Does God exist? (3 Viewers)

[davin]

i'd agree....its not something i would ever do, i can in no way comprehend WHY someone would do that...on either part, but i don't see any crime done there, per se. tehre's a lot i disagree with on a personal level, but i don't think that alone should make it illegal.

 

[Patchy]

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

that sounds like a lazy way out...but more tenable that the athiest's position of saying that there is no God...to say there is NO God assumes that you have seen all evidence, everywhere in the universe, which would make you god in the process.

It seems there are alot of presuppositions flying around in here. I have a question for the 'athiests': What would be sufficient evidence for the existence of God?

 

[davin]

its not a lazy way out at all. its saying simply that you don't think there is any conclusive evidence either way.
why is it considered lazy to say you don't think there is the information needed to decide soemthing like this?

 

[SashatheMan]

that sounds like a lazy way out...but more tenable that the athiest's position of saying that there is no God...to say there is NO God assumes that you have seen all evidence, everywhere in the universe, which would make you god in the process.

It seems there are alot of presuppositions flying around in here. I have a question for the 'athiests': What would be sufficient evidence for the existence of God?

god reavealing him self in a way we can see him , god talking to me directly.

 

[Lundy]

that sounds like a lazy way out...but more tenable that the athiest's position of saying that there is no God...to say there is NO God assumes that you have seen all evidence, everywhere in the universe, which would make you god in the process.

On the contrary I think agnosticism is the smartest stance to take on the issue.

Like you said, to take an atheist position would mean assuming we have the absolute scientific knowledge in order to conclusively disprove god (and we don't). And a theistic position would mean the assumption god exists without evidential basis. Hence, agnosticism.

 

[gerhard]

the fact that we dont have evidence of god proves that a god who wanted us to know he existed, doesnt exist

 

[volition]

What would be sufficient evidence for the existence of God?

I think if I had to put it into words, the evidence must be 'conclusive'. It should be obvious that it is the 'truth'.

When we get into actual examples of what would have to be done, it gets a little more tricky. I don't think I really know what it would take to convince me, because I might just be mad or it might be something that we just can't expain yet.

I found an interesting page about this:
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/tech.html

 

[BradCube]

On the contrary I think agnosticism is the smartest stance to take on the issue.

You know what, based on scientific and human logic alone, I would say I am a christian agnostic. Does that send alarm bells ringing?, because it shouldn't? If all you are saying is that God cannot be proved with human rational, then I agree with you. How could God be proved with human logic anyway? The idea is rediculous in that it assumes a creation has the same knowledge as its creator.

However I think that agnosticism, without a belief either way, is the stupidest stance to take. While it may be the easiest to prove with human logic, it is not the smartest. The only answer it provides, is that we have no answers.

To be only agnostic shows that you have no reason for living, other than the fact that you are in existance. If this was the case why would we continue to live? - We have no hope for the future since our future will end. Why bother in this life if it has no meaning? Do you have any reason to continue living if it will all end and be forgotten anyway?

I think it is far smarter, despite not being able to prove either sides scientifically, to search them out and find answers that rely on something other than our own understanding. If there is a God there is no way we can humanly understand him or his wisdom. Yet to not look for him simply because you cannot humanly prove him is a weak arguement. Can you undersatnd what I am getting at? You cannot not search for God on the basis that you can't understand Him, because, if he does exist, you will never humanly understand him.

 

[volition]

However I think that agnosticism, without a belief either way, is the stupidest stance to take. While it may be the easiest to prove with human logic, it is not the smartest. The only answer it provides, is that we have no answers.

To be only agnostic shows that you have no reason for living, other than the fact that you are in existance. If this was the case why would we continue to live? - We have no hope for the future since our future will end. Why bother in this life if it has no meaning? Do you have any reason to continue living if it will all end and be forgotten anyway?

I think it is far smarter, despite not being able to prove either sides scientifically, to search them out and find answers that rely on something other than our own understanding. If there is a God there is no way we can humanly understand him or his wisdom. Yet to not look for him simply because you cannot humanly prove him is a weak arguement. Can you undersatnd what I am getting at? You cannot not search for God on the basis that you can't understand Him, because, if he does exist, you will never humanly understand him.

What if you just can't decide, even after you've 'searched for god'? I think that Agnosticism is more easily defendable because if you 'search for god' and can't find him and then say "god doesn't exist" (atheism), you might still be wrong (because you have not looked 'everywhere'). Alternatively, seeing as god can't be proven yet, you may seem wrong if you choose to believe. So really, it's not as bad as you say it is to be agnostic. It seems like you're just trying to pressure agnostics into one side or another.

If we can't understand God, then what are we supposed to do? How are we meant to know what 'he' wants us to do? Please explain this. What makes you so sure the 'bible' is the true word of god (if he exists), rather than some other text?

As for having no reason to live, I'm of the belief that "if there is any meaning in this life, it is up to YOU to discover it". "What's the point of living?" you say, well I say "life is enjoyable and I want to live so that I can continue to enjoy myself". That's my reason for choosing to live, and I think that if you are truly great, you will be remembered for a long time. Now of course, not everybody wants to be great, and that's fine by me too. Just have a positive outlook on life and you'll see that you don't need to have the comfort of 'eternal afterlife' or God to enjoy your time here (if there really is an afterlife).

 

[BradCube]

What if you just can't decide, even after you've 'searched for god'? I think that Agnosticism is more easily defendable because if you 'search for god' and can't find him and then say "god doesn't exist" (atheism), you might still be wrong (because you have not looked 'everywhere'). Alternatively, seeing as god can't be proven yet, you may seem wrong if you choose to believe. So really, it's not as bad as you say it is to be agnostic. It seems like you're just trying to pressure agnostics into one side or another.

If we can't understand God, then what are we supposed to do? How are we meant to know what 'he' wants us to do? Please explain this. What makes you so sure the 'bible' is the true word of god (if he exists), rather than some other text?

As for having no reason to live, I'm of the belief that "if there is any meaning in this life, it is up to YOU to discover it". "What's the point of living?" you say, well I say "life is enjoyable and I want to live so that I can continue to enjoy myself". That's my reason for choosing to live, and I think that if you are truly great, you will be remembered for a long time. Now of course, not everybody wants to be great, and that's fine by me too. Just have a positive outlook on life and you'll see that you don't need to have the comfort of 'eternal afterlife' or God to enjoy your time here (if there really is an afterlife).

I am not trying to pressure agnostics to one side or another. I do not have that privilege. In my opinion it seems that it would be foolish to stay only an agnostic in that you have not answered any questions. You have only told yourself that it is not possible to prove scientifically that there are answers.

If you can't decide after you have searched for God, I would suggest that you have not searched for God completely. If God exists, then you will need to search for him not only intellectually but with your heart. You need to be willing to completely search for Him with everything you have.

It is possible to not understand God. It has to be this way since if there is God then we are his creation. The concept that we can understand him and his motivations is rediculous. The reason we can know what he wants for our life is through two reasons. The first, is the bible, because it is what allowed me to come to personally know God. (And you cannot argue you all you want, but you cannot prove that I do not know God, only I can know that because I have experienced it). The second way we know his will for our life is by listening to him and his prompting.
You question the inspiration for the bible. There is two reasons that I know it to be Gods word and not another text book. The first is that its teaching led me to discover and conitinue a relationship with God. The second is that it's teaching match up to what I personally hear from God.

Making life enjoyable, is not a meaning for life, it is simply a way to carry it out. It seems that it is more a way of ignoring that we have no purpose. ie, I have no purpose, so I may as well enjoy myself while I am in existance.

 

[Generator]

I am not trying to pressure agnostics to one side or another. I do not have that privilege. In my opinion it seems that it would be foolish to stay only an agnostic in that you have not answered any questions. You have only told yourself that it is not possible to prove scientifically that there are answers.

Are these the same questions that you raised in the other thread? If so, my response (as lacking as it may be) still stands.

 

[BradCube]

Are these the same questions that you raised in the other thread? If so, my response (as lacking as it may be) still stands.

You are right in saying you left a lacking response. lol. You did not answer one of the questions at all.

However I would disagre that the answers to all of these questions from a christian point of view is a simple God, rather God provides the solution to find answers to these questions.

 

[Generator]

You are right in saying you left a lacking response. lol. You did not answer one of the questions at all.

However I would disagre that the answers to all of these questions from a christian point of view is a simple God, rather God provides the solution to find answers to these questions.

Did I say that I had a solid answer to each question? Did I say that such answers necessarily exist, or that we are currently capable of determining a reasonable explanation to satisfy such questions?

Seeing as though you missed the point, I'll try again - such questions are always being considered, and various ideas are always being raised as possible 'answers', many of which don't require the involvement of a god. Though you may be of the opinion that you have provided a suitable answer to such questions, all that you have done is use an entity that you call god as a catchall fallback - you haven't provided a proper response in any sense of the word, you have merely made use of an escapist myth into which you can funnel all of the uncertainty that you clearly consider to be bad. Others, on the other hand, aren't so fearful and are willing to consider such questions and be content with the fact that perhaps there is still much more to learn before a suitable 'answer' becomes apparent. Such people are far from delusional, too, despite what you may think.

 

[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?

"The song "Eaten" by Swedish death metal band Bloodbath was inspired by the case."

OMG that song is hilarious!

 

[BradCube]

Did I say that I had a solid answer to each question? Did I say that such answers necessarily exist, or that we are currently capable of determining a reasonable explanation to satisfy such questions?

Seeing as though you missed the point, I'll try again - such questions are always being considered, and various ideas are always being raised as possible 'answers', many of which don't require the involvement of a god. Though you may be of the opinion that you have provided a suitable answer to such questions, all that you have done is use an entity that you call god as a catchall fallback - you haven't provided a proper response in any sense of the word, you have merely made use of an escapist myth into which you can funnel all of the uncertainty that you clearly consider to be bad. Others, on the other hand, aren't so fearful and are willing to consider such questions and be content with the fact that perhaps there is still much more to learn before a suitable 'answer' becomes apparent. Such people are far from delusional, too, despite what you may think.

God is not a catch fallback. He is a thought through and logical conclusion based on the questions. Simply because you do not want to consider it as an option does not mean that isn't a possibility. At least the conclusion of a God, will provide a way to answer all of these questions, something that I cannot see in any other possibilty.

If such answers never exist in other solutions, what more faith should I put in them then in God?

Also of note, is that if you check my original post, I did not say that non-christian's were delusional. I said christians were the opposite of delusional. This is exactly for the same reasons as I pointed out above - it is a valid and logical conclusion.

Having said that, I am off for the rest of the week. Looks like I may have to play catch-up when I get back. Have fun

 

[volition]

If you can't decide after you have searched for God, I would suggest that you have not searched for God completely.

You're basically saying that if you can't find God, then keep looking until you do. What are people supposed to do in the meantime (while they're looking) ? Do you only have to believe once you've 'found' God? You wouldn't be suggesting that people believe in the meantime are you? Because that's just heading in the direction of 'faith'. It is acceptable to be agnostic because you shouldn't have to just 'believe in the meantime', it actually IS possible to be undecided, so don't go saying 'agnosticism is foolish'.

If God exists, then you will need to search for him not only intellectually but with your heart.

Nope, I'm just not 'feelin the love' the same way you claim to. Besides, you yourself said:

(And you can argue you all you want, but you cannot prove that I do not know God, only I can know that because I have experienced it)

I think this is a suitable defence for me too. See, you cannot prove that I DO know God somehow 'in my heart'(without my knowing it) so I'm justified in remaining Agnostic because I haven't found him(and you can't prove that I somehow do know him). Your argument isn't taking you anywhere.

There is two reasons that I know it to be Gods word and not another text book. The first is that its teaching led me to discover and continue a relationship with God. The second is that it's teachings match up to what I personally hear from God.

I think you're skating onto thin ice here, saying that the Bible is true and good because you can 'personally hear from God'. Sure, I can't really disprove you, but you can't prove yourself to be correct either, so my position (Agnosticism) is justified and not a 'foolish' position to take. Besides, if you really do hear God in your mind, what makes you sure it really is God (or even the devil perhaps?), what if you're just crazy? Either way, don't worry, because "I'll pray for you".

Making life enjoyable, is not a meaning for life, it is simply a way to carry it out. It seems that it is more a way of ignoring that we have no purpose. ie, I have no purpose, so I may as well enjoy myself while I am in existance.

Mmmm yes, and 'worshipping God' is not 'simply' a way to carry life out? If God doesn't exist, then the worshipping will have been for nothing.

Now, when it comes to purpose, I'll repeat myself. If there's any meaning in this life, it's up to you to find it. If that means you choose to take up a religion, then that's fine by me as long as nobody else's rights are being infringed upon 'in the name of religion'.

 

[volition]

At least the conclusion of a God, will provide a way to answer all of these questions, something that I cannot see in any other possibilty.

If such answers never exist in other solutions, what more faith should I put in them then in God?

So you'd rather be told a false truth(at least potentially) rather than being undecided ?

Anyway, what you're describing appears to be the "God of the Gaps" argument. Read this: http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/gaps.html

 

[transcendent]

I'd be more inclined to believe in God when he explains why the Holy Bible or Qu'ran is full of inconsistencies and what purpose he created us for, even if it is for a stupid reason.

Then I'll believe in God, but I will still continue to live life as if nothing happened. Knowing God exists doesn't change anything. I live waiting to die, in pursuit of passion should I find it and in service to those who deserve and require it.

 

[davin]

one of the things is that the only religion, i'd say, that an agnostic would be able to really consider without knowing if there is a god, is deism. Deism is the belief that there is a god, he essentially kick-started the universe, and he has since been hands off and is not involved in the world today. I believe its described as the intelligent clockmaker.
While I'm agnostic, I can see that, potentially, as it doesn't try to claim to really know god's will or intent, nor does it try to claim that god is activly involved in our lives. To go to christianity requires assuming an entire book, often faulty, to be the word of God, and that is not something that one can do while at the same time unsure about if there is a god.

 

[Lundy]

You know what, based on scientific and human logic alone, I would say I am a christian agnostic. Does that send alarm bells ringing?, because it shouldn't? If all you are saying is that God cannot be proved with human rational, then I agree with you. How could God be proved with human logic anyway? The idea is rediculous in that it assumes a creation has the same knowledge as its creator.

However I think that agnosticism, without a belief either way, is the stupidest stance to take. While it may be the easiest to prove with human logic, it is not the smartest. The only answer it provides, is that we have no answers.

To be only agnostic shows that you have no reason for living, other than the fact that you are in existance. If this was the case why would we continue to live? - We have no hope for the future since our future will end. Why bother in this life if it has no meaning? Do you have any reason to continue living if it will all end and be forgotten anyway?

I think it is far smarter, despite not being able to prove either sides scientifically, to search them out and find answers that rely on something other than our own understanding. If there is a God there is no way we can humanly understand him or his wisdom. Yet to not look for him simply because you cannot humanly prove him is a weak arguement. Can you undersatnd what I am getting at? You cannot not search for God on the basis that you can't understand Him, because, if he does exist, you will never humanly understand him.

That's exactly the reason people have faith in a god they can't prove, because the notion that their life is ultimately pointless is too depressing for them.

I enjoy my life with or without god. I don't need a faith to enrich my existence. If there's an afterlife, then fantastic. If there's not, well there's nothing anyone can do about that, is there? I can have all the conviction in god and heaven that I please, but it's not going to make it come true.