Does God exist? (7 Viewers)

[sam04u]

Whatever you want to call it, if it is something which we can tell through analogy has been designed etc then it's fair enough for us to imagine it is. We can't do this with basic elements of life/plants.

It doesn't need to show signs of design. You're missing several key points of that analogy. Isn't it more logical to the second brother that the first built the sculpture? It depends which perspective you're taking. As the first brother you would have no doubt but to believe that it was the Magical Ninja, because you saw him and he told you.

Some explanations are so bad that a better alternative is "we don't know".

True. But in that analogy is "I don't know" better?

Also what about an alternative equally logical explanation i.e. a magical fairy did it instead?

If it's just as logical, than it's just as possible. (I'm not ruling out any other belief in god, except for probably Pastafarianism, rAmen.)

By your logic you should not only accept that God created our planet but also a magical dreamtime serpent.

I actually believe our planet was spat out of the Sun during its early stages. (It's a more logical explanation than a dreamtime serpent.) 1,000 years ago I probably would have went with the dreamtime serpent.

Like what? Like say sticks on a beach that spell out the word 'freedom' but could have possibly just been natural forces? I'd say it's safe to bet the sticks were put there by man. Do you want to try to extend this to the elements of life somehow?

Yes, because that is a more logical explanation for how sticks could have winded up spelling freedom on a beach.

Also, lets not get too deep into the elements of Life. I have a question for you (It's interested me during the last few days.)

Do we exist because we're conscious? or are we conscious because we exist?

If it is something like a sculpture or something that looks man made... chances are we will be safe to determine a man made it.

Obviously. What of the universe?

There really is no use in the both of us debating this topic especially with each other. We're complete opposites when it comes to this question. You expect an answer with 100% certainty, which can be tested and toyed with to further prove its certainty. Whereas I'm happy with 51%. I would rather be 51% certain of something, than 100% uncertain of anything.

Basically, unless something tips the balance and makes it improbable that God exists, I'll remain a theist. Whereas you're leaning towards agnostic, and the oher borderline ideologies. eg(God may have existed at one point, something created the universe but since then has abandoned it. etc, etc.)

Perfect analogy, an answer is better than no answer. (Especially when the end of the 'exam' nears.) It's obvious that probability is favouring one side. You've everything to gain, and nothing to lose. Right? You could probably find a theistic religion or belief of some sort where you can continue to be skeptical and inquisitive.

Good Luck.

 

[KFunk]

A message to those who want to shift burden of proof onto the atheists:

Either you have evidence/proof for god's existence, or you don't. If you do then please present it and it will be discussed/debunked. If you don't have any evidence/proof then, to use a NTB-style case, your reasoning endorses the following principle:

"Any being X whose existence is consistent with our world, and whose existence we have no evidence for, should be assumed to exist until proof is given otherwise."

Now, consider the fact that being X could be 'A fairy who shoots arses to make people fall in love', or 'a cosmic space monkey'. All you then have to do is suppose that the being also has the property of being 'undetectable' or 'unprovable, in terms of existence' and you instantly have a being who exists according to the above criteria.

Three options:
(1) Accept god, along with cosmic space monkeys (CSM).
(2) Deny god and CSM, until contrary proof/evidence is provided.
(3) Try to argue that the above principle only applies to a restricted subset of beings, or only to god even.

 

[ur_inner_child]

I am sick of this thread.

There is no proof. Belief is based totally on faith. This is ok.

Now would all believers please admit this so this thread can be closed.

No because people will talk about God as a means of justification in other NCAP threads. This is one of the reasons why this thread exists.

Otherwise, we'll have religion-related debates within the Homosexuality/Abortion/Other Touchy Issues threads and go on a huge tangent whenever someone says "I don't think X should exist/be allowed or tolerated because it is God's word". This thread gives believers and non-believers (and the inbetweeners) to voice their opinion.

Many such tangents have been moved to this thread successfully without moderator interference and I'd like to keep it that way. If you or any other person reading this would like to hear other reasons why this thread should stay open, PM me instead rather than talk about it here. It merely interrupts the flow of the debate.

 

[sam04u]

A message to those who want to shift burden of proof onto the atheists:

Either you have evidence/proof for god's existence, or you don't. If you do then please present it and it will be discussed/debunked.

I provide the universe as proof of god's existance.

If you don't have any evidence/proof then, to use a NTB-style case, your reasoning endorses the following principle:

So this doesn't apply to me? Since I'm claiming the universe is proof of god's existance?

"Any being X whose existence is consistent with our world, and whose existence we have no evidence for, should be assumed to exist until proof is given otherwise."

This obviously doesn't apply to my belief, since the universe is what I've used as evidence of god's 'existance'. Fortunately, this thread is not "What is God?" but rather "Does God exist?" therefore your speculation that "X" might be God is just about as good as mine. Therfore, I hold no grudge to people who are theistic.

Now, consider the fact that being X could be 'A fairy who shoots arses to make people fall in love', or 'a cosmic space monkey'. All you then have to do is suppose that the being also has the property of being 'undetectable' or 'unprovable, in terms of existence' and you instantly have a being who exists according to the above criteria.

Correct.

But it also has to be logically consistant. There can't be:

a) A better and more probable explanation.
b) Contradictory facts, or evidence to disprove it.

Three options:
(1) Accept god, along with cosmic space monkeys (CSM).
(2) Deny god and CSM, until contrary proof/evidence is provided.
(3) Try to argue that the above principle only applies to a restricted subset of beings, or only to god even.

I believe there are actually only two options. I've explained them.

 

[KFunk]

Note that I already included consistency as part of the principle I set forth. Similarly I am aware that you are exempt from the above argument if you are putting forth evidence rather than trying to shift burden of proof (edit: note the conditional used in putting forth the principle, i.e. "If you don't... then"). On your claim that the universe is proof:

Why does the existence of the universe make god's existence more likely than not?

 

[sam04u]

Why does the existence of the universe make god's existence more likely than not?

Simply because there is no other natural explanation which can possibly explain every single detail in the universes creation. I'm also not definining god further than "supernatural" and "able to create the universe". Therefore, your speculation on God is as good as mine.

 

[bazookajoe]

Interestingly enough, I did an essay on Aquinas' and his theory on the creation of the Universe (Argument from Contingency) and even if it is bound by sound logic (which it is not, but I won't go into it), through his Argument it is not possible to draw from it that God created the Universe. While if another being DID create the universe, who's to say (using KFunk's example) that a cosmic space monkey was not the creator?

 

[KFunk]

Simply because there is no other natural explanation which can possibly explain every single detail in the universes creation. I'm also not definining god further than "supernatural" and "able to create the universe". Therefore, your speculation on God is as good as mine.

Consider the fact that we have shown a physical explanation to be possible for the majority of observable phenomena in our universe. Further, I note that you say that there is no possible natural explanation for the details of the universe, so I ask you this:

How can you rule out the possibility that we are simply ignorant of the natural explanation at this point in time - that we simply haven't worked it out yet?

To say that it is impossible to provide a natural explanation is a massive claim, and I have doubts about whether such a proposition could concievably be proven (in practical, rather than logical, terms). If you can provide such a proof then I will be impressed, but I suspect that it would be quite a technical feat to do so.

 

[sam04u]

Interestingly enough, I did an essay on Aquinas' and his theory on the creation of the Universe (Argument from Contingency) and even if it is bound by sound logic (which it is not, but I won't go into it), through his Argument it is not possible to draw from it that God created the Universe.

Good for him. Unless you care to explain his theory, then it's pretty useless to his discussion. I did an essay on "X" and his theory on the creation of the universe makes it impossible to draw that God did not create the universe.

 

[jb_nc]

who is seriously stupid and naive that's under 20 enough to believe in a "supreme creator"

 

[bazookajoe]

I think this hypothetical explains the situation.

Two brothers of equal intelligence look over at a sculpture or a formation which has been sculpted from a piece of ice or just some snow. The first brother says he knows that a magical ninja did it, whilst the second disagrees. The second thinks it's just a natural formation and has nothing to do with ninjas. The first claims he has met the ninja, and feels his presence, whilst the second disagrees. The first then asks the second to prove it wasn't the magical ninja, but he can not. Therefore the first says "If you can't prove he doesn't exist, you can't explain how the formation came to be. Then there is no better explanation than the magical ninja, which I claim I've met."

So the second brother says "It could be a natural formation. Just like the things we see on earth, like rocks, sand and even stalactite and crystal." So the first brother asks, "Well how did a piece of Ice that big even get here?" The second brother again has no answer. He replies "You really believe a ninja did it?" The first brother says "Do you have a better explanation?" He responds "No, I just don't believe it!".

"Habeeb it!" Says the first brother. "Else, you'll wind up being punished by the Magical ninja for not acknowledging it was his creation. He believes that Ice Sculpturing is a Bang and I wrote that he said it here in my diary."

2 Years Later...

The first brother killed the second for disrespecting the Magical Ninja. The Ninja returns and sayeth unto him. "For your belief in me you shall be rewarded the Sharingan."

The second brother dies, and that's the end of him. His life without hope ends, without hope. A hopeless life which is empty of imagination, where only the bleak reality he has created destines him to eternal blackness.


Which brother are you?

(Created by Sam04u. Feel free to post this in different "Does God Exist" discussions.)

Bumped for the lolz.
Like ruby said, a better explanation is that a sculptor made it. I can see where you were going with this (kinda), but you kinda blew up in the middle.

Oh and also

1)Everyone thought the earth was round. It was proven to be false.

Umm?

 

[sam04u]

Consider the fact that we have shown a physical explanation to be possible for the majority of observable phenomena in our universe. Further, I note that you say that there is no possible natural explanation for the details of the universe, so I ask you this:

How can you rule out the possibility that we are simply ignorant of the natural explanation at this point in time - that we simply haven't worked it out yet?

I've never said there was no natural explanation for the details of the universe, but at this moment in time there is no natural exlanation of such. I don't rule it out. But since we have not discovered a natural explanation, we do not know if one even exists. Therefore, it is more probable that God does exist rather than doesn't.

To say that it is impossible to provide a natural explanation is a massive claim, and I have doubts about whether such a proposition could concievably be proven

Well at this moment in time it is actually impossible to provide a natural explanation. So, proving any natural explanation at this moment in time would be even more impossible.

(in practical, rather than logical, terms). If you can provide such a proof then I will be impressed, but I suspect that it would be quite a technical feat to do so.

That would be quite a feat.

 

[bazookajoe]

Therefore, it is more probable that God does exist rather than doesn't.

Hmm I wouldn't say this, but I would argue that it gives greater weight to God's existence

 

[KFunk]

I've never said there was no natural explanation for the details of the universe, but at this moment in time there is no natural exlanation of such. I don't rule it out. But since we have not discovered a natural explanation, we do not know if one even exists. Therefore, it is more probable that God does exist rather than doesn't.


Well at this moment in time it is actually impossible to provide a natural explanation. So, proving any natural explanation at this moment in time would be even more impossible.

A couple of points:

(1) I don't understand why god suddenly becomes the top explanation, in particular given the lack of evidence you provide for god's existence. Notice that you claimed that 'the universe is evidence for god's existence', yet this claim only holds insofar as god is, in fact, the best explanation available (for the state of the universe). However, you cannot hold up god as the best explanation until you demonstrate why god is the best explanation (or else you fall prey to the problem of shifting the burden of proof). Edit: also note that the 'but I do have evidence for god in the form of the universe' argument does not work here because it would beg the question.

(2) Why a being? Couldn't there be inanimate supernatural 'stuff' (or cosmic space monkeys even). Why not a dual compound of the natural and the supernatural? You are arguing that we cannot provide a natural explanation. Alright, but it doesn't look like you can provide a supernatural one either. 'God created it' provides little more explanation than 'it came about naturally'.

 

[RothwellPolish]

Big Question with no clear answer -

All I can say is that if you read the old texts from all religions, they all provide a good set of morals to live life by and promote peace and justice. Whereas, in my case, The religious guidelines written down years after Jesus' death and ascension do not affect how i conduct my life as a catholic man. Whether God actually exists does not matter as long as I live my life with compassion and charity.

I understand this isn't really an answer to the question, just a point that all religions (with the exception of satanism, etc.) promote peace and equality and are a positive thing, its what people have made from Religion and how they have interpreted it that can foster "evil"

 

[m.incognito]

I'm atheist.
But one of my friends is a major Hillsonger, and when asked what god sounds like she says he sounds like her.

Could it be that god is just one's conscience?

Plus, all the stuff about creation is scientifically incorrect.

If you ask a christian/catholic/whatever how creation works, they just say something about God creating the earth in 7 days. It has no real scientific explanation at all, whereas evolution makes much more sense.




A person of Christian belief, prove me wrong please.
I'm interested in how it all works.

 

[bassguy]

I think the single biggest argument against the existence of a god is that the whole concept was invented by humanity. Of course, people can say 'god told me its true' or whatever, but basically its just a form of self-deceit as a way to externalise human ego.

 

[lengy]

You could've just NOT posted.

 

[gods-lil-rocker]

ive got a question about christianity/monotheistic gods. Ive never really understood this, im sure christians must have some sort of answer for it since it seems like such an obvious problem.

Firstly, God is omniscient. He knows everything, he is outside of time. he knows the past and the future.

Secondly, I have free choice to accept god or not. My future is not pre-determined, I can make my own decisions.

But how can I have a free choice if god already knows what Im going to do? God knows the future, he surely must know what I am going to do and if he does then I wouldnt have free choice. If he doesnt know what Im going to do, then he isnt much of a god.

God knows the decisions you will make, but he allows us to actually make those decisions and live through the consequences - whether good or bad.

God, even though he knows the choices we will make does not mean that he will force us to go either way.

Lets just say he is real, but you never made any of the choices and you went to either heaven or hell because he just knew what you would make anyway. So lets just say I go to hell, without having made any choice in my life and I go "God, you never let me choose to go to heaven" he would just say "I knew you would chose the path you are on now anyways....."

We still have to make the choices, to be able to grow and accept the consequences.... so we can take responsibility for our decisions.

 

[201055]

God knows the decisions you will make, but he allows us to actually make those decisions and live through the consequences - whether good or bad.

God, even though he knows the choices we will make does not mean that he will force us to go either way.

Lets just say he is real, but you never made any of the choices and you went to either heaven or hell because he just knew what you would make anyway. So lets just say I go to hell, without having made any choice in my life and I go "God, you never let me choose to go to heaven" he would just say "I knew you would chose the path you are on now anyways....."

We still have to make the choices, to be able to grow and accept the consequences.... so we can take responsibility for our decisions.

Then shouldn't the choice to enter heaven or hell be up to us as well then? Since if we chose to make our own choices and accept the responsibilities in doing so, why should we be 'punished' because 'by chance' we decided to chose a differing path since God gave us the freedom to?