I feel God exists because to me The world is a place for us to love and be loved and The god I believe in wants us to coexist peacefully with eachother. IU don't really follow my Catholic teachings to the T but I definitely find common ground with them. I believe God exists because It is just how I believe it my brother doesn't I do. It's really very hard to explain Pro. I can't put it into words but I just feel like there is something above us, not literally, helping us on our way moving things along our creator, our "god" Just like you can't really disprove me I can't disprove your thought that there is no God but I respect your decision. another way I've seen people look at it is, Well if there is no god, then you believed in something and faltered is it bad? no because nothing happens, If you however don't believe in God and there is one then he would be mad at you for not believing in him. although I do like to think of my God as a nice God who cares equally for us all. To anyone who wants to say "if you think god is so good then why does he let stuff like killings happen?" To that I say Free will, My version of God allows us to do what we want but it is ultimately our choice to do and no one else's, he has chosen to let us be and not interfere with our lives, this is how I see it. This might go against christian teachings because God has interfered supposedly before but then again I take the Bible very figuratively and in no way take it literally except for maybe parts of the new testament. To sum it up I believe in a God and that is it, There no evidence for or against so why bother bashing and hating. I'm open minded but here I stand that there is a God and I pray that I am right because I don't want to end up floating in space as energy after my death. I guess you can say my faith comes from a fear of being nothing later on in life, but I don't think it is just that. My 2 cents anyway.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Not even Death will save you from Diablo Bunny's Cuteness!
It's talk like that that makes me avoid these discussions. There's symbolism in literature, who is to say everything in the bible is literal?
Possible scenario: God manipulates universe and evolution to have man created. At one time man is very simple so it needs a very simple explanation. So god tells man that they were made from dirt because essentially, they are the same thing.
Or you can go with literal translation if it helps you sleep at night.
And please leave the moderating to the moderators. I'm not going to allow bashing of anyone's beliefs in here.:)
If you want to nit pick about the history of biblical texts, lets do the same for science. And evolution is a theory. Plain and simple. You have as much faith in that as people have in god.
How does one distinguish between parts of the Bible are factual/literal and those that are symbolic/metaphoric? I realize you can't speak for everyone, so how do you decide which is which? If you were making these claims only a few hundred years ago you would either be imprisoned, tortured, or executed for going against the biblical canon (and I would be too I should add). This of course says nothing on the topic of god existing or not, I am just trying to show how literal the Bible was taken. Secular governments play a big role in your freedom to interpret the Bible as you see fit.
You are correct evolution is a theory, however you are wrong to associate faith with theories. Maybe you are confused with the differences between hypothesis and theory. Faith is belief without evidence and a (scientific)theory in laymans terms is belief because of evidence. A difference between religious faith/assumption and scientific theory is that theories are usually open ended. What I mean is theories allow for more knowledge(from evidence and testing) on the subject to become part of the theory, and generally this doesn't happen in religion.
It is a 49 minute long documentary so I don't expect you to watch the entire thing. Basically it shows how various animals and insects have changed due to living in rare caves cut off from light, oxygen, and fresh water. Most of the creatures turn translucent white over time (I am talking generations), and because they are always in darkness they become blind and eventually are born without eyes at all (but retain eye sockets so the scientists know that species once had eyes)
Again, scientific theories aren't based off of assumptions and are usually the complete opposite of faith.
By 100% proven I mean that your entire life may be completely false. There is one notion that there is only one true person and everythign else in teh universe is something that is created from their own mind and without this one person nothign would exist.
It may be, but that isn't useful to this conversation (or any other one, lest you are discussing Descartes). We can safely say, of that possiblity, that we cannot make a claim one way or the other.
Also when I say one religion is more interesting than another I do not say that the motivation of it is a problem. I think that a world where we can ahve super powers like dragonball z would be very interesting but that does not mean I believe in it.
I think that world would be interesting too, but it evidently isn't the world we live in. You dodged the question.
You miss the point that tests and observations and all evidence that science provides is meaningless if the existence of this world is false. What you believe is what you believe, science is a belief just as religion is. There have been studies of religion and the like and each thing has its possibilities in the worlds eyes but none of it really matters. All that matters is what you believe and whether you will let anyone change that about you.
No, they arent. And the fact we are having this conversation right now is indicative that the world isn't "false." What I believe? I don't believe anything. Science does not require that one believe anything. I have explained this to you on this very page now, more than once. Stop making that fallacious claim. All that matters is not what I (don't) believe. I have been explicitly clear that what other people believe effects others. It effects you, it effects me, and it effects the whole of our species.
Is there anything I can say that will change what you believe? Would you need a God himself to come down to you to tell you that he is real and your beliefs are false? Would even that matter to you? What if your lack of faith in God sends you to an eternity in a burning hell? Would yo uthen believe in him? It is your choice as well as mine any everyone elses. We will deal with our consequences when the time comes because we will all die someday.
You could present me with compelling evidence such that I have reason to make an assertion that god exists, but I am not one to believe anything. I will not make an assumption without any evidence. That flys in the face of everything that I am as a rational human being. If god "himself," came down to me, I wouldn't know what he looked like. I'd have to contrive a very clever test in order to convince myself he was actually godlike rather than just a very advanced alien being. After all, I don't make assertions that I cannot verify with evidence and it would be difficult neigh-impossible to find evidence for omnipotence. Would a meeting of that sort matter to me? Of course it would. I never once stated that I don't believe it's possible that there is a god. I stated, every single time, that I have no evidence one way or the other. If there were one and if he happened to grace me with his presence, by golly I would be thrilled.
What if my lack of faith condemns me to hell? Hmm, well, since we're talking about christian god, i'll be there with all the other denominations of christian who were wrong, all the jews, hindus, buddhists, and every person who existed before the time of christ. Kidding aside, what you just used is called Pascal's Wager. And since you're assuming that your god is omnipotent and omniscient, don't you think he would know when people genuinely believed or not? Don't you think (since you say he created all of us) that he knows I am incapable of belief? Do you really think your god is cruel and capricious enough to condemn those who have been born outside the message of his church and might save me for faking a belief that I will never hold?
It would be my opinion that this offer is bogus. If that god does know all, love all, and create all, he knows i'm an atheist and he still loves me. If that god does know all, create all, and still have the caprice to desire fake believers and smite people unfortunate enough to not be born into christian communities: Well, if he is that much of an evil being, there is no reason for me to believe there is any such thing as heaven.
I take it you believe preceisely because you are afraid of the consequences if you don't. Is that a fair asessment?
Who said Big Foot doesn't exist? I dono if I believe in Big Foot but I do believe in the Lock Ness monster. Why? There's evidence. However, evidence to me might not be evidence to you.
Personally I like to think more like Dae here. It simply seems more likely that all of this was designed rather than randomly poofing into existence.
Let me pose a question to you:
You walk into a kitchen and see a cake has splattered all across the floor. Upon further analysis, you realize there are words spelled out from splattered cake, on the floor reading "I fell for you".
What is more likely; the cake fell with the perfect conditions to splatter in such a way that it spelled out those words? Or that someone came along, knocked over the cake, and proceeded to run their fingers through the cake on the floor, to spell out those words.
What are the odds that my existence on this earth is completely by chance? Randomly, everything in the universe worked out so well that, by chance, I simply exist?
Out of all the billions of species on this planet, why is it that only humans were able to evolve to a point of removing ourselves from nature and effectively removing ourselves from anywhere but the top of the foodchain? Why is it just us?
Of course, I fully expect a response with assuring knowledge that there is a reasonable explanation for all of this. So I'm pretty much just typing to hear myself type here. I should go to sleep...
Just got done reading about several near death experiences by blind people who are able to see during the period of death and recall details no blind person would ever know(There's a reasonable explanation, I know, I know!). The nde's are interesting. Dmt could be involved. But the recollection of detail is what gets me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
It's talk like that that makes me avoid these discussions. There's symbolism in literature, who is to say everything in the bible is literal?
Possible scenario: God manipulates universe and evolution to have man created. At one time man is very simple so it needs a very simple explanation. So god tells man that they were made from dirt because essentially, they are the same thing.
Or you can go with literal translation if it helps you sleep at night.
And please leave the moderating to the moderators. I'm not going to allow bashing of anyone's beliefs in here.:)
If you want to nit pick about the history of biblical texts, lets do the same for science. And evolution is a theory. Plain and simple. You have as much faith in that as people have in god.
How does one distinguish between parts of the Bible are factual/literal and those that are symbolic/metaphoric? I realize you can't speak for everyone, so how do you decide which is which? If you were making these claims only a few hundred years ago you would either be imprisoned, tortured, or executed for going against the biblical canon (and I would be too I should add). This of course says nothing on the topic of god existing or not, I am just trying to show how literal the Bible was taken. Secular governments play a big role in your freedom to interpret the Bible as you see fit.
I know it wasn't addressed to me but since I share a similar view I'll reply. I decide which is fact and fiction by reading and deciphering, Usually thew ones where God Directly talks/interacts with a person it is usually meant to be taken metaphorically/figuratively and you are just supposed to take the meaning. Some are fictional stories and are meant to be taken as figurative lessons on how to act or behave to make the most out of this world, So I just assume most of them are Fake. The only ones I take as fact are the Jesus stories. Considering our years are based on his birth I'd say it is safe to assume he was alive. But in the case that he is not well Then I'm surely mistaken.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Not even Death will save you from Diablo Bunny's Cuteness!
Well maybe I'm misunderstanding something, what other choice is there? A being created the initial matter/energy, or nothing created it. At least at this point I don't see there is another answer, until science progresses and possibly finds an answer other than that.
I don't think there is an answer right now, but that doesn't mean that we have the group of all possible answers in-hand. If you want to say "nothing," created the universe and be more poetic about it, you might suggest that the universe is eternal, just in diffirent forms. I feel that is just as plausible as any arguments of causality and does not insert ugly words like "nothing."
Hmm well I meant no prime source being. It could be eternal or it was created on it's own in some way. I didn't mean for nothing to sound offensive like I shrug off this belief completely. It's of course very possible. Like I said I just choose to believe in a being like you choose NOT to.
It seems like at the base level the more logic minded people will choose atheism and the more creative minded will choose a creator of some sort.
Not that either one is wrong or bad.
Perhaps I'm mistaken though. Was it logic that drove you ultimately to your beliefs? I agree logically there's no real reason to include God, but I also don't see a reason not to. We have choices. I don't subscribe myself to any singular God or being.
Who said Big Foot doesn't exist? I dono if I believe in Big Foot but I do believe in the Lock Ness monster. Why? There's evidence. However, evidence to me might not be evidence to you.
Belief has nothing to do with evidence, you're mincing terms again. Furthermore, you've got a diffirent definition of evidence than the rest of us. I have seen articles about loch ness being dredged, sonar'd, and drag netted for decades. If all we have to show for that are blurry (and some fake) photos and eye-witness accounts, I don't feel that qualifies as evidence. It is hear-say.
Personally I like to think more like Dae here. It simply seems more likely that all of this was designed rather than randomly poofing into existence.
I've insisted several times now that "poofing," is not required, but if that's all you can come up with... I suppose I understand why you're making that decision.
You walk into a kitchen and see a cake has splattered all across the floor. Upon further analysis, you realize there are words spelled out from splattered cake, on the floor reading "I fell for you".
What is more likely; the cake fell with the perfect conditions to splatter in such a way that it spelled out those words? Or that someone came along, knocked over the cake, and proceeded to run their fingers through the cake on the floor, to spell out those words.
How is this analogous to the universe? What is it that you are claiming as evidence for a deliberate design insted of an evolved natrual explanation in the case of the universe. I would agree, in the case of the cake, you are describing human interaction with the cake, but I disagree that this is in any way analogous to the universe as we understand it today.
What are the odds that my existence on this earth is completely by chance? Randomly, everything in the universe worked out so well that, by chance, I simply exist?
We don't know those odds. What we do know; however, is that nothing in the universe would exist as it does without the laws of physics being what they are. This is a zero-sum approach. We're either here or we are not. Evidently we are here and thus we know the universe is such that we can be here. We don't know how "well," it works because we have no point of comparison. There are no other universes we can see to tell us wether or not ours is fine-tuned for life or not.
Out of all the billions of species on this planet, why is it that only humans were able to evolve to a point of removing ourselves from nature and effectively removing ourselves from anywhere but the top of the foodchain? Why is it just us?
Why is it just us? Because our brains evolved where other animals had not. You can study genetics and neurology to get a better grasp on what made the mammals and the apes diffirent. This isn't indicative of design, it is simply an expression of how evolution has turned out.
Just got done reading about several near death experiences by blind people who are able to see during the period of death and recall details no blind person would ever know(There's a reasonable explanation, I know, I know!). The nde's are interesting. Dmt could be involved. But the recollection of detail is what gets me.
I know it wasn't addressed to me but since I share a similar view I'll reply. I decide which is fact and fiction by reading and deciphering, Usually thew ones where God Directly talks/interacts with a person it is usually meant to be taken metaphorically/figuratively and you are just supposed to take the meaning. Some are fictional stories and are meant to be taken as figurative lessons on how to act or behave to make the most out of this world, So I just assume most of them are Fake. The only ones I take as fact are the Jesus stories. Considering our years are based on his birth I'd say it is safe to assume he was alive. But in the case that he is not well Then I'm surely mistaken.
How do you read and decipher the parts taken literally and the parts metaphorically? It seems you're aware some stories are fictional, but you do believe that one of the most incredible stories is true. So what is the litmus test? By what criteria do you say "well, that was really bad, I shouldn't do that literally," or "hmm that's a good thing, I should literally do that." ?
My last post appears to have been moderated (presumably because the vagueness of the post led a mod to think I was trolling), so I'll elaborate here.
There's a fundamental philosophical exercise for proving that anything exists. The litmus test, if you will, is to turn the "Prove X exists" around on the person asking the initial question.
The classic example is "Prove that this chair exists." It's ostensibly a test of perceived reality vs. actual reality. The response that proves the existence of the chair, in the most simple and obvious fashion, is to ask "What chair?" The person who challenged with the initial proof is now stuck. They either have to say "That one" and admit that they truly believe that the chair exists within their perceived reality, even when the it is fully possible that the person whom they asked does not believe that any chair exists, OR the person who posed the initial question has to admit that they issued a proof challenge for something that they literally cannot perceive in any way.
The postulate offered by the OP, then, is explicitly "Prove to me that God exists."
So here's the philosophical challenge: "What God?"
I ask that, in the vein of the current discussion (which I really enjoy, by the way), please seriously consider your answer and try to specify what you're talking about before jumping to any statement of "I don't know what God is." There's more to this whole train of thought, but I need to know what you're really describing as the God you want us to prove before we move forward with the discussion from this philosophical direction.
Perhaps I'm mistaken though. Was it logic that drove you ultimately to your beliefs? I agree logically there's no real reason to include God, but I also don't see a reason not to. We have choices. I don't subscribe myself to any singular God or being.
I don't have beliefs. As I said, I don't make any assertions without evidence. I suggested an alternative to your "nothing," simply because I thought you were being too limited in your possibilities and I was feeling creative. I think it is intersting though that while we both agree that it is impossible to assert god or not god, you insist we have no reason to reject the notion as though I am accepting the opposite (that there must not be god).
I have no idea if the universe is eternal, but it makes more sense than god being eternal and creating the universe simple because it is less complex. But, like I said, I cannot assert either view since I have no evidence of either view at this time. I don't know and i'm not uncomfortable not knowing. I assert that is the diffirence between the athiest and the believer, especially the believer who knows that he is making an illogical choice to believe.
Where the atheist is comfortable being in doubt, not knowing exactly how the universe works, the believer really wants there to be certainty(god, heaven, hell) or to know something for certain(exacly what happens when we die, exactly what kind of morality we should practice, exactly how we should live our daily lives). Of course that may not always be the case (and probably isn't in your case), i'm simply basing this on the replies i've had, personal messages, and what I have read from theists during my lifetime.
There's more to this whole train of thought, but I need to know what you're really describing as the God you want us to prove before we move forward with the discussion from this philosophical direction.
Well, we still haven't even managed to establish wether or not there is a god (by any definition) or not. Although I guess I haven't impressed that issue upon some of the other posters very well (or they've decided to ignore it). =)
Who said Big Foot doesn't exist? I dono if I believe in Big Foot but I do believe in the Lock Ness monster. Why? There's evidence. However, evidence to me might not be evidence to you.
Belief has nothing to do with evidence, you're mincing terms again. Furthermore, you've got a diffirent definition of evidence than the rest of us. I have seen articles about loch ness being dredged, sonar'd, and drag netted for decades. If all we have to show for that are blurry (and some fake) photos and eye-witness accounts, I don't feel that qualifies as evidence. It is hear-say.
Personally I like to think more like Dae here. It simply seems more likely that all of this was designed rather than randomly poofing into existence.
I've insisted several times now that "poofing," is not required, but if that's all you can come up with... I suppose I understand why you're making that decision.
You walk into a kitchen and see a cake has splattered all across the floor. Upon further analysis, you realize there are words spelled out from splattered cake, on the floor reading "I fell for you".
What is more likely; the cake fell with the perfect conditions to splatter in such a way that it spelled out those words? Or that someone came along, knocked over the cake, and proceeded to run their fingers through the cake on the floor, to spell out those words.
How is this analogous to the universe? What is it that you are claiming as evidence for a deliberate design insted of an evolved natrual explanation in the case of the universe. I would agree, in the case of the cake, you are describing human interaction with the cake, but I disagree that this is in any way analogous to the universe as we understand it today.
What are the odds that my existence on this earth is completely by chance? Randomly, everything in the universe worked out so well that, by chance, I simply exist?
We don't know those odds. What we do know; however, is that nothing in the universe would exist as it does without the laws of physics being what they are. This is a zero-sum approach. We're either here or we are not. Evidently we are here and thus we know the universe is such that we can be here. We don't know how "well," it works because we have no point of comparison. There are no other universes we can see to tell us wether or not ours is fine-tuned for life or not.
Out of all the billions of species on this planet, why is it that only humans were able to evolve to a point of removing ourselves from nature and effectively removing ourselves from anywhere but the top of the foodchain? Why is it just us?
Why is it just us? Because our brains evolved where other animals had not. You can study genetics and neurology to get a better grasp on what made the mammals and the apes diffirent. This isn't indicative of design, it is simply an expression of how evolution has turned out.
Just got done reading about several near death experiences by blind people who are able to see during the period of death and recall details no blind person would ever know(There's a reasonable explanation, I know, I know!). The nde's are interesting. Dmt could be involved. But the recollection of detail is what gets me.
I'd love to read these, any chance at a link?
Backing up Proletaria:
Quote 1: There is no such evidence proving the existence of big foot or the lockness monster. Eye witness accounts and fake photographs do not count as evidence as these sources are not entirely accurate and divulge much information that affiliates with the term proof. First off - eye witness accounts differ, thus their is no reliability with them. Photographs are few in number resulting in loss of validity. Thus you have you 3 terms of what is evidence: accuracy, reliability and validity.
(BTW what does this have to do with the topic?)
Quote 2: If you research into quantum mechanics, specifically the applications of quantum chemistry and physics you will understand that atoms share certain forms of "attraction" with other specific atoms when certain amounts of energy accommodate for fusion between different elements, when subjugated between the weak and strong nuclear forces of differing nucleons. My point being that, our sun (stars being the producers of elements of the periodic table, heavier elements requiring higher temperatures), over the 4 billion years that the Earth has been around for, has provided its limited amount of energy to "excite" atoms in a way to produce the structure of our Earth and everything inside it, along with the exact specific amount of elements available from other stars within the universe. This means that this universe was not in fact randomly designed, but created with a set structure resulting from the laws of physics in reference to the Big Bang and the positioning of our solar system. It wasn't random, its known as a fond word scientists like to use called: coincidence.
Quote 3: WTF?
Quote 4: Refer to quote 2, also your existence in this universe is extremely likely due to the massive scale of the universe and what was said in quote 2.
There's more to this whole train of thought, but I need to know what you're really describing as the God you want us to prove before we move forward with the discussion from this philosophical direction.
Well, we still haven't even managed to establish wether or not there is a god (by any definition) or not. Although I guess I haven't impressed that issue upon some of the other posters very well (or they've decided to ignore it). =)
Agreed, so I'm asking you to tell me what your definition is. When you say "Prove to me that God exists" what is the thing you're asking me to prove? What is your definition of "God." I think it's safe to say that any and all belief systems have shared practices of determining what a God is and what isn't a God. Ergo, we need to start with knowing what your belief system (since you claim atheism, and not nihilism) would frame as a God before we start to put anything into that framework.
I'll stipulate here that a major trait of beliefs is that people tend to cling to them regardless of evidence, be it real or imagined. Very, very few people truly put their beliefs to the test with an honest and open mind that is willing to accept that the test might show their beliefs to be false. As such, I'm viewing this whole discussion as more of an exercise than a truly ground-breaking God vs. Nogod discussion. Finer minds than mine have debated this point for generations and no unassailable arguments have come from it, on either side.
I know it wasn't addressed to me but since I share a similar view I'll reply. I decide which is fact and fiction by reading and deciphering, Usually thew ones where God Directly talks/interacts with a person it is usually meant to be taken metaphorically/figuratively and you are just supposed to take the meaning. Some are fictional stories and are meant to be taken as figurative lessons on how to act or behave to make the most out of this world, So I just assume most of them are Fake. The only ones I take as fact are the Jesus stories. Considering our years are based on his birth I'd say it is safe to assume he was alive. But in the case that he is not well Then I'm surely mistaken.
How do you read and decipher the parts taken literally and the parts metaphorically? It seems you're aware some stories are fictional, but you do believe that one of the most incredible stories is true. So what is the litmus test? By what criteria do you say "well, that was really bad, I shouldn't do that literally," or "hmm that's a good thing, I should literally do that." ?
I guess really what I deem morally correct. I find the ones that have God interacting directly with a human to be false because if he had shown himself then why not now? Also with the morally correct ones I guess you just have to read and see. Some propose god as a hateful being smiting those who do him injustice, I don't take lose literally either and say its a metaphor for punishing those who deserve punishment, in the form of legal justice of course. If I read a story on how a man gave everything he owns to someone who has nothing I take that literally, and believe I should be giving most if not all of my possessions to someone less fortunate, make everything equal fair and just. If I read a story though about how god was displeased with the way humans were acting and decided to kill us all off in a flood, I take that figuratively and take it as we are meant to do good and please our God, if they do not then we should punish those legally, through our court system. Simple things like this, if it seems reasonable for someone to do something literally like give their belongings to someone else why not take that literally. The other more abstract ones such as Noah's ark should be taken figuratively because we obviously see it is false. Jesus turning water to wine for example. I don't take it literally, some people do some people do I guess it is preference but I don't see it as truth. I find it a tale of how we should do everything in our power to help one another, and to do everything to right others wrongs so we can make this place a better place to live in. Some people believe it is a miracle story of Jesus, honestly it is preference my preferences are if it is morally correct in my mind, i.e just good, ethically correct, for the betterment of mankind. Then sure why not be taken literally but it has to stay within the boundaries set forth by science to me, i.e newtons laws and such. So I guess I have two cutoffs first it must be morally correct to me then it has to pass science before I can say I believe in it to be literal.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Not even Death will save you from Diablo Bunny's Cuteness!
Quote 2: If you research into quantum mechanics, specifically the applications of quantum chemistry and physics you will understand that atoms share certain forms of "attraction" with other specific atoms when certain amounts of energy accommodate for fusion between different elements, when subjugated between the weak and strong nuclear forces of differing nucleons. My point being that, our sun (stars being the producers of elements of the periodic table, heavier elements requiring higher temperatures), over the 4 billion years that the Earth has been around for, has provided its limited amount of energy to "excite" atoms in a way to produce the structure of our Earth and everything inside it, along with the exact specific amount of elements available from other stars within the universe. This means that this universe was not in fact randomly designed, but created with a set structure resulting from the laws of physics in reference to the Big Bang and the positioning of our solar system. It wasn't random, its known as a fond word scientists like to use called: coincidence.
+1 for this also, this is a very concise explanation of current scientific theories.
Adding on to it: The thing we don't know right now is why this specific set of laws governing our physical universe is the set of laws that governs the universe. Very near to the initial instant of the Big Bang (and by this I mean a fraction of a fraction of a nanosecond), the laws of physics sort of congealed into the first sub atomic particles of a size that we can measure today, and from that moment onward, all physical interactions in the universe (in so far as we can tell) have been dictated by the same sets of laws and limitations. However, it was just as likely, from what we can tell, that a different set of physical laws would have taken hold, and an entirely different universe would have formed. In fact, this may have happened as well, and may have happened many, many more times, which is what leads to the "Multiverse" theories. If that happened, then we live in a "Bubble Universe" type of multiverse, where there are several universes each with different sets of physical constraints (these are the Type 2 Multiverses in the wikipedia link below).
The more popular theories today, however, tend to do with Type 3 Multiverses (personally I enjoy the concept of a modified Type 3, namely one in which divergent universes can still interact (and indeed may be constantly interacting but the experience of them is distilled by our perceptions of them... We view time linearly; we may view universes as a simple point in a much larger canvas, unaware of - and unable to measure - any motion between the universes). Type 4 is certainly a broad stroke... basically it says that if you can describe something with math, then it is real. This would indicate that, if there is a God, He can be described with a mathematical formula. How brash!
Anyway, here's the wikipedia article on Multiverses; I find it pertinent to the discussion of God's possible existence to know what universe(s) said God may or may not be ruling over.
I'm a Christian. I beg your forgiveness if I seem bad at it.
Alright, I didn't read the entire topic since I'm a bit on the lazy side, but I'm sure some fantastic points have been made on the religious side of the debate, and some incredible logical fallacies pointed out by the (for the sake of brevity, I'll generalize) atheists.
First off, I'd like to discuss the thesis of your first post, proletaria:
With that in mind, I spout not the renunciation of Yaweh or Allah (or Zeus, Ra, Seth, Zaroaster, Shiva, Vishnu, Thor, Ananzi, etc.) from my title, but request that those living in the certitude of such a being explain why they believe in their God(s).
With a topic title like you have, I was ready to descend with disdainful contempt on your thread and condemn it to the flames for approaching a matter such as this with such hostility. Then, I read your post and realized this was a civil discussion reaching for enlightenment, not a thinly veiled attempt at bashing my beliefs like so many I've seen before. Personally, I don't understand why people think it's fun to do that as anyone, in a moment of anger, can portray themselves and others affiliated with them as much less than they really are. But that's beside the point of this post.
I believe because I choose to believe. A corollary to that, depending on your beliefs, believe it or not, is that I've been chosen to believe. Personally, I think everyone's been chosen to believe, some people just haven't chosen to believe. I'd also like to be quite clear in that I believe in the existence of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.
Now that we've established what I believe and the bare skeleton of why, I'll go in to a bit of detail. Let's have a look at the nature of God, in particular, where He is. If wikipedia can be trusted, (I've looked for a relatively neutral source) then God omnipresent. With the linkage of space and time, as has been proven by science, this means that God is everywhen, also. Let us assume we agree thus far on the nature of God if He exists, which I maintain that He does. Simplified, God is outside outside the bounds of time and space. Forgive me if I assume that you know the difficulty in reaching any sort of evidence in proving in temporal and spatial terms the existence of the one being that is not only beyond those boundaries, but can move through them as you and I would move through water (a weak metaphor, but I hope you get my point).
I've heard it claimed before that God can't exist simply because evil exists. This theory irritates me to no end because it oversimplifies. That plaintive voice whining, "How could a God that is good allow this world to be filled with such evil?" is a coward for refusing to dive deeply into the matter see what exactly happened to bring about evil. (For this point I'll speak as if you believe, pray forgive me) Simply put, man was created to love. A part of love is the ability to not love, a choosing to love. We were created to experience all good things, and one of those is obedience. To choose to love by acting not by our own will, but by another's. And so, Eve was tempted, caved, and Adam listened to her and caved, too. It's my belief, and I've seen this belief reflected in others such as C.S. Lewis and Ted Dekkar, that sinning (doing evil things) became much easier after "The Fall of Man." I realize this is vague, and presently I will explain it to the best of my ability.
If you read Genesis, it speaks of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. It was not God's wish that we choose that fruit, because there's nothing good about evil. He only wanted good things for us, so He gave them to us. Thus we had the knowledge of Good. In the choosing of that Tree, we gained knowledge of Evil, and now that we know it and have it, it's difficult to stop. The paradise of only good was lost, and then we had evil along with the good.
That covers some of the points, but that is by no means the entire picture. I'd like to take this opportunity to commend proletaria for asking about this topic without hostility, and, as an aside to give you a bit of background on my character, would like to condemn the condemning of others. Christianity doesn't teach disowning or hatred or redneck ignorance about real issues. It just says to love God, love others, and love yourself. It is surprisingly difficult, though.
I'm a Christian. I beg your forgiveness if I seem bad at it.
I'm going to attempt to give you some responses from the perspective of the Jew who Went to Catholic School. I'm pretty bad at that, too. At least we're in good company!
With a topic title like you have, I was ready to descend with disdainful contempt on your thread and condemn it to the flames for approaching a matter such as this with such hostility. Then, I read your post and realized this was a civil discussion reaching for enlightenment, not a thinly veiled attempt at bashing my beliefs like so many I've seen before. Personally, I don't understand why people think it's fun to do that as anyone, in a moment of anger, can portray themselves and others affiliated with them as much less than they really are. But that's beside the point of this post.
Many kudos to you for approaching the topic in kind! I'm quite pleased to find both the level of discourse and the character of the participants to be mature, respectful, and open. D3 fans rock!
I believe because I choose to believe. A corollary to that, depending on your beliefs, believe it or not, is that I've been chosen to believe. Personally, I think everyone's been chosen to believe, some people just haven't chosen to believe. I'd also like to be quite clear in that I believe in the existence of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.
Here I was ready to jump on you for the assumption that being chosen to believe led your your choosing to believe, and then - lo and behold - you presented what I think is probably the most profound sentence of your entire post. That everyone is chosen to believe, but not everyone choses to do so.
However, I'm going to throw out two arguments (which are at odds with one another, but in the interest purely of exploring the choice of choosing, I present them both)
1) The old testament clearly states that the Hebrew tribe was chosen by God to be his people. The new testament will later say that this was God choosing to use them as the primary source for spreading His Good Word, and was not a choice that limited forever The Chosen to only be Jews and their descendants, but even in that case it means that no one else is truly chosen to believe until they have been told the Good Word. This would mean that, in fact, not all people are chosen to believe, because not all people have been told the Good Word of God.
2) God presents Himself as fact. No where in the bible does God every ask, tell, or command people to believe in Him. In fact, He is wholly presented as an entity the existence of which cannot be denied. Belief, then, is distilled down to merely knowledge of the existence of God. If you show someone an apple, and then ask if they believe in apples, would be a pretty silly thing to do. Likewise, once someone has been shown God, they can no more chose not to believe in Him than they can chose not to believe in apples. In this argument, it is impossible to choose not to believe once you have been chosen to do so (the assumption being that, in order to know you have been chosen to believe, God has presented himself to you such that you would understand the nature of your choosing).
While these two arguments are at odds with one another to some degree, the both lead to a similar conclusion: Some people are chosen to believe, but not everyone is. This leaves then, in God's plan, space for nonbelievers through no conscious act of the non-believing party. A very simple way to say this would be: It's okay with God if you don't believe in God. Corollary to this, I think most non-believers are perfectly fine with the existence of believers.
Thus, whether or not God exists, everyone should be perfectly happy and secure that God isn't going to get upset with either party, either because He does exist, but is okay with non-believers, or He doesn't exist, and isn't around to care either way.
Now that we've established what I believe and the bare skeleton of why, I'll go in to a bit of detail. Let's have a look at the nature of God, in particular, where He is. If wikipedia can be trusted, (I've looked for a relatively neutral source) then God omnipresent. With the linkage of space and time, as has been proven by science, this means that God is everywhen, also. Let us assume we agree thus far on the nature of God if He exists, which I maintain that He does. Simplified, God is outside outside the bounds of time and space. Forgive me if I assume that you know the difficulty in reaching any sort of evidence in proving in temporal and spatial terms the existence of the one being that is not only beyond those boundaries, but can move through them as you and I would move through water (a weak metaphor, but I hope you get my point).
I'm with you to a degree, but is there any reason you can think of why God would "move through" those boundaries rather than simultaneously existing in all places and times with no need to move at all? I've always imagined that - should a supernatural being of unlimited power exist - God would always be everywhere (and everywhen).
I've heard it claimed before that God can't exist simply because evil exists. This theory irritates me to no end because it oversimplifies. That plaintive voice whining, "How could a God that is good allow this world to be filled with such evil?" is a coward for refusing to dive deeply into the matter see what exactly happened to bring about evil. (For this point I'll speak as if you believe, pray forgive me) Simply put, man was created to love. A part of love is the ability to not love, a choosing to love. We were created to experience all good things, and one of those is obedience. To choose to love by acting not by our own will, but by another's. And so, Eve was tempted, caved, and Adam listened to her and caved, too. It's my belief, and I've seen this belief reflected in others such as C.S. Lewis and Ted Dekkar, that sinning (doing evil things) became much easier after "The Fall of Man." I realize this is vague, and presently I will explain it to the best of my ability.
If you read Genesis, it speaks of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. It was not God's wish that we choose that fruit, because there's nothing good about evil. He only wanted good things for us, so He gave them to us. Thus we had the knowledge of Good. In the choosing of that Tree, we gained knowledge of Evil, and now that we know it and have it, it's difficult to stop. The paradise of only good was lost, and then we had evil along with the good.
My understanding of the Garden of Eden would be that - prior to eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, all acts were performed in innocence and ignorance - neither good nor evil, and that - even after eating of the fruit, any act performed in innocence or ignorance would remain neither good nor evil. What changed in people was the knowledge of intent. We can - since eating the fruit - be good, or be evil. It was a blessing and a curse. The ability to act with moral intent is what we gained from that Tree. Similarly, one could view the punishment of being tossed out of the Garden as an interpretation of the result of knowing that moral acts existed: Adam and Eve simply could not abide a place where all acts were acts of naiveté, nor could such a place abide them.
I don't believe that the Paradise was a place of pure good. Clearly, there was a snake there whose actions were not "good." Rather, I believe that the Paradise was a place where creatures were unable to act with any desire to harm or benefit. It was a place of pure curiosity. I believe that the snake was curious as to what would happen if someone ate from the tree, but I do not believe that a snake such as that would be allowed in the Garden at all if the Garden was a place of pure Good.
That covers some of the points, but that is by no means the entire picture. I'd like to take this opportunity to commend proletaria for asking about this topic without hostility, and, as an aside to give you a bit of background on my character, would like to condemn the condemning of others. Christianity doesn't teach disowning or hatred or redneck ignorance about real issues. It just says to love God, love others, and love yourself. It is surprisingly difficult, though.
I have been called many things nonbeliever, atheist, nihilist, satanist, etc…
My point of view is that:
“Gods do exist and they will continue to exist for as long as someone believes in them.
But it’s not the Gods who created humanity, instead is humanity who have created the Gods, to explain the things they can’t explain, to have something to hang on when they are in despair, to divert the attention of the masses from more important things, etc.”
So yeah it exists, it’s our creation we have to accept and live with it.
To all believers, hope is the last to die, keep believing hopefully one day you will have evidence that your believe is right and I’m wrong, and the same go for me.
However, I'm going to throw out two arguments (which are at odds with one another, but in the interest purely of exploring the choice of choosing, I present them both)
1) The old testament clearly states that the Hebrew tribe was chosen by God to be his people. The new testament will later say that this was God choosing to use them as the primary source for spreading His Good Word, and was not a choice that limited forever The Chosen to only be Jews and their descendants, but even in that case it means that no one else is truly chosen to believe until they have been told the Good Word. This would mean that, in fact, not all people are chosen to believe, because not all people have been told the Good Word of God.
2) God presents Himself as fact. No where in the bible does God every ask, tell, or command people to believe in Him. In fact, He is wholly presented as an entity the existence of which cannot be denied. Belief, then, is distilled down to merely knowledge of the existence of God. If you show someone an apple, and then ask if they believe in apples, would be a pretty silly thing to do. Likewise, once someone has been shown God, they can no more chose not to believe in Him than they can chose not to believe in apples. In this argument, it is impossible to choose not to believe once you have been chosen to do so (the assumption being that, in order to know you have been chosen to believe, God has presented himself to you such that you would understand the nature of your choosing).
While these two arguments are at odds with one another to some degree, the both lead to a similar conclusion: Some people are chosen to believe, but not everyone is. This leaves then, in God's plan, space for nonbelievers through no conscious act of the non-believing party. A very simple way to say this would be: It's okay with God if you don't believe in God. Corollary to this, I think most non-believers are perfectly fine with the existence of believers.
Thus, whether or not God exists, everyone should be perfectly happy and secure that God isn't going to get upset with either party, either because He does exist, but is okay with non-believers, or He doesn't exist, and isn't around to care either way.
I'd rather not debate doctrinal differences in this thread, no offense intended, but since you addressed it, the least I can do is respond.
1) It seems to me what you're getting at is similar to what we debated in high school as the "White Room Baby." (essentially it's a baby raised in a white room with no contact with people and the question is posed "will it go to heaven?" my response was "why on earth would someone do that?") My response to this is to thank God that I don't have to judge those people that haven't heard the Good Word, as you put it. Yes, I dodged the question. Speculating what happens after our death is a little foolish, given how little we've been told. Speculating about what happens after someone else's death is more than a little foolish, for who can fully know another man? I'll not do it.
2) This argument ran by me a little fast, it seemed ready to collapse all by itself :(. Yes, there are instances in the Bible where the existence of God is treated as a given, but belief and faith by no means discounted. There's plenty of instances where the reality of God shocks those involved. And just as many instances where doubt plays a role in events.
If I were an arguing man, I'd concede the point about there being room for unbelievers in God's plan. I'd place them as a) uninformed or skeptics or c) followers of a different religion. I'm tired and have lost the thread of what I'm trying to explain.......... It was something about loving people, I think... Or maybe not being concerned with hypothetical ignorant savages, instead concentrating on living your life as best as you can? It was something like that..... Fuck it, Jesus rescues me from my sins, I'm sure He wont leave people hanging out to dry just because they haven't heard of Him.
I'm with you to a degree, but is there any reason you can think of why God would "move through" those boundaries rather than simultaneously existing in all places and times with no need to move at all? I've always imagined that - should a supernatural being of unlimited power exist - God would always be everywhere (and everywhen).
Yes that's what I was trying to get at through metaphor. Apparently I'm not as good at metaphor as I thought I was.
My understanding of the Garden of Eden would be that - prior to eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, all acts were performed in innocence and ignorance - neither good nor evil, and that - even after eating of the fruit, any act performed in innocence or ignorance would remain neither good nor evil. What changed in people was the knowledge of intent. We can - since eating the fruit - be good, or be evil. It was a blessing and a curse. The ability to act with moral intent is what we gained from that Tree. Similarly, one could view the punishment of being tossed out of the Garden as an interpretation of the result of knowing that moral acts existed: Adam and Eve simply could not abide a place where all acts were acts of naiveté, nor could such a place abide them.
I don't believe that the Paradise was a place of pure good. Clearly, there was a snake there whose actions were not "good." Rather, I believe that the Paradise was a place where creatures were unable to act with any desire to harm or benefit. It was a place of pure curiosity. I believe that the snake was curious as to what would happen if someone ate from the tree, but I do not believe that a snake such as that would be allowed in the Garden at all if the Garden was a place of pure Good.
Nope, there had to be an ability to choose in order to fully love. You can't force love, otherwise it's mind control (you get the picture). Lucifer had to be there, had to be able to tempt them so that they could act out of God's will and obey. For what is obedience if all of God's commands were in line with Man's will? There had to be something that was contrary to what our desires are for us to truly choose to love God. As for everything being amoral in the Garden of Eden, that doesn't seem logical.
****************************************************************************************************************
I said I didn't want to debate doctrinal differences in this thread, and I still don't. I only wanted to outline that I believe, what I believe, and respond to a common argument I've seen.
How does one distinguish between parts of the Bible are factual/literal and those that are symbolic/metaphoric? I realize you can't speak for everyone, so how do you decide which is which? If you were making these claims only a few hundred years ago you would either be imprisoned, tortured, or executed for going against the biblical canon (and I would be too I should add). This of course says nothing on the topic of god existing or not, I am just trying to show how literal the Bible was taken. Secular governments play a big role in your freedom to interpret the Bible as you see fit.
You are correct evolution is a theory, however you are wrong to associate faith with theories. Maybe you are confused with the differences between hypothesis and theory. Faith is belief without evidence and a (scientific)theory in laymans terms is belief because of evidence. A difference between religious faith/assumption and scientific theory is that theories are usually open ended. What I mean is theories allow for more knowledge(from evidence and testing) on the subject to become part of the theory, and generally this doesn't happen in religion.
Here is a video I found interesting. In my opinion it does a good job showing biological evolution(aka adaptation).
http://www.cultureunplugged.com/play/6889/Life-in-Hell---Survivors-of-Darkness Kinda ironic that hell is in the title haha.
It is a 49 minute long documentary so I don't expect you to watch the entire thing. Basically it shows how various animals and insects have changed due to living in rare caves cut off from light, oxygen, and fresh water. Most of the creatures turn translucent white over time (I am talking generations), and because they are always in darkness they become blind and eventually are born without eyes at all (but retain eye sockets so the scientists know that species once had eyes)
Again, scientific theories aren't based off of assumptions and are usually the complete opposite of faith.
It may be, but that isn't useful to this conversation (or any other one, lest you are discussing Descartes). We can safely say, of that possiblity, that we cannot make a claim one way or the other.
I think that world would be interesting too, but it evidently isn't the world we live in. You dodged the question.
No, they arent. And the fact we are having this conversation right now is indicative that the world isn't "false." What I believe? I don't believe anything. Science does not require that one believe anything. I have explained this to you on this very page now, more than once. Stop making that fallacious claim. All that matters is not what I (don't) believe. I have been explicitly clear that what other people believe effects others. It effects you, it effects me, and it effects the whole of our species.
You could present me with compelling evidence such that I have reason to make an assertion that god exists, but I am not one to believe anything. I will not make an assumption without any evidence. That flys in the face of everything that I am as a rational human being. If god "himself," came down to me, I wouldn't know what he looked like. I'd have to contrive a very clever test in order to convince myself he was actually godlike rather than just a very advanced alien being. After all, I don't make assertions that I cannot verify with evidence and it would be difficult neigh-impossible to find evidence for omnipotence. Would a meeting of that sort matter to me? Of course it would. I never once stated that I don't believe it's possible that there is a god. I stated, every single time, that I have no evidence one way or the other. If there were one and if he happened to grace me with his presence, by golly I would be thrilled.
What if my lack of faith condemns me to hell? Hmm, well, since we're talking about christian god, i'll be there with all the other denominations of christian who were wrong, all the jews, hindus, buddhists, and every person who existed before the time of christ. Kidding aside, what you just used is called Pascal's Wager. And since you're assuming that your god is omnipotent and omniscient, don't you think he would know when people genuinely believed or not? Don't you think (since you say he created all of us) that he knows I am incapable of belief? Do you really think your god is cruel and capricious enough to condemn those who have been born outside the message of his church and might save me for faking a belief that I will never hold?
It would be my opinion that this offer is bogus. If that god does know all, love all, and create all, he knows i'm an atheist and he still loves me. If that god does know all, create all, and still have the caprice to desire fake believers and smite people unfortunate enough to not be born into christian communities: Well, if he is that much of an evil being, there is no reason for me to believe there is any such thing as heaven.
I take it you believe preceisely because you are afraid of the consequences if you don't. Is that a fair asessment?
Personally I like to think more like Dae here. It simply seems more likely that all of this was designed rather than randomly poofing into existence.
Let me pose a question to you:
You walk into a kitchen and see a cake has splattered all across the floor. Upon further analysis, you realize there are words spelled out from splattered cake, on the floor reading "I fell for you".
What is more likely; the cake fell with the perfect conditions to splatter in such a way that it spelled out those words? Or that someone came along, knocked over the cake, and proceeded to run their fingers through the cake on the floor, to spell out those words.
What are the odds that my existence on this earth is completely by chance? Randomly, everything in the universe worked out so well that, by chance, I simply exist?
Out of all the billions of species on this planet, why is it that only humans were able to evolve to a point of removing ourselves from nature and effectively removing ourselves from anywhere but the top of the foodchain? Why is it just us?
Of course, I fully expect a response with assuring knowledge that there is a reasonable explanation for all of this. So I'm pretty much just typing to hear myself type here. I should go to sleep...
Just got done reading about several near death experiences by blind people who are able to see during the period of death and recall details no blind person would ever know(There's a reasonable explanation, I know, I know!). The nde's are interesting. Dmt could be involved. But the recollection of detail is what gets me.
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
I know it wasn't addressed to me but since I share a similar view I'll reply. I decide which is fact and fiction by reading and deciphering, Usually thew ones where God Directly talks/interacts with a person it is usually meant to be taken metaphorically/figuratively and you are just supposed to take the meaning. Some are fictional stories and are meant to be taken as figurative lessons on how to act or behave to make the most out of this world, So I just assume most of them are Fake. The only ones I take as fact are the Jesus stories. Considering our years are based on his birth I'd say it is safe to assume he was alive. But in the case that he is not well Then I'm surely mistaken.
What God?
Hmm well I meant no prime source being. It could be eternal or it was created on it's own in some way. I didn't mean for nothing to sound offensive like I shrug off this belief completely. It's of course very possible. Like I said I just choose to believe in a being like you choose NOT to.
It seems like at the base level the more logic minded people will choose atheism and the more creative minded will choose a creator of some sort.
Not that either one is wrong or bad.
Perhaps I'm mistaken though. Was it logic that drove you ultimately to your beliefs? I agree logically there's no real reason to include God, but I also don't see a reason not to. We have choices. I don't subscribe myself to any singular God or being.
Belief has nothing to do with evidence, you're mincing terms again. Furthermore, you've got a diffirent definition of evidence than the rest of us. I have seen articles about loch ness being dredged, sonar'd, and drag netted for decades. If all we have to show for that are blurry (and some fake) photos and eye-witness accounts, I don't feel that qualifies as evidence. It is hear-say.
I've insisted several times now that "poofing," is not required, but if that's all you can come up with... I suppose I understand why you're making that decision.
How is this analogous to the universe? What is it that you are claiming as evidence for a deliberate design insted of an evolved natrual explanation in the case of the universe. I would agree, in the case of the cake, you are describing human interaction with the cake, but I disagree that this is in any way analogous to the universe as we understand it today.
We don't know those odds. What we do know; however, is that nothing in the universe would exist as it does without the laws of physics being what they are. This is a zero-sum approach. We're either here or we are not. Evidently we are here and thus we know the universe is such that we can be here. We don't know how "well," it works because we have no point of comparison. There are no other universes we can see to tell us wether or not ours is fine-tuned for life or not.
Why is it just us? Because our brains evolved where other animals had not. You can study genetics and neurology to get a better grasp on what made the mammals and the apes diffirent. This isn't indicative of design, it is simply an expression of how evolution has turned out.
I'd love to read these, any chance at a link?
How do you read and decipher the parts taken literally and the parts metaphorically? It seems you're aware some stories are fictional, but you do believe that one of the most incredible stories is true. So what is the litmus test? By what criteria do you say "well, that was really bad, I shouldn't do that literally," or "hmm that's a good thing, I should literally do that." ?
There's a fundamental philosophical exercise for proving that anything exists. The litmus test, if you will, is to turn the "Prove X exists" around on the person asking the initial question.
The classic example is "Prove that this chair exists." It's ostensibly a test of perceived reality vs. actual reality. The response that proves the existence of the chair, in the most simple and obvious fashion, is to ask "What chair?" The person who challenged with the initial proof is now stuck. They either have to say "That one" and admit that they truly believe that the chair exists within their perceived reality, even when the it is fully possible that the person whom they asked does not believe that any chair exists, OR the person who posed the initial question has to admit that they issued a proof challenge for something that they literally cannot perceive in any way.
The postulate offered by the OP, then, is explicitly "Prove to me that God exists."
So here's the philosophical challenge: "What God?"
I ask that, in the vein of the current discussion (which I really enjoy, by the way), please seriously consider your answer and try to specify what you're talking about before jumping to any statement of "I don't know what God is." There's more to this whole train of thought, but I need to know what you're really describing as the God you want us to prove before we move forward with the discussion from this philosophical direction.
I don't have beliefs. As I said, I don't make any assertions without evidence. I suggested an alternative to your "nothing," simply because I thought you were being too limited in your possibilities and I was feeling creative. I think it is intersting though that while we both agree that it is impossible to assert god or not god, you insist we have no reason to reject the notion as though I am accepting the opposite (that there must not be god).
I have no idea if the universe is eternal, but it makes more sense than god being eternal and creating the universe simple because it is less complex. But, like I said, I cannot assert either view since I have no evidence of either view at this time. I don't know and i'm not uncomfortable not knowing. I assert that is the diffirence between the athiest and the believer, especially the believer who knows that he is making an illogical choice to believe.
Where the atheist is comfortable being in doubt, not knowing exactly how the universe works, the believer really wants there to be certainty(god, heaven, hell) or to know something for certain(exacly what happens when we die, exactly what kind of morality we should practice, exactly how we should live our daily lives). Of course that may not always be the case (and probably isn't in your case), i'm simply basing this on the replies i've had, personal messages, and what I have read from theists during my lifetime.
Well, we still haven't even managed to establish wether or not there is a god (by any definition) or not. Although I guess I haven't impressed that issue upon some of the other posters very well (or they've decided to ignore it). =)
Backing up Proletaria:
Quote 1: There is no such evidence proving the existence of big foot or the lockness monster. Eye witness accounts and fake photographs do not count as evidence as these sources are not entirely accurate and divulge much information that affiliates with the term proof. First off - eye witness accounts differ, thus their is no reliability with them. Photographs are few in number resulting in loss of validity. Thus you have you 3 terms of what is evidence: accuracy, reliability and validity.
(BTW what does this have to do with the topic?)
Quote 2: If you research into quantum mechanics, specifically the applications of quantum chemistry and physics you will understand that atoms share certain forms of "attraction" with other specific atoms when certain amounts of energy accommodate for fusion between different elements, when subjugated between the weak and strong nuclear forces of differing nucleons. My point being that, our sun (stars being the producers of elements of the periodic table, heavier elements requiring higher temperatures), over the 4 billion years that the Earth has been around for, has provided its limited amount of energy to "excite" atoms in a way to produce the structure of our Earth and everything inside it, along with the exact specific amount of elements available from other stars within the universe. This means that this universe was not in fact randomly designed, but created with a set structure resulting from the laws of physics in reference to the Big Bang and the positioning of our solar system. It wasn't random, its known as a fond word scientists like to use called: coincidence.
Quote 3: WTF?
Quote 4: Refer to quote 2, also your existence in this universe is extremely likely due to the massive scale of the universe and what was said in quote 2.
(And on that note, i'm going to get some rest.)
Agreed, so I'm asking you to tell me what your definition is. When you say "Prove to me that God exists" what is the thing you're asking me to prove? What is your definition of "God." I think it's safe to say that any and all belief systems have shared practices of determining what a God is and what isn't a God. Ergo, we need to start with knowing what your belief system (since you claim atheism, and not nihilism) would frame as a God before we start to put anything into that framework.
I'll stipulate here that a major trait of beliefs is that people tend to cling to them regardless of evidence, be it real or imagined. Very, very few people truly put their beliefs to the test with an honest and open mind that is willing to accept that the test might show their beliefs to be false. As such, I'm viewing this whole discussion as more of an exercise than a truly ground-breaking God vs. Nogod discussion. Finer minds than mine have debated this point for generations and no unassailable arguments have come from it, on either side.
I guess really what I deem morally correct. I find the ones that have God interacting directly with a human to be false because if he had shown himself then why not now? Also with the morally correct ones I guess you just have to read and see. Some propose god as a hateful being smiting those who do him injustice, I don't take lose literally either and say its a metaphor for punishing those who deserve punishment, in the form of legal justice of course. If I read a story on how a man gave everything he owns to someone who has nothing I take that literally, and believe I should be giving most if not all of my possessions to someone less fortunate, make everything equal fair and just. If I read a story though about how god was displeased with the way humans were acting and decided to kill us all off in a flood, I take that figuratively and take it as we are meant to do good and please our God, if they do not then we should punish those legally, through our court system. Simple things like this, if it seems reasonable for someone to do something literally like give their belongings to someone else why not take that literally. The other more abstract ones such as Noah's ark should be taken figuratively because we obviously see it is false. Jesus turning water to wine for example. I don't take it literally, some people do some people do I guess it is preference but I don't see it as truth. I find it a tale of how we should do everything in our power to help one another, and to do everything to right others wrongs so we can make this place a better place to live in. Some people believe it is a miracle story of Jesus, honestly it is preference my preferences are if it is morally correct in my mind, i.e just good, ethically correct, for the betterment of mankind. Then sure why not be taken literally but it has to stay within the boundaries set forth by science to me, i.e newtons laws and such. So I guess I have two cutoffs first it must be morally correct to me then it has to pass science before I can say I believe in it to be literal.
+1 for this also, this is a very concise explanation of current scientific theories.
Adding on to it: The thing we don't know right now is why this specific set of laws governing our physical universe is the set of laws that governs the universe. Very near to the initial instant of the Big Bang (and by this I mean a fraction of a fraction of a nanosecond), the laws of physics sort of congealed into the first sub atomic particles of a size that we can measure today, and from that moment onward, all physical interactions in the universe (in so far as we can tell) have been dictated by the same sets of laws and limitations. However, it was just as likely, from what we can tell, that a different set of physical laws would have taken hold, and an entirely different universe would have formed. In fact, this may have happened as well, and may have happened many, many more times, which is what leads to the "Multiverse" theories. If that happened, then we live in a "Bubble Universe" type of multiverse, where there are several universes each with different sets of physical constraints (these are the Type 2 Multiverses in the wikipedia link below).
The more popular theories today, however, tend to do with Type 3 Multiverses (personally I enjoy the concept of a modified Type 3, namely one in which divergent universes can still interact (and indeed may be constantly interacting but the experience of them is distilled by our perceptions of them... We view time linearly; we may view universes as a simple point in a much larger canvas, unaware of - and unable to measure - any motion between the universes). Type 4 is certainly a broad stroke... basically it says that if you can describe something with math, then it is real. This would indicate that, if there is a God, He can be described with a mathematical formula. How brash!
Anyway, here's the wikipedia article on Multiverses; I find it pertinent to the discussion of God's possible existence to know what universe(s) said God may or may not be ruling over.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
Alright, I didn't read the entire topic since I'm a bit on the lazy side, but I'm sure some fantastic points have been made on the religious side of the debate, and some incredible logical fallacies pointed out by the (for the sake of brevity, I'll generalize) atheists.
First off, I'd like to discuss the thesis of your first post, proletaria:
With a topic title like you have, I was ready to descend with disdainful contempt on your thread and condemn it to the flames for approaching a matter such as this with such hostility. Then, I read your post and realized this was a civil discussion reaching for enlightenment, not a thinly veiled attempt at bashing my beliefs like so many I've seen before. Personally, I don't understand why people think it's fun to do that as anyone, in a moment of anger, can portray themselves and others affiliated with them as much less than they really are. But that's beside the point of this post.
I believe because I choose to believe. A corollary to that, depending on your beliefs, believe it or not, is that I've been chosen to believe. Personally, I think everyone's been chosen to believe, some people just haven't chosen to believe. I'd also like to be quite clear in that I believe in the existence of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.
Now that we've established what I believe and the bare skeleton of why, I'll go in to a bit of detail. Let's have a look at the nature of God, in particular, where He is. If wikipedia can be trusted, (I've looked for a relatively neutral source) then God omnipresent. With the linkage of space and time, as has been proven by science, this means that God is everywhen, also. Let us assume we agree thus far on the nature of God if He exists, which I maintain that He does. Simplified, God is outside outside the bounds of time and space. Forgive me if I assume that you know the difficulty in reaching any sort of evidence in proving in temporal and spatial terms the existence of the one being that is not only beyond those boundaries, but can move through them as you and I would move through water (a weak metaphor, but I hope you get my point).
I've heard it claimed before that God can't exist simply because evil exists. This theory irritates me to no end because it oversimplifies. That plaintive voice whining, "How could a God that is good allow this world to be filled with such evil?" is a coward for refusing to dive deeply into the matter see what exactly happened to bring about evil. (For this point I'll speak as if you believe, pray forgive me) Simply put, man was created to love. A part of love is the ability to not love, a choosing to love. We were created to experience all good things, and one of those is obedience. To choose to love by acting not by our own will, but by another's. And so, Eve was tempted, caved, and Adam listened to her and caved, too. It's my belief, and I've seen this belief reflected in others such as C.S. Lewis and Ted Dekkar, that sinning (doing evil things) became much easier after "The Fall of Man." I realize this is vague, and presently I will explain it to the best of my ability.
If you read Genesis, it speaks of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. It was not God's wish that we choose that fruit, because there's nothing good about evil. He only wanted good things for us, so He gave them to us. Thus we had the knowledge of Good. In the choosing of that Tree, we gained knowledge of Evil, and now that we know it and have it, it's difficult to stop. The paradise of only good was lost, and then we had evil along with the good.
That covers some of the points, but that is by no means the entire picture. I'd like to take this opportunity to commend proletaria for asking about this topic without hostility, and, as an aside to give you a bit of background on my character, would like to condemn the condemning of others. Christianity doesn't teach disowning or hatred or redneck ignorance about real issues. It just says to love God, love others, and love yourself. It is surprisingly difficult, though.
Many kudos to you for approaching the topic in kind! I'm quite pleased to find both the level of discourse and the character of the participants to be mature, respectful, and open. D3 fans rock!
Here I was ready to jump on you for the assumption that being chosen to believe led your your choosing to believe, and then - lo and behold - you presented what I think is probably the most profound sentence of your entire post. That everyone is chosen to believe, but not everyone choses to do so.
However, I'm going to throw out two arguments (which are at odds with one another, but in the interest purely of exploring the choice of choosing, I present them both)
1) The old testament clearly states that the Hebrew tribe was chosen by God to be his people. The new testament will later say that this was God choosing to use them as the primary source for spreading His Good Word, and was not a choice that limited forever The Chosen to only be Jews and their descendants, but even in that case it means that no one else is truly chosen to believe until they have been told the Good Word. This would mean that, in fact, not all people are chosen to believe, because not all people have been told the Good Word of God.
2) God presents Himself as fact. No where in the bible does God every ask, tell, or command people to believe in Him. In fact, He is wholly presented as an entity the existence of which cannot be denied. Belief, then, is distilled down to merely knowledge of the existence of God. If you show someone an apple, and then ask if they believe in apples, would be a pretty silly thing to do. Likewise, once someone has been shown God, they can no more chose not to believe in Him than they can chose not to believe in apples. In this argument, it is impossible to choose not to believe once you have been chosen to do so (the assumption being that, in order to know you have been chosen to believe, God has presented himself to you such that you would understand the nature of your choosing).
While these two arguments are at odds with one another to some degree, the both lead to a similar conclusion: Some people are chosen to believe, but not everyone is. This leaves then, in God's plan, space for nonbelievers through no conscious act of the non-believing party. A very simple way to say this would be: It's okay with God if you don't believe in God. Corollary to this, I think most non-believers are perfectly fine with the existence of believers.
Thus, whether or not God exists, everyone should be perfectly happy and secure that God isn't going to get upset with either party, either because He does exist, but is okay with non-believers, or He doesn't exist, and isn't around to care either way.
I'm with you to a degree, but is there any reason you can think of why God would "move through" those boundaries rather than simultaneously existing in all places and times with no need to move at all? I've always imagined that - should a supernatural being of unlimited power exist - God would always be everywhere (and everywhen).
My understanding of the Garden of Eden would be that - prior to eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, all acts were performed in innocence and ignorance - neither good nor evil, and that - even after eating of the fruit, any act performed in innocence or ignorance would remain neither good nor evil. What changed in people was the knowledge of intent. We can - since eating the fruit - be good, or be evil. It was a blessing and a curse. The ability to act with moral intent is what we gained from that Tree. Similarly, one could view the punishment of being tossed out of the Garden as an interpretation of the result of knowing that moral acts existed: Adam and Eve simply could not abide a place where all acts were acts of naiveté, nor could such a place abide them.
I don't believe that the Paradise was a place of pure good. Clearly, there was a snake there whose actions were not "good." Rather, I believe that the Paradise was a place where creatures were unable to act with any desire to harm or benefit. It was a place of pure curiosity. I believe that the snake was curious as to what would happen if someone ate from the tree, but I do not believe that a snake such as that would be allowed in the Garden at all if the Garden was a place of pure Good.
Amen brother.
My point of view is that:
“Gods do exist and they will continue to exist for as long as someone believes in them.
But it’s not the Gods who created humanity, instead is humanity who have created the Gods, to explain the things they can’t explain, to have something to hang on when they are in despair, to divert the attention of the masses from more important things, etc.”
So yeah it exists, it’s our creation we have to accept and live with it.
To all believers, hope is the last to die, keep believing hopefully one day you will have evidence that your believe is right and I’m wrong, and the same go for me.
I'd rather not debate doctrinal differences in this thread, no offense intended, but since you addressed it, the least I can do is respond.
1) It seems to me what you're getting at is similar to what we debated in high school as the "White Room Baby." (essentially it's a baby raised in a white room with no contact with people and the question is posed "will it go to heaven?" my response was "why on earth would someone do that?") My response to this is to thank God that I don't have to judge those people that haven't heard the Good Word, as you put it. Yes, I dodged the question. Speculating what happens after our death is a little foolish, given how little we've been told. Speculating about what happens after someone else's death is more than a little foolish, for who can fully know another man? I'll not do it.
2) This argument ran by me a little fast, it seemed ready to collapse all by itself :(. Yes, there are instances in the Bible where the existence of God is treated as a given, but belief and faith by no means discounted. There's plenty of instances where the reality of God shocks those involved. And just as many instances where doubt plays a role in events.
If I were an arguing man, I'd concede the point about there being room for unbelievers in God's plan. I'd place them as a) uninformed or
Yes that's what I was trying to get at through metaphor. Apparently I'm not as good at metaphor as I thought I was.
Nope, there had to be an ability to choose in order to fully love. You can't force love, otherwise it's mind control (you get the picture). Lucifer had to be there, had to be able to tempt them so that they could act out of God's will and obey. For what is obedience if all of God's commands were in line with Man's will? There had to be something that was contrary to what our desires are for us to truly choose to love God. As for everything being amoral in the Garden of Eden, that doesn't seem logical.
****************************************************************************************************************
I said I didn't want to debate doctrinal differences in this thread, and I still don't. I only wanted to outline that I believe, what I believe, and respond to a common argument I've seen.
I look forward to it and I agree. It's sleepy-time!