Is there such a thing as God?

[ryanvergel]

And how, may I ask, are you so certain of this fact?



Haha, I love you're viewpoint of the gym. And I'm not being sarcastic here, I really do like what you've said.:biggrin:

And now let me answer your questions. No, I do not believe in any history book, or math books for that matter. The bible can be trusted, however, I just chose not to trust it. I don't believe there's anything wrong with that.



Math is made to be believable because it was created by man based on situations that appear to have always been true, and always will be true. That being said, I do not believe in it.

And as for history, I believe religions have a close tie to history, and those same arguements.

---------- Post added 06/04/2010 at 10:48 PM ----------



I'm not religious, but I'll go ahead and disprove the very first arguement, just to get us started off.

Just because praying hasn't worked yet, does that mean it will never work?

Or, just because it didn't work for the people who wrote this arguement, does that mean it won't work for anyone else?

---------- Post added 06/04/2010 at 10:53 PM ----------



I'm sorry, but I just wanted to point this out. I prefer to call god either God, or It, as it isn't proven if god is even a he to begin with.

However, if you believe god is a he, then excuse me for trying to argue with your beliefs in the first place.

You serious? The Bible personifies God as He/His/Him. I was clearly, then, putting my comment within that framework and context.

The idea of a god even having a sex is stupid. Sex is a biological feature- something necessary for the production of others. Why would a god have a gender? That would imply something that is not normally associated with such a being.

 

[Benzo]

^not insulted at all. I do see your point. Your opinion and rationalization to what you believe or percieve things are of your free will to in isubjection to your thoughts and understanding.
You do make a valid arguement from that perspective.
If I were insulted by your comments, it would be a mistake on my part to allow self ignorence on my part of not being able to see that others have an opinion, idea, or facts- ect... to argue against such other peoples theories, blah blah blah. I do not believe that I am blind as p-a commented, nor do I think I am being blinded. Nor do I think that I am being mislead- for If I were to close my mind to all things that have a logical point, then I am the one misleading, blinding, and misdirecting myself.
Since I do believe that there is a God, does not mean that I take every part of what all is involved in having such a beleif- as how others would put it.
What I believe is that as long as imperfection is the most dominate state of our current existance, I do not take much as factual until my mind finds logic, reasoning, and understanding of something before I make the descision to make a stand and claim I have the right answer.

 

[weavile#1]

And how, may I ask, are you so certain of this fact?



Haha, I love you're viewpoint of the gym. And I'm not being sarcastic here, I really do like what you've said.:biggrin:

And now let me answer your questions. No, I do not believe in any history book, or math books for that matter. The bible can be trusted, however, I just chose not to trust it. I don't believe there's anything wrong with that.



Math is made to be believable because it was created by man based on situations that appear to have always been true, and always will be true. That being said, I do not believe in it.

And as for history, I believe religions have a close tie to history, and those same arguements.

---------- Post added 06/04/2010 at 10:48 PM ----------



I'm not religious, but I'll go ahead and disprove the very first arguement, just to get us started off.

Just because praying hasn't worked yet, does that mean it will never work?

Or, just because it didn't work for the people who wrote this arguement, does that mean it won't work for anyone else?

---------- Post added 06/04/2010 at 10:53 PM ----------



I'm sorry, but I just wanted to point this out. I prefer to call god either God, or It, as it isn't proven if god is even a he to begin with.

However, if you believe god is a he, then excuse me for trying to argue with your beliefs in the first place.

Well, the prayer for the first argument is unselfish, since I don't have that disease. Why wouldn't God let it happen, that is, if he were real.

 

[MattPL]

^not insulted at all. I do see your point. Your opinion and rationalization to what you believe or percieve things are of your free will to in isubjection to your thoughts and understanding.
You do make a valid arguement from that perspective.
If I were insulted by your comments, it would be a mistake on my part to allow self ignorence on my part of not being able to see that others have an opinion, idea, or facts- ect... to argue against such other peoples theories, blah blah blah. I do not believe that I am blind as p-a commented, nor do I think I am being blinded. Nor do I think that I am being mislead- for If I were to close my mind to all things that have a logical point, then I am the one misleading, blinding, and misdirecting myself.
Since I do believe that there is a God, does not mean that I take every part of what all is involved in having such a beleif- as how others would put it.

One of the best things I've ever read.

What I believe is that as long as imperfection is the most dominate state of our current existance, I do not take much as factual until my mind finds logic, reasoning, and understanding of something before I make the descision to make a stand and claim I have the right answer.

Haha, now THIS, however, I could easily comment on. But I believe that I would then be getting off topic:biggrin:

You serious? The Bible personifies God as He/His/Him. I was clearly, then, putting my comment within that framework and context.

The idea of a god even having a sex is stupid. Sex is a biological feature- something necessary for the production of others. Why would a god have a gender? That would imply something that is not normally associated with such a being.

Well, I would think the same thing. But, according to what you have told me, the Bible claims that God does indeed have a gender.

---------- Post added 06/05/2010 at 09:56 AM ----------

Well, the prayer for the first argument is unselfish, since I don't have that disease. Why wouldn't God let it happen, that is, if he were real.

Maybe you're undeserving of it? Or maybe God does NOT exist? Either is just as acceptable as the other.

 

[ryanvergel]

Well, I would think the same thing. But, according to what you have told me, the Bible claims that God does indeed have a gender.

You need to read thoroughly.

I said "why would a god"- not why would God have a gender. God has a gender- He. A god would not have a gender, because that is ridiculous.
The conclusion? It's just another instance of Christianity and other organized religions appearing ridiculous.

I can't tell if you're trolling, completely and utterly ignorant of Christianity, illiterate, or a combination of them all.

 

[weavile#1]

One of the best things I've ever read.



Haha, now THIS, however, I could easily comment on. But I believe that I would then be getting off topic:biggrin:



Well, I would think the same thing. But, according to what you have told me, the Bible claims that God does indeed have a gender.

---------- Post added 06/05/2010 at 09:56 AM ----------



Maybe you're undeserving of it? Or maybe God does NOT exist? Either is just as acceptable as the other.

How am I undeserving? I prayed to God, and asked him to rid the world of cancer.I doubt he would care if I were Christian or not. And how is that acceptable?

 

[DarthPika]

It's quite possible that there is a cure for cancer that God has "given" us. We just have yet to discover it. Why would God let it happen? Because He realizes that this life, here, on earth is only part of a much larger whole. While we may often see death as being some horrible tragic thing, to God, it is just us passing from our world to his. It's not a big deal at all to Him, so why would he interfere with a perfectly natural situation?

 

[Gir]

It's quite possible that there is a cure for cancer that God has "given" us. We just have yet to discover it. Why would God let it happen? Because He realizes that this life, here, on earth is only part of a much larger whole. While we may often see death as being some horrible tragic thing, to God, it is just us passing from our world to his. It's not a big deal at all to Him, so why would he interfere with a perfectly natural situation?

Or maybe none of that. It's more logical to think none of that is true unless you have any proof that that is the case.

 

[ryanvergel]

It's quite possible that there is a cure for cancer that God has "given" us. We just have yet to discover it. Why would God let it happen? Because He realizes that this life, here, on earth is only part of a much larger whole. While we may often see death as being some horrible tragic thing, to God, it is just us passing from our world to his. It's not a big deal at all to Him, so why would he interfere with a perfectly natural situation?

Because it causes suffering.
It causes strife.
Disease, poverty, and struggle for resources with our exploding population...
Why would He interfere? Because it's quite hard to justify ALL of the suffering.

Why allow the Holocaust? If God can create and perform miracles- ever- then why no miracle to save millions upon millions of "His chosen people"?
Why allow cancer in the first place? Why allow any diseases? Any suffering?

Cancer might be a natural evil, but it is evil nonetheless. And it seems quite obvious that everyone should challenge why God allows evil to exist. Moreso, why He created evil... Or HOW He could create evil.

Are we going to turn away from the evolutionary/prime cause arguments to theodicy/problem of evil? I'm down.

 

[Gir]

Because it causes suffering.
It causes strife.
Disease, poverty, and struggle for resources with our exploding population...
Why would He interfere? Because it's quite hard to justify ALL of the suffering.

Why allow the Holocaust? If God can create and perform miracles- ever- then why no miracle to save millions upon millions of "His chosen people"?
Why allow cancer in the first place? Why allow any diseases? Any suffering?

Cancer might be a natural evil, but it is evil nonetheless. And it seems quite obvious that everyone should challenge why God allows evil to exist. Moreso, why He created evil... Or HOW He could create evil.

Are we going to turn away from the evolutionary/prime cause arguments to theodicy/problem of evil? I'm down.

but you don't understand ryan, there is evil because we are being conveniently judged by god

 

[rokman]

God is a good being. He prevents chaos and bad things from happening.

Have you read the old testament? God killed every single person on the planet, babies and children too! He did spare a single family on a boat full of animals, though...

But I understand the benefits of religion. It teaches kids right and wrong, even if it is pseudo-terrorism (if you're bad, you BURN FOREVER). It's also a very scary thing to realize that your entire life is meaningless and you will die alone.

Here is my little test for you. Imagine that you have never learned anything about religion, especially Christianity. One day you walk into a Library and see this book, The Holy Bible. You open it up and do a little skimming. A supreme being creates the universe in seven days, a talking snake convinces a rib-woman to eat a magical fruit, a man survives in the stomach of a whale, a talking burning bush, a river splitting in two, frogs raining from the sky, etc. What would you think of this book? Science fiction?

Also, take a look at this quote:

Acts 2:44-45 (King James Version) 44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common; 45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

I don't know if you guys know anything about politics. But that right there? That's communism.

 

[Benzo]

As with anything, ( what I am about to say is IMO ) there are flaws in everything.
Math has "the odds" working against it,
evolution has the lack of continued self momentom to keep it going,
science has to many possabilities,
creation has to many "stories" and the "cover up the truth" possabilities to even sort out what is fact vs fiction,
the "big bang" has to many loop holes,
and finally, "existance" has to many possabilities to find a solid support.
Agian, this is my opinion, and what I said can be argued against from belief and evidence.
what I just said is not "kindle on a fire"- meaning I am not intentionally sparking a point to show favortism or a convincing statement to make others believe or see my point.
I will comment on the cancer-suffering- and evil :
If every aspect of any belief has the possability to be proven incorrect, then the "flaws" will shine.
To find an answer to something, there must be a valid question that either futhers the advance or applies restriction to what is being answered to.
Cancer is a flaw in perfection, as for the creation theory. Something imperfect begets imperfect results, since what was once perfect is now flawed, and continues to become more imperfect in it's repetative process of a thing that has no longer the ability to remian stable, or remaining in a perfect state.
suffering- a side affect from a flawed thing influenced by another thing or source that is imperfect that can not get a long with something else that is imperfect.
evil- is it in our nature to believe that it is something evil that makes us do negative things?
depends on who you ask. evil is negativity- the result of something that once was good, and chose to be negative by the chioces it makes. if it can not choose for itself, then some form of negativity influenced it to cause a negative thing to happen, thus being considered "evil" because the undesired effect was not wanted.

to say that evil is in our nature, I do not believe it originaly was implemented in to our behavior. Stories throut time and in all history books have mentioning of "evil"- even if a different word is used to signify "evil"- the good vs the bad-
the flaws that fill in the blanks of the unown reasons that truth is hidden is where I think "evil" sits- for it is used to be a scapegoat reason that some how manages to appease the unanswerable, with or with out logic or reasoning.
To say that the "devil" made me do it imo is a cop out.
man wishes to live longer, and will do what ever is in his ability to extend life, to enjoy it longer, accomplish more, ect.ect..
we all struggle in some way every day to continue to beat the odds of the inevitable- death.
we turn to anything that gives us hope or the desire to live longer.
we all must at one point remember this, we all fall under one law- the law of death.
some believe that the end will come, they call it armaggedon- but if you "survive" it, they believe you will be given a new body. so, you would have to die to get into a new body.
the leading cause of death is birth, you begin to die the moment you are born.
we can all believe what we want, we can choose how we want to live, we all have great knowlage in what we believe to be the truth.
If anything, I think that if you take all the commonalities of all beliefs, religions, facts, science, ect...ect...- I think together they all hold the truth. We just can not all agree to that because we are imperfect. And if we all did agree, we would lose our individualness, defeating the reason to even be different in the first place. Since I do believe in creation and a God, does not mean that I believe God would subject us all to being the same-
example: I am glad to be a red head. Sometimes I feel like I am the only one in this town. Seriously.
I enjoy the many ideas, thoughts, and differences in this thread. Even if I disagree with something, I do the best I can to keep it to myself. And since I believe that christ existed, His example to get along with everyone is the most christen like attitude he demonstrated.
I skip half of what the bible says, too much to nit-pick at that I find contraversial or duoble standered.
I live in this world, and I do the best that my imperfect little behind can do to live it peacfully and open minded.
better to die having friends and family vs enemies and fear, and to have spent most of my life not learning anything new because I decided to not have an open mind.
I think I will leave it at this- I can not realy prove that God does or does not exist without others just simply agreeing with me that he does.
To me, God is the voice of reasoning in my head, the little voice. Sounds crazy? sometimes it sounds crazy to me too.
But, life experiances lead me to believe that God does exist, but I do not believe he exists the way many would like to have me believe.

Good thread, great points, and I am going to reread this thread from the start.

 

[KingGengar]

People don't believe the Bible to be real because of all its supernatural elements. I say any natural explanation to an occurrence, no matter how unlikely, is more probable than a supernatural explanation, just because it involves natural processes. In fact, a supernatural explanation is a contradiction, because saying something is supernatural is saying that it could not be caused by natural laws, which is saying we will never be able to understand what it is. And personally, I'm not a big fan of believing things that are impossible for us to understand-ever.

The biggest obstacle to reaching anyone is convincing them that supernatural is real. Interesting. Let's talk about that. Is your personality supernatural? I can't "see" it - I can only attest that your physical form makes noises and gestures which I perceive and translate as understandable/not-understandable, and agreeable/not-agreeable. Based on my computations, I decide whether you have a personality, whether it suits me, and whether I like you.

My THOUGHTS are supernatural. I cannot "see" that I am computing your personality, and I cannot produce anything in a test-tube that equals a thought, but if I speak to you and you understand what I'm saying, we somewhat agree that I have a thought. Thus, things not seen may be said to be real by mutual consent of parties. Yet, they are surely "supernatural."

God. I believe I have shown a sufficient amount of thoughts to say that a Creator is more than possible - it is even likely. However, though you understand my thoughts, you do not agree, for whatever reason. But the effects of such a Creator can be seen in such things as natural order, the imperfection of man's will, and the like. And, likewise, the obstacles to the creation of things causes me (and I hope you) to say that randomness is a poor solution to these continuous, manifold, diverse, and many obstacles.

But, true enough, though you will assent to your own thoughts and personality, rationalizing that you have such things merely because you say so, and others agree with you, you will not assent to a God, though much evidence can be produced in that favor (logically, naturally, observationally, effectually), and though many will agree.

You say that the idea of God is destructive? So is human thought. So are personalities. Do they not exist even though they are sometimes thought destructive?

But Sir Bidoof put it well. He will not believe the supernatural God even if he already believes the supernatural in other manners.

---------- Post added 06/06/2010 at 09:31 AM ----------

EDIT: Ryan, I gave you the name of that set of videos on the history of the Bible. It would be good to check that out.

 

[NoPoke]

Thought is not supernatural, thought is just one of many things that are merely not tangible. There is an enormous difference between the two.

I've given up trying to correct the math errors and science errors. By all means try to justify your beliefs from a math or science perspective but at least have the care to avoid the most obvious of errors. It is hard to have a discussion when the two sides aren't even using language the same way.

===
list of fallacious arguments http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html

 

[dogma]

I agree that everyone is using words in different ways. For example:

I don't believe in mathematics.
I don't believe in physics.
I don't believe in chemistry.
I don't believe in biology.
I don't believe in evolution. (Just for you Dogma ) SNEAKY DOGMA EDIT: WOOO! :tongue:
I don't believe in archaeology.
I don't believe in repeatable experimental evidence.

Belief is reserved for that which cannot be tested, verified, derived from axiom. Belief can fill the gap between what an individual knows and what they hope to know in the future. I'm not going to dismiss belief: I don't see how it is possible to survive without some kind of belief system even if it is one that excludes religion/creation.

This is a different use of the word belief than that used by most philosophers - a popular theory defines knowledge as a 'justified true belief'. Clearly, in this context, the belief has to be tested or verified in some way. (Note however, that as NoPoke clearly defines the word as he uses it, the problem goes away.)

I would use the word faith instead of belief in the sense you use it NoPoke, but that's just semantics

Unrelated question: surely science cannot be 'tested, verified, derived from axiom'? (Its the axiom part I have trouble with - what would they be?)

Isn't the Bible also a theory since it cannot be proven

No, to advocate the Bible would be faith - the word theory means something entirely different

It is hard to have a discussion when the two sides aren't even using language the same way.

Hence my post :wink:

 

[weavile#1]

Theory
•hypothesis: a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was .

The Bible is a theory.

EDIT: King Gengar, everyone has a personality, only God can do all that "magic"

 

[KingGengar]

It's interesting that when I make a post, someone comes and knocks me for semantics when they know perfectly well what I mean.

Personality is "intangible." But what makes it natural when it's only the assent that you have one that gives it to you? It's only your faith and the assent of others that leads you to believe you have a personality. God is the same. The effects of God are real - you cannot deny that people's lives are touched and changed. And they have assent from others.

Personalities are also "supernatural" because they touch the spirit of others. You get a "connection." You feel a "vibe." You are kindred "spirits."

Why don't you just admit it - your personality is not only intangible, it's also supernatural because it works "magic." But if you don't agree, it doesn't mean there aren't others who do. It is that assent that gives credence to things.

And even atomic physics is "magic." Nobody has explained how it all works. Nobody even knows all the parts. They're just guessing. As far as we're concerned, the "weird world" of atomic physics may as well be supernatural. Just because you have an electronic device that works doesn't mean it's scientific - it just works. "They" have harnessed the magic - they have not truly explained it.

So go ahead with your "oh, you don't speak the same language as me" or "you don't speak of good math or science." What a con job.

 

[weavile#1]

Main Entry: su·per·nat·u·ral
Pronunciation: \ˌsü-pər-ˈna-chə-rəl, -ˈnach-rəl\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Medieval Latin supernaturalis, from Latin super- + natura nature
Date: 15th century
1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)

 

[KingGengar]

1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)

A "personality" is NOT observable except by its EFFECT. I defy you to prove that you have a personality. Do you think that simply because you can speak and make facial gestures, generate thoughts and transmit them via common language, that this proves you have a personality? Or that you have preferences and tastes? You are simply describing pain and pleasure, and your reaction to it. But if you will insist that you have a personality that can effect people by its charm or wit or connection, then I will insist that you give this same due to an invisible God. Or do you think because you can be heard that this makes you any more real? It's interesting that you will allow for all sorts of odd theories as long as they don't involve thinking in the realm of God.

You CANNOT touch a personality. You CAN touch wind, an atom, and other not-usually-visible objects. I don't want you to define your personality as your outer shell, your body. I want you to define it as the life-force within you which cannot be discerned except as it commands locomotion and sensory input, and perhaps some modicum of thought process. Just because you stand in front of me does NOT mean you have a personality. That which you call personality is an invisible life-force which NO scientist has ever seen. BTW, get a movie from the 1970's called The Asphyx. You might see where I'm coming from.

Now, if your life-force is energy, does it stop existing after death? How can energy dissipate if energy is immutable. If energy is immutable, your life-force CAN exist after death. If you say your life-force is NOT energy, what is it? Is it ectoplasm? Tell me whether the life-force escapes the body or not. What does it do, whether it stays or goes? Or, will you say, WITHOUT PROOF, that the energy of your life-force is obliterated and there is nothing after? That would be mighty glib to say without proof. I can PROVE I have a life-force because my "personality" animates my body. I can BRING EVIDENCE that energy is immutable. So, I CONCLUDE that my life-force, being a form of energy, is immutable and exists after I die. I cannot prove it, only conclude it.

You cannot escape by ignoring the obvious. Obstacles to creative endeavors such as making a universe are not easily surpassed, and randomness is a poor method of explanation. Likewise, saying that there is no afterlife because you haven't seen a soul does not absolve you of explaining what the life-force is, and why it should not exist after death. Does it go to another dimension? Is that dimension God's Kingdom? Why say "no" if you don't know? Say "maybe."

 

[NoPoke]

No its not a con job. You are making an arguement, you are using language to do so. It is important that I and others understand what you mean.

Don't be surprised when you declare that "Thought is supernatural" as part of your arguement that you are picked up on it. Just as Dogma picked up on my use of belief and also challenged my sentence where I included axiomatic derivation as not requiring belief: I should have had a few "or"s amongst the commas which were read as "and"s

That said you almost have it with this

And even atomic physics is "magic." Nobody has explained how it all works. Nobody even knows all the parts. They're just guessing. As far as we're concerned, the "weird world" of atomic physics may as well be supernatural. Just because you have an electronic device that works doesn't mean it's scientific - it just works. "They" have harnessed the magic - they have not truly explained it.

magic froma physics perspective means "unknown". It might be magic (supernatural), it might be knowable, or at a very fundamental level it may be unknowable. The physics of the very small does not lend itself to questions of What and How. I have absolutely no idea what an electron is, yet I can describe and predict its behaviour well. that is what makes it part of scientific understanding and not supernatural or magic. So though I won't say physics is magic I will say that some of it is quite magical. Physics taught me that there are limits to my personal knowledge. Limits that are beyond the limitations of my own metal capacity. Limits that are apparently beyond any living person. Mathematicians has a similar ephiphany with Godel's incompleteness theorem.

look closely at this

Now, if your life-force is energy, .....I can BRING EVIDENCE that energy is immutable. ....So, I CONCLUDE that my life-force, being a form of energy.....

You open your arguement with "IF" then assume that it is true to justify your conclusion. This just won't work to convince anyone even with the correct scientific declaration that energy can neither be created or destroyed mixed into your arguement.

I'm not pointing this out to anger you or dismiss your opinions. I am pointing this out because the seed you are sowing will not grow. Not because the soil is barren but because the seed itself is faulty.