief in God will take an element of faith just as great as a belief that science gives you reasons for your existence. In fact, I think a belief in God requires less faith.

 

[Lundy]

I might have a "spiritual encounter", like a dream or a hallucination in which I meet god, and that might convince me to believe in him, but that still doesn't mean he exists.

 

[BradCube]

I might have a "spiritual encounter", like a dream or a hallucination in which I meet god, and that might convince me to believe in him, but that still doesn't mean he exists.

A dream or hallucination is not what I am talking about. I mean an encounter whilst you are awake in which God touches and changes your heart. But how are you ever going experience that when you would deny the possibilty of His existance?

EDIT: I know this is a bit late Lundy, but nice change of pic I like it.

 

[Lundy]

A dream or hallucination is not what I am talking about. I mean an encounter whilst you are awake in which God touches and changes your heart. But how are you ever going experience that when you would deny the possibilty of His existance?

Don't use the old "well you're not open to god so of course you can't experience him", because I believed in god for the most part of my life before I became a convert to skepticism. I can't say I was ever personally touched by him, but I can understand that it is easy for people to become convinced because the christian church is very very good at what it does, and that is brainwashing through powerful and emotive rhetoric.

I don't deny his existence either. I'm agnostic so I don't believe either way.

 

[BradCube]

Don't use the old "well you're not open to god so of course you can't experience him", because I believed in god for the most part of my life before I became a convert to skepticism. I can't say I was ever personally touched by him, but I can understand that it is easy for people to become convinced because the christian church is very very good at what it does, and that is brainwashing through powerful and emotive rhetoric.

I don't deny his existence either. I'm agnostic so I don't believe either way.

Just because you have not been touched by God, does not mean others have not. To say that their experiences are simply a brainwashing is just not credible. How could you know that it is a brainwashing or not when you have not even experienced God for yourself?

 

[Generator]

Just because you have not been touched by God, does not mean others have not. To say that their experiences are simply a brainwashing is just not credible. How could you know that it is a brainwashing or not when you have not even experienced God for yourself?

To say that you have 'experienced' a god isn't to say that you have been touched by a god, it's merely to say that you are of the opinion that you have been touched by a god. Note the difference, because it is quite important.

 

[BradCube]

To say that you have 'experienced' a god isn't to say that you have been touched by a god, it's merely to say that you are of the opinion that you have been touched by a god. Note the difference, because it is quite important.

plz expand, I am confused in your differentiation between the two.

 

[Lundy]

Just because you have not been touched by God, does not mean others have not. To say that their experiences are simply a brainwashing is just not credible. How could you know that it is a brainwashing or not when you have not even experienced God for yourself?

They believe they have been touched by god. The religious have a pre-disposition to associate their feelings and experiences with god. They take these as "signs" whereas skeptics would prefer to seek rational explanations.

I was a believer in god, so why did he never touch me? God plays favourites, does he? That's not responsible parenting.

 

[Generator]

plz expand, I am confused in your differentiation between the two.

They believe they have been touched by god. The religious have a pre-disposition to associate their feelings and experiences with god. They take these as "signs" whereas skeptics would prefer to seek rational explanations.

In other words, though you may consider something to be a religious experience, that isn't to say that it is.

 

[Lexicographer]

Sigh. Coming back to this thread after two days, I see that the "side for God" has been taken up by people totally unprepared to mount even an amusing if not convincing or at least challenging case.

There is nothing more I can do here, if people have questions they would like to hear my opinion on I welcome a PM. Sorry I can't keep up the show.

 

[BradCube]

They believe they have been touched by god. The religious have a pre-disposition to associate their feelings and experiences with god. They take these as "signs" whereas skeptics would prefer to seek rational explanations.

I was a believer in god, so why did he never touch me? God plays favourites, does he? That's not responsible parenting.

No, I know that I have been touched by God. I know that with all my being, not just because of the feelings, but because of the things that those feelings lead me to do. And then, then the consequences of following what those feelings told me. I would also like to point out that there is a difference between emotions and being touched by God. Being touched by God can affect emotions but to say that they are the same thing is not valid when you have not experienced them for yourself.

Maybe I should have explained myslef more clearly before. Having a belief that God exists is not enough, you need to search after Him and press into him. Having a belief that God exists but not being willing to have a daily walk with with will get you know no-where. And how could it? It's a two part relationship.

 

[BradCube]

Sigh. Coming back to this thread after two days, I see that the "side for God" has been taken up by people totally unprepared to mount even an amusing if not convincing or at least challenging case.

There is nothing more I can do here, if people have questions they would like to hear my opinion on I welcome a PM. Sorry I can't keep up the show.

lol, nice. I may get round to PM you one day.

Mario rocks by the way

And with that I am off, I will be back tonight...probably

 

[MoonlightSonata]

What makes something right or wrong? There is nothing in the world that tells you it is right or wrong.

Your dead right, which is why if there is any real moral truths, it will not come from this world but from someone beyond it. This is where I believe real truth is inspired from, but since you do not believe that God exists, it would have no impact upon you. Instead you have to suggest that there are no ultimate truths because your sense of right or wrong is no more valued than anyone else's point of view.

Firstly, again you base your ethical claims on God, which you have not proven. Hence, you can't make those claims because you have no basis for them.

Secondly, my sense of right or wrong is probably a lot more beneficial for humanity than most people have. This is simply due to the fact that, thinking critically about morality, I am able to understand and apply the reasoning behind ethical assertions in a more rational and consistent manner.

You just contradicted yourself. You claim that god created right and wrong. Ergo, he could make right and wrong anything he wants.

No, I suggest that if God is perfect he has to be both. One cannot exist without the other. He is the creator of right and wrong, not because he chooses what is right and wrong, but because he is the very essence of right. Perfect means right with no faults whatsoever. Because of this it means that everything not of him is wrong. He cannot "make right and wrong anything he wants", because he is perfect and can only do right.

No, once again you are using circular reasoning. You cannot define right and wrong by God, and then define God by right and wrong.

You claim that (a) what is good is defined by God, and that (b) God is all-good. This is obvious circular reasoning.

This "conscience" is nothing logical, it is only the feeling of disapprobation that one gets, as a result of empathy with other creatures.

If that were true than I would never feel guilt from acts that I have committed that affect no-one else but me. Let’s give speeding as an example. Let’s say I was on an open country road with no other cars for hundreds of miles. Would it be right for me drive at 220 km/h all the way to my destination? I did not crash, I did not hurt anyone, yet I would still feel guilt for disobeying the laws set down in this country. There is no empathy for another being in that situation yet my conscience still comes into play.

Yes it is, for the simple reason that you have been conditioned to feel bad for breaking those laws because of other people. It is the institutions of society, where people live, that have shaped your own feelings about what is right and wrong, coupled with the fact that you lived with people in a society in which there were those rules.

There are no "truths implanted in a consciousness".

You are again suggesting that someone put them in there, which again turns on God. Since you cannot prove the existence of god, you cannot rely on that as a foundation for moral claims.

I would suggest that a unanimous worldwide conscience from early child-birth is evidence that there are truths implanted within us.

Firstly, that is very poor deductive reasoning:

1. Everyone around the Earth feels similar things about right and wrong.
2. Someone must have implanted these feelings in us.

Point two does not flow logically from point one. Simply because a feature is common does not mean it was created. It is like saying "All humans have two eyes, therefore someone must have given them two eyes". Nonsense. The way human biological makeup is constituted could have evolved through natural processes.

Secondly, I would question whether there is a "unanimous worldwide conscience". People from many cultures differ on many points of moral judgment.

Thirdly, it is not accurate to say that this moral conscience is implanted in us since birth, since our values are shaped by our environment, including social instutitons and the family.

We only have to create this utilitarianism system when people decide that they can create their own right and wrong, therefore a majority of right and wrong opinion rules supreme. This does not create a workable world, this creates anarchy. Can you not see it happening before you? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armin_Meiwes

Firstly, utilitarianism is not based on a majority vote. It is based on reason. Reason, being objective at it's core, allows us to seek a consistent and stable system of ethics.

Secondly, fundamentally the majority does decide what is right or wrong. That is how Parliament works!

Thirdly, your argument is based on wishful thinking anyway. You assert that not to adhere to divine command theory would be bad for the world. This says nothing about the truth of the theory.

How foolish are we being in ignoring our most deepest sense of right and wrong to create our own system in which everybody's truths equal out to give a majority morality?

1. Because our sense of right and wrong has no rational basis.

2. That is not what utilitarianism proposes.

However, without the existence of a God all of this is meaningless as you suggest. Morality has no value because there is nothing higher than ourselves to be measured against. Whilst a majority of people may agree on a particular area does not make it right or true.

Of course it doesn't.

Then why would we adopt this system to decide something as key as our morality? To keep the majority happy? I doubt the credibility of this solution as it is impossible to please a majority who independently decide their own moral values.

Because it is one of the best ways of consistently and rationally producing the maximum happiness and pleasure possible. It also treats everyone equally.

I have one more question for you, if I or anyone had the ability to prove that God exists 100%, would you follow him?

If you could prove that god exists, then of course I would believe that god existed. As for "following him", it depends on what god is, what he wants us to do, if there is any logic in following him, the consequences of following him, etc.

The question is hypothetical because it seems to me that God can be scientifically proved no more than what science can in relation to the purpose of our existence.

Yes, which is why I believe that people should not go running around saying that god exists - there is no justification for such claims.

The only way you will know that God exists is when you have a spiritual encounter with him.

If such an encounter proved that god existed, then that might be a way to convince people. But there is no evidence for such a thing happening to my knowledge.

If you are not looking for him though, your going to have an extremely hard time finding him. To say that there is no proof without searching for him will leave you with no proof. If you want to find God then you are going to have to look at both point of views equally rather than taking one side and seeing how it can be opposed to the other.

I do look at both sides of the argument equally. I assess them as rationally as I can.

A belief in God will take an element of faith just as great as a belief that science gives you reasons for your existence. In fact, I think a belief in God requires less faith.

Faith is belief without evidence.

Ergo, your statement is "A belief in God will require some belief without evidence." For such a controversial question (the existence of a supreme being), that is irrational. We base our knowledge and beliefs on evidence and reason, not on nothing.

 

[volition]

I've been thinking a little over the past few days, and I think that it makes more 'sense' to me to be agnostic rather than atheist.

It's probably because of the nature of scientific theories and how something may be true and yet some people would dismiss it as false without 'complete proof'. In the same way, I probably can't 'prove' that God doesn't exist.

I feel like my position is more 'philosophically defendable' this way.

 

[Lundy]

No, I know that I have been touched by God. I know that with all my being, not just because of the feelings, but because of the things that those feelings lead me to do. And then, then the consequences of following what those feelings told me. I would also like to point out that there is a difference between emotions and being touched by God. Being touched by God can affect emotions but to say that they are the same thing is not valid when you have not experienced them for yourself.
Maybe I should have explained myslef more clearly before. Having a belief that God exists is not enough, you need to search after Him and press into him. Having a belief that God exists but not being willing to have a daily walk with with will get you know no-where. And how could it? It's a two part relationship.

Ok, I'll make up a silly little analogy to get my point across.

Let's say there's a blind man. His friend, who he trusts very much, tells him that a leprechaun lives outside his kitchen window. So, every night, the blind man puts food out for the leprechaun and talks to the leprechaun from his window. The leprechaun never talks back, but that doesn't matter because the man is so convinced that the leprechaun is really there. He becomes so convinced of the leprechaun that the notion that it isn't really there becomes unfathomable. And besides, the knowledge that the leprechaun is there makes him happy.

One night, a cat jumps onto the window sill and accidently drops some pebbles from the ground below. In the morning, the blind man wakes up, and upon going to the kitchen and feeling the pebbles on the window, becomes thoroughly excited. OMG! it's leprechaun gold! The man has been so conditioned to believe in the leprechaun that he jumps to a conclusion and fails to seek a rational explanation, one which he might have found were he not so wound up in the idea of the leprechaun. He wants to believe the leprechaun has left him gold, so why would he want to look for an answer that may disappoint him?


What I'm trying to say is, you think you know god exists because people have told you he exists. You can convince yourself all you like, but it doesn't make his actual existence any more real.

 

[davin]

so if you're touched by god but didn't want to, did god molest you?


to be relevant, though....keep in mind there are people that firmly beleive that they had experiences where they were abducted by aliens. doesn't mean that those people are right in any way, but they're sincere in beleiving it. To be credible, you not only have to believe it happened, but be able to prove it.

 

[davin]

Thanks for the comments MS. I may reply to them tomorrow because my brain feels like mush and needs some rest .
I am guessing that it will all come down to some proof, or at least evidence of a creator right? If you believed that that there was one, or at least believe in the possibility of proving one, surley your reasoning would be different in many area's. In which case I will leave you with this;
"The data demonstrate that the probability of finding even one planet with the capacity to support life falls short of one chance in 10x140 (that number is 1 followed by 140 zeros)"
If this does not indicate a divine creation of our world I don't know what does. Here is a link to the article if you would like the scientific reasons and proof backing this:
http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2001issue07/index.shtml#exotic_life
Have a good night sleep

there are very serious issues with the science in that page. For example, there is no great debate over if there are extrasolar planets in large numbers outside the solar system. There are, and the fact is we don't know how prevalent, mostly because its not something easily detectable. It does also argue that you need a few generations of stars in order to have any planets, even though you can still have gas giants with only basic elements. If you'd like to bring up specific parts of that arguement that you feel are strong, those can be discussed further.

 

[withoutaface]

the question with libertarian ethics comes to the forefront with the case against german cannibal Armin Meiwes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armin_Meiwes

Meiwes wanted to kill and eat a human. His victim(?) wanted to die and be eaten.

Is this wrong? Should this be a crime?

I don't see a problem with it.