Does God Exist? (1 Viewer)

[Generator]

Hmmm... We 'must' place our faith in something so that we may avoid the possible consequences? It seems as though you aren't actually considering my point... We could just as easily not believe 'just in case', remember.

 

[tommywatts]

LOL!.....My point proven exactly........humans will never be able to prove conclusively the existence or non existence of God.......since we cannot do this......we must place our faith in something.........It's like insuring a house.......we have no conclusive evidence that the house will ever be damaged, yet we insure it just in case something happens to it. Even though the chances may be slight, we would be in a much worse position if the house was damaged. So it is with God..........in light of what my buddy has just stated here.....we cannot prove the existence of God. But we can make sure that we are ready for the consequences if God does exist.

so why ur god? what if he's not the real deal? should i take out an insurance policy on buddha, nature and whatever other gods there are?

 

[osk]

Ok.....You asked why my God?...........For the pure and simple reason that Christianity is about what God has done for us, not what we do for God. Like I said before, we humans are absolutely hopeless by ourselves in that we have limited, finite minds. Christianity the one and only religion where one excepts God's salvation as His choice and His gift. All other religions are about what we can do for God, how we can save ourselves. Think about it.....if we can earn salvation, we are in fact telling God what to do.....we are saying to God u Have to save us because of what weve done for you. Is God really God if we are in control of Him? Many religions portray their god as almighty, yet allow for such control of the god to occur....a bit of a contradiction. Christianity is the only religion which gives 100% of the authority to God, and thereby the only religion which worships an almighty being. I said that we should ensure that we do not suffer the consequences of God'd exisitence.....by this i mean that we should make sure we are not accountable to God. How can we be accountable to something which we can manipulate?

 

[bexta]

rhapsody_bri,
Wasn't being too serious about that post...lol

Im allergic to most perfumes anyway

 

[tommywatts]

Ok.....You asked why my God?...........For the pure and simple reason that Christianity is about what God has done for us, not what we do for God. Like I said before, we humans are absolutely hopeless by ourselves in that we have limited, finite minds. Christianity the one and only religion where one excepts God's salvation as His choice and His gift. All other religions are about what we can do for God, how we can save ourselves. Think about it.....if we can earn salvation, we are in fact telling God what to do.....we are saying to God u Have to save us because of what weve done for you. Is God really God if we are in control of Him? Many religions portray their god as almighty, yet allow for such control of the god to occur....a bit of a contradiction. Christianity is the only religion which gives 100% of the authority to God, and thereby the only religion which worships an almighty being. I said that we should ensure that we do not suffer the consequences of God'd exisitence.....by this i mean that we should make sure we are not accountable to God. How can we be accountable to something over which does not have complete control over us?

so did u studied the numerous other religions and have came to the conclusion that christianity is the best?

i think i'll rather save my money and believe in nothing. if im wrong i just recant on my deathbed

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Surely by now we all know that there is little point in arguing about a topic where each participant has a valid point of view?

Since you can't prove either way, the only "valid point of view" is that of agnosticism (no point of view due to lack of evidence).

 

[fantasia]

the world looks designed therefore there must be a designer similar to if there was a watch, then obviously there must be a watchmaker.

 

[rhapsody_bri]

yeah ive heard a similar analogy to the watch one...
if you had all the parts of an analog watch in a bag, all of them separate, and you shook the bag...you could shake the bag for a million years and it's not going to just form a watch in perfect working order.

similarly, the earth is so intricate, things fit together so well (like if the axis of rotation was 1 more degree either way , then our climate would be inhabitable).. that no amount of random coincidences could have brought about our world and the way it works (like gravity is just right for us to live etc)

 

[Sophie777]

Someone already made this point. The reason Earth HAS life is because it is perfect for human habitation. Life only grew because of these simple facts. This is no proof for a God... yes if someting changed 1 degree there wouldn't have been life. But this evidence can also be proved to say that by chance the earth had the perfect conditions and therefore life formed. It makes more sense this way actuallyt. Can someone who knows about this point please explain it in a better way?

 

[Generator]

The world isn't a perfect object...

 

[Sophie777]

I want someone who isn't religious to explain what I was just trying to explain,

 

[veanz]

Surely by now we all know that there is little point in arguing about a topic where each participant has a valid point of view?

I've always agreed with this Gen i wonder why after 57 pages and countless other threads many people fail to realise that theyre not really listening to each other, rather too busy trying to work out their next rebuttle?

Since you can't prove either way, the only "valid point of view" is that of agnosticism (no point of view due to lack of evidence).

I dont think it's possible to equate agnosticism as being a valid point of view in this context - rather it's to an extent, just like any other.

Agnosticism is characteristically uncertainty or doubt. For this reason it may be a form of scepticism against religious statements.

An agnostic is (arguably) on firmer ground if they claim religious statements or statements about God aren't or cannot be satisfactorily justified. They might demand these religious statements be justified in the same way as scientific statements, perhaps in terms of the scientific method ( -- "the evidence" of what you call is needed for "a valid point of view"?) In a sense, this shows that agnosticism is adopting an attitude towards the quality of proof required to accept such statements and so becomes a matter of inclination rather than of logical proof -- that is, one need only be willing to accept a different justification of religious statements in order to avoid agnosticism.

ok its become all too philisophical and densely layered so lets all skip over to nonschool

 

[osk]

Someone already made this point. The reason Earth HAS life is because it is perfect for human habitation. Life only grew because of these simple facts. This is no proof for a God... yes if someting changed 1 degree there wouldn't have been life. But this evidence can also be proved to say that by chance the earth had the perfect conditions and therefore life formed. It makes more sense this way actuallyt. Can someone who knows about this point please explain it in a better way?

Yeh Sophie, I can see where ur coming from. Can I just ask your opinion.....if you had to make a guess on the what the chances are for a planet suitable for life to occur out of randomness...what would you say? In your opinion, would there be a large chance that a planet would be formed out of randomness with all the prerequisits for life to occur?...........I dunno, from my point of view, I just find it incomprehensible that a planet with the precise mixture of gasses in its atmosphere, at just the right distance from a suitably sized star, with the precise amount of different elements in its core to create just the right amount of gravity would occur as a result of random arrangement. I find it hard to comprehend how DNA, of which each unit holds the information equivalent to thousands of computers, such an ordered structure, would come about my chance.

If we have a look at how many factors exist on earth to make it suitable for life, it really becomes apparent how unlikely it is that earth is a result of chance. If I were to decide on whether or not there is a Creator on the basis of probability, think that the wonderful evidence of design, intricacy, perfect balance and complexity we see in life makes the exisitence of a Creator more probable than the chance that earth is the result of randomness. Once again, there is no conclusive evidence that points either way, but in this case, the available evidence is far more in favour of a creator.

 

[sesquipedalian]

Its good to see people are taking an interest in religion-related issues, even if it is simply trying to disprove another's beliefs. I apologise if i am repeating what has already been said (reading soooo many posts when i am "studying" *cough* would take too long!) But in my opinion God exists because the idea that he (or she) doesnt exist is an extremely sobering one. To think that God doesnt exist gives me a sense of despair and hopelessness as it seems to imply that my existence here on earth is pointless... That ur life exists for just a short space of time and that is it. That we are just beings of reproduction, each trying to make a mark in the world. Belief in ANY higher deity is gives a sense of purpose.

For those asking for solid evidence that God exists... well even the things we thought we knew have conspiracies theories (ie The Moon Landing) thus almost anything can be disproved. Consider this perhaps, why has the concept of "God" existed almost since the very beginning. Why are people willing to die, willing to offer their lives for "God". Were there absolutely no basis or evidence for "God" surely the notion would have died out long, long ago.... perhaps that is your evidence.

If you are looking for proof of "miracles", read into the lives of the Saints, yes i realise that can easily be "disproved" but what is the scientific evidence for the incorruptible bodies of Saint Bernadette or St John Vianney.

Opps... i've gone into 'lecture-mode' sorry!!! There's my pov!! Thankies!! Sorry if i repeated what every1 else has already said!

 

[MoonlightSonata]

--------------------

Sorry if i repeated what every1 else has already said!

You did, but you apologised

 

[MoonlightSonata]

I dont think it's possible to equate agnosticism as being a valid point of view in this context - rather it's to an extent, just like any other [...]

Actually I would say it is the only valid point of view --

An agnostic is (arguably) on firmer ground if they claim religious statements or statements about God aren't or cannot be satisfactorily justified.

Um that is exactly what we're claiming

They might demand these religious statements be justified in the same way as scientific statements, perhaps in terms of the scientific method ( -- "the evidence" of what you call is needed for "a valid point of view"?) In a sense, this shows that agnosticism is adopting an attitude towards the quality of proof required to accept such statements and so becomes a matter of inclination rather than of logical proof -- that is, one need only be willing to accept a different justification of religious statements in order to avoid agnosticism.

I have asked logical proof, and none has been given. The way we prove things on this planet is through reason, logic and evidence. It is hardly a matter of inclination, it is the only way we can form sound arguments. If I told you the flying goat-God gorgamel kidnapped me last week, you would ask for proof, because you probably don't believe the flying goat-God gorgamel exists.

A different "justification of religious statements" ? What sort of justification would that be based on besides reason, logic and evidence?

 

[MoonlightSonata]

the world looks designed therefore there must be a designer similar to if there was a watch, then obviously there must be a watchmaker.

OMG!!!!!!!! A reason! Let us all bath under the actual reason for believing in God and admire fantasia for posing it before we attack it

 

[Sharky]

Yeah, so much to read, so i have no idea what anyone else has said at this point so i'll just say what i feel.

I believe the root of the problem about whether God exists, can be tackled by taking the Bible. Now, the Bible is The Word of God, so if the Bible can be trusted, then surely there does exist a God that has inspired it.
2 Timothy 3:16 "All scriptures are inspiried by God and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness"

But, how can we prove that the Bible is really actually inspired by God, and not just what was written by a heap of men who "claim" insight?

The Bible is full of scientific truths. One example of this can be found in the book of Job.
When Job was writing this book, he made a statement in Job 38:31 that goes like "Can you bind the beautiful Pleiades? Can you loose the bands of Orion?" Now when Job wrote this he was probably thinking "that is this? why am i writing this? what does it mean?". After all, it seems like a pretty weird piece of insight. Pleiades and Orion were well known star constellations, but what was he on about.

Job was inspiried to write this by God, he did not write it from his own intellect. What we now know from our advances in technology is that all of the stars in the constellation Pleiades are moving with equal speed. That is, is 1000 years time, the stars will still be in the same spot relative to each other, and the constellation will remain. Scientists have termed this occurance a "bound cluster". Likewise, all of the stars in Orion are moving in different directions, so in 1000 years, Orion probably won't exist. Scientists have called this a "loose cluster".

What happened in Job was that God revealed in the Bible through the use of Job that he truly exists, by providing some insight into the universe that he created by using a man who had no knowledge of such things.

Further examples can be found throughout the book of Job and in fact in the entire Bible, I am just pressed for time at the moment and am unable to go into further detail, but if you would like to find more examples, i'm sure that they can be easily searched out.

Therefore, I say that since we can prove the Bible to be scientifically accurate and containing knowledge that must've been divinely inspired, then there must be a God.

 

[Generator]

For many it is a question of faith, not logic. Besides, logic is just as biased as any theological point of view (well, that's what I think, anyway, even though I prefer it over blind faith).

 

[Dougie]

this is all getting WAY to repetitive...
why can't anyone accept that we can never really prove anything about the existance of a God, simply because it's a matter of belief? and even if the probability is that there was a creator osk... there's still a chance not, so again it's faith in something. Can't everyone realise that ur not going to change anyone's other belief, and just accept what they believe as what they want, and be happy that ur belief is YOUR belief. just let everyone believe in what they want, even if you don't believe it?