• Congratulations to the Class of 2024 on your results!
    Let us know how you went here
    Got a question about your uni preferences? Ask us here

Does God exist? (9 Viewers)

do you believe in god?


  • Total voters
    1,570

Kiraken

RISK EVERYTHING
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
1,908
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
You keep saying that I'm missing the point when you're the one who is unable to actually provide any systematic reply to anything I've said, and instead have resorted to quoting my whole post so you could safely ignore certain parts of my post



Then how about you show it instead of asserting it



You need to make an actual argument and show why this is the case




This shows that you have ignored my explanation as to why that which is "illogical" is not an actual "thing" and so it is still not coherent to talk about "limits"



Them having an explanation only in a deity does not entail it being illogical, you need to provide proof as to how that would be illogical.



Illogical is literally defying logic. You can go argue with pastor bob if you want, he seems to be more at your level and might agree with you.



Assuming "laws of nature" exist, sure, but that is dubious and requires proof



This shows that you have ignored everything I have said on the cosmological arguments. "First" is quite clearly not only first in a temporal sense, it could mean "first" in an ontological sense. Where a being is the First cause, meaning it is the ground of all being like in Thomist arguments.
what do you mean show it instead of assert it? Show what? That's the relationship between Euthyphro dilemna and Omnipotence, what else is there to show?

I do not know how to phrase it more simply but I'm assuming you don't have an argument against it and that is why you're choosing not to reply to it directly.

Is morality a notion separate from God? If it is, then God therefore must ascribe to the notion of it when performing things that are "good" or "bad". Of course this is not an issue if morality is entirely dependent on God, but in that case the burden of proof is on you to prove that.

I ignored your explanation because it's just a denial of what illogical actually *means*. You cannot just say "no i don't believe that is what illogical means" and then ignore the definition lol.

I'm not sure you understand how burden of proof works, the burden of proof does not lie on a person to prove something is illogical, it lies on the person proving if it is logical. Claiming that I need to prove it's illogical while saying God is a logical solution without any proof is simply a "god of the gaps" argument.

What do you mean the "laws of nature" is dubious and requires proof? So gravity doesn't exist? So science doesn't exist? So the directly observable phenomena around us does not exist?

Please elaborate what you mean by "first" in the ontological sense then.
 

Kiraken

RISK EVERYTHING
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
1,908
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
That is because logic is a necessary truth, mathematics is a necessary truth, "everything that begins to exist has a cause" is a necessary truth and etc.

"Gravity" is not a necessary truth, and etc.

You need to actually read about modality before dealing with my terminology
What makes them necessary truths and not gravity? Or physical and observed phenomena?
 

Sy123

This too shall pass
Joined
Nov 6, 2011
Messages
3,730
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
what do you mean show it instead of assert it? Show what? That's the relationship between Euthyphro dilemna and Omnipotence, what else is there to show?
There is a reason I quote specific parts of your post at a time

You said:

"No, it [logicality of omnipotence] is DEFINITELY affected and that is the *entire* point of that argument"

You need to show that

I do not know how to phrase it more simply but I'm assuming you don't have an argument against it and that is why you're choosing not to reply to it directly.
I'm not asking you to phrase your position, I'm asking you to prove your position

Is morality a notion separate from God? If it is, then God therefore must ascribe to the notion of it when performing things that are "good" or "bad". Of course this is not an issue if morality is entirely dependent on God, but in that case the burden of proof is on you to prove that.
I have no burden of proof of anything, you are the one who is giving an objection to the concept of omnipotence, and so you need to show that the idea of morality being dependent solely on God, to be impossible.

I ignored your explanation because it's just a denial of what illogical actually *means*. You cannot just say "no i don't believe that is what illogical means" and then ignore the definition lol.
You are misusing the, you can keep ignoring it, but you tend to ignore important points anyway.

I'm not sure you understand how burden of proof works, the burden of proof does not lie on a person to prove something is illogical, it lies on the person proving if it is logical. Claiming that I need to prove it's illogical while saying God is a logical solution without any proof is simply a "god of the gaps" argument.
This is confused. You are objecting to the concept of omnipotence, and so if you want to say that omnipotence is impossible, then you need to show that. I'm not saying anything like "God is a logical solution", I'm not giving a solution to anything.

What do you mean the "laws of nature" is dubious and requires proof? So gravity doesn't exist? So science doesn't exist? So the directly observable phenomena around us does not exist?
The word "law" is dubious, what do you mean by "law"? If by "law" you mean a principle of reality that cannot be contradicted, then obviously gravity is not a law, because there are possible worlds in which gravity does not exist. If by "law" you simply mean a regularity in creation, then clearly gravity is a law, but there is no contradiction in gravity not working since even if gravity is violated once or twice, its still regular.

Please elaborate what you mean by "first" in the ontological sense then.
It really just means a being that is source of existence of all else. So a being that is uniquely necessary in existence, or a being that is uncaused, or a being that does not have its causal power derive from anything else, or a uniquely eternal being, etc.
 

Sy123

This too shall pass
Joined
Nov 6, 2011
Messages
3,730
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
What makes them necessary truths and not gravity? Or physical and observed phenomena?
The word "law" is dubious, what do you mean by "law"? If by "law" you mean a principle of reality that cannot be contradicted, then obviously gravity is not a law, because there are possible worlds in which gravity does not exist. If by "law" you simply mean a regularity in creation, then clearly gravity is a law, but there is no contradiction in gravity not working since even if gravity is violated once or twice, its still regular.
.
 

dan964

what
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
3,480
Location
South of here
Gender
Male
HSC
2014
Uni Grad
2019
From OP
Claim: The religious text contains many prophecies that have accurately been fulfilled, proving it is a divine source. (A terrible claim; a better claim would actually to established the historical accuracy, with the context of the literary genre of course, and then the argument given for using a religious text to prove God exists is then valid because it goes like this:

1. The text is accurate and reliable
2. The text is truthful
3. The text says that God exists
4. The text also claims it is the Word of God
)

Rebuttal (my comments in purple)
1. There are several mundane ways in which a prediction of the future can be fulfilled:
o Retrodiction. The "prophecy" can be written or modified after the events fulfilling it have already occurred.
o Vagueness. The prophecy can be worded in such a way that people can interpret any outcome as a fulfillment. Nostradomus's prophecies are all of this type. Vagueness works particularly well when people are religiously motivated to believe the prophecies.
o Inevitability. The prophecy can predict something that is almost sure to happen, such as the collapse of a city. Since nothing lasts forever, the city is sure to fall someday. If it has not, it can be said that according to prophecy, it will.
o Denial. One can claim that the fulfilling events occurred even if they have not. Or, more commonly, one can forget that the prophecy was ever made.
o Self-fulfillment. A person can act deliberately to satisfy a known prophecy.

There are no prophecies in religious texts that cannot easily fit into one or more of those categories.
Provide a valid example. The only one that is of any interest is 'denial' which is to look for any prophecy that hasn't been fulfilled and thus say the text is wrong. Though some prophecies are not yet fulfilled nor were they predictions but rather telling it as it is.
Inevitability - it is more so how and the timeframe (roughly) that makes it less of inevitable. It is the detail that nullifies this and the vagueness of the prophecy (in most cases).
Retrodiction - provide a valid example please
Self-Fulfillment - any example in this category does not nullify the rest of the text, as it is still a fulfilment abeit intentional. I see no problems with this.


2. In biblical times, prophecies were not simply predictions.
Not always. Sometimes they were declarations particularly in the book of Isaiah. Prophecy also has two meanings, foretelling and forthtelling, telling as it will be or telling it as it is. Daniel 9 has a remarkable prophecy that accurate predicts the coming of the Christ in 31AD (Palm Sunday).

Also the book of Luke was written as an orderly historical account.

They were warnings of what could or would happen if things did not change. They were meant to influence people's behavior. If the people heeded the prophecy, the events would not come to pass. A fulfilled prophecy was a failed prophecy, because it meant people did not heed the warning.


3. Specifically, the Bible contains failed prophecies, in the sense that things God said would happen did not (Skeptic's Annotated Bible n.d.). For example:
o Joshua said that God would, without fail, drive out the Jebusites and Canaanites, among others (Josh. 3:9-10). But those tribes were not driven out (Josh. 15:63, 17:12-13).
I am not sure whether this would classify as prophecy, not does it mention ‘all’ nations will be wiped out. I read and think motivational speaking.

o Isaiah 17:1-3 says that Damascus will cease to be a city and be deserted forever, yet it is inhabited still.
(1) Damascus was indeed destroyed, no mention of it being rebuilt, no mention of being destroyed forever.
(2) Ephraim is actually a reference to Israel. There is a book that sits on my shelf that has countless examples of ancients cities that have either been destroyed or rebuilt, I should put together a list, and their exact destruction is foretold.

o Ezekiel said Egypt would be made an uninhabited wasteland for forty years (29:10-14), and Nebuchadnezzar would plunder it (29:19-20). Neither happened.
Some people suggest errors in Egyptian chronology. One other suggestion is to note that Jewish use number symbolism, particularly the numbers 7, 12, 40 and 1000 are very significant.
I attached a relevant link in response to these. The second one is likely fulfilled in the defeat of Egypt at the hands of the Babylon.
4. Other religions claim many fulfilled prophecies, too.
Unsubstantiated claim without example,

5. For Christians, divinity is not shown by miracles. The Bible itself says true prophecies may come elsewhere than from God (Deut. 13:1-3), as may other miracles (Exod. 7:22, Matt. 4:8).
Miracles are not the same as prophecies, so the first statement is not really relevant, although it is true. (2) I dispute ‘true’ prophecies, also the quoted text is taken out of context. Elsewhere it says that you know if a prophet is a false prophet (not of the Lord/God that is), if the prophecy does not come to pass (in the case of a prediction).


Side Note:
Christianity is an interesting case because it is verifiable through Jesus. (Insert comment regarding other religions)
Credible historians agree that Jesus exists.
To investigate the case for the resurrection, and to prove it had happened, is the best proof in my mind, because if Jesus was a liar then he wouldn't have been raised from the dead. (To say the resurrection is false on the basis, it doesn't occur in nature, is a fallacy appealing to nature)
 
Last edited:

braintic

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
2,137
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Great to see the NOs have taken a double-digit lead.
Given that most of you are young, the future is looking up.

I wonder what the result would be if the question had asked "do you practise a religion?" (ie, by attending church and setting aside time each day for praying).

Given that in 2012 only 28% of marriages were performed by religious ceremony, I suspect not many. And the crossover year was 1999, so its taken only 13 years for the percentage of religious ceremonies to fall from 50% to 28%. Things really are looking up (except in the damn US of A).
 
Last edited:

dan964

what
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
3,480
Location
South of here
Gender
Male
HSC
2014
Uni Grad
2019
^ kind of expected results, in my opinion

I am kind of thankful the question is "do you believe that God exist?" for the poll, because asking whether he exists would be irrelevant for people who don't believe in him?
 

braintic

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
2,137
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
^ kind of expected results, in my opinion

I am kind of thankful the question is "do you believe that God exist?" for the poll, because asking whether he exists would be irrelevant for people who don't believe in him?
I'm afraid I'm missing your point. You seem to be saying that you are glad that the question is irrelevant to non-believers. (Both questions in your post are the same)
 

dan964

what
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
3,480
Location
South of here
Gender
Male
HSC
2014
Uni Grad
2019
I was actually asking whether it would be irrelevant if God exists for those who don't believe he does.

"do you believe God exists?"
is a different question to
"does God exist?"
the first deals with what we* believe, the second deals with objective/fact. I could believe for example that evolution is true or false, whether evolution is actually true or false has nothing to do with beliefs however. (sometimes the two match up)

Asking the second question for the poll would no be realistic. Because if God exists, he exists, and if he doesn't, he doesn't.
(The problem with asking the second question for a poll is that there would need to be reasons/evidence given)

Asking the first question is more realistic for a poll.
Though that said I am not against discussion of the second.

*humanity as a general
 

braintic

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
2,137
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
I was actually asking whether it would be irrelevant if God exists for those who don't believe he does.

"do you believe God exists?"
is a different question to
"does God exist?"
the first deals with what we* believe, the second deals with objective/fact. I could believe for example that evolution is true or false, whether evolution is actually true or false has nothing to do with beliefs however. (sometimes the two match up)

Asking the second question for the poll would no be realistic. Because if God exists, he exists, and if he doesn't, he doesn't.
(The problem with asking the second question for a poll is that there would need to be reasons/evidence given)

Asking the first question is more realistic for a poll.
Though that said I am not against discussion of the second.

*humanity as a general
I'm pretty sure everyone would give the same answer to both questions.
 

jdennis

Active Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Messages
204
Gender
Male
HSC
2014
I was actually asking whether it would be irrelevant if God exists for those who don't believe he does.

"do you believe God exists?"
is a different question to
"does God exist?"
the first deals with what we* believe, the second deals with objective/fact. I could believe for example that evolution is true or false, whether evolution is actually true or false has nothing to do with beliefs however. (sometimes the two match up)

Asking the second question for the poll would no be realistic. Because if God exists, he exists, and if he doesn't, he doesn't.
(The problem with asking the second question for a poll is that there would need to be reasons/evidence given)

Asking the first question is more realistic for a poll.
Though that said I am not against discussion of the second.

*humanity as a general
I think most people would treat the two questions as pretty much the same thing, because it's sort of implied with a poll that you answer based on which option you believe is true/correct.
 

turntaker

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 29, 2013
Messages
3,908
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2015
I believe there is a god.
God can be something of higher dimension, higher intelligence or anything that we can't imagine/perceive.

For anything to exist, there must be a creator. This forum exists because someone created it. It could not just appear out of no where being this complex.
The universe exists because someone created it for this exact same reason.
The universe is so complex that it does not just appear out of no where.

If you ask, "Then what created god" then you don't understand what higher dimensions are.
Time began with the universe which we have no control of. We are stuck in it. We can't manipulate time. God himself created time.

In higher dimensions there is no beginning or end. Time is everywhere. So things don't have to have a "beginning". (hard to imagine because we are in a 3 dimensional universe with the laws of physics specific to this universe).

Therefore there does not need to be a creator for God assuming he/it is of higher dimension.
 
Last edited:

Joshmosh2

Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2014
Messages
181
Gender
Male
HSC
2015
It is ignorant to assert that there exists no God. Whether people believe there is a God or not, its impact on our lives, whether changing an individual's perspective on the world or provoking intellectual debate cannot simply be ignored. To exist, by definition, is to "live" or have "objective reality", and whilst we may not be able to agree on a specific appearance of God, or even prove that it actually exists, the concept of an omniscient being that has control over our own fate allows people to find spiritual belonging and purpose in life
 

sy37

Active Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2014
Messages
323
Gender
Male
HSC
2015
it is ignorant to assert that there exists no god. Whether people believe there is a god or not, its impact on our lives, whether changing an individual's perspective on the world or provoking intellectual debate cannot simply be ignored. To exist, by definition, is to "live" or have "objective reality", and whilst we may not be able to agree on a specific appearance of god, or even prove that it actually exists, the concept of an omniscient being that has control over our own fate allows people to find spiritual belonging and purpose in life
SO DOES CANNABIS

MEGALISE LARIJUANNA

oo-oo-oo-oo
 

jdennis

Active Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Messages
204
Gender
Male
HSC
2014
For anything to exist, there must be a creator.
I find it funny how you say this and then spend the rest of your post trying to get out of the consequences of doing so, using "higher dimensions" (which you seem to have made up and then simply asserted the properties of).

In any case, using God as the explanation for the existence of the universe is an incredibly poor explanation. The problem with offering “God did it” as an explanation is that such an explanation has low plausibility, is not testable, has poor consistency with background knowledge, comes from a tradition (supernaturalism) with extreme explanatory failure, lacks simplicity, offers no predictive novelty, and has poor explanatory scope. It fails to provide almost everything philosophers and scientists look for in a successful explanation.
 

braintic

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
2,137
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
For anything to exist, there must be a creator.
It seems your only means of "proving" this is to quote everyday experiences, and ASSERT that the principles that apply in your everyday life must apply everywhere and 'everytime'.
The origin of the universe is an exception to everyday rules, WHICHEVER opinion you hold. The fact that it is such an exception does not logically favour one opinion over the other.

If you ask, "Then what created god" then you don't understand what higher dimensions are. .......... In higher dimensions there is no beginning or end.
This only serves to show your lack of understanding of 'higher dimensions'. Why do we need more than ONE dimension to have "no beginning or end"? Exactly how many dimensions are required (in your mind) before the concept of "no beginning or end" kicks in?

Time is everywhere.
Really?? You use the word "everywhere" to describe time?

And then how do you make the logical LEAP from this statement to "so things don't have to have a beginning" ?

On the one hand you are not prepared to go beyond everyday experience when claiming everything that exists needs a creator, and then when it suits your argument you leave everyday experience behind, claiming to have an understanding of "higher dimensions", and then make yet another giant leap by claiming this actually proves something about a god that you have never proved exists.

This is the typical christian argument which uses snippets of barely understood scientific knowledge to tailor an argument around your pre-existing belief.
And this is precisely what creation "scientists" do.
 

dan964

what
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
3,480
Location
South of here
Gender
Male
HSC
2014
Uni Grad
2019
I believe there is a god.

God can be something of higher dimension, higher intelligence or anything that we can't imagine/perceive.
Your bold statement is not correct, regardless of what position you hold. If God is merely a higher dimension, then is there any distinction between creation and creator (not really), as others have pointed out.

The second correction is 'fully' imagine or perceive.

For anything to exist, there must be a creator.
Correction: cause. This needs work if it is to be a reasonable argument. People raise objections to the 'universe had a beginning' so it has a cause, assuming that somehow the universe's origins trumps its own rules that were formed out of it.

This forum exists because someone created it. It could not just appear out of no where being this complex.

The universe exists because someone created it for this exact same reason.
Atheists would debate that. Some agnostics would too. Most are just apathetic to whether God exists or not.
The universe is so complex that it does not just appear out of no where.
A typical response is that simplicity is a design goal, which I disagree. Functionality is primarily the design goal and then simplicity. I would also add that not just its complexity but its unique variations which are required for the sustaining of life remove any hint of simplicity. As someone who agrees with your position, your argument is problematic in the sense that it does not actually achieve its desired result. (Hence showing that simplicity does not trump functionality, if the universe was deliberately created complex as so to allow for life to flourish then it begs the question, why. That is a philosophical question, not really a scientific question)

If you ask, "Then what created god" then you don't understand what higher dimensions are.
Correction: If God is outside time, then the question what created God is irrelevant. More strongly is lets say hypothetically that the universe is intelligent design (which I believe it is), and lets also assume that something also created that designer, then what is the designer or creator, the highest 'parent' and it just keeps going back - which basely shows that science can only go so far when it comes to for/against God's existence.

Time began with the universe which we have no control of. We are stuck in it. We can't manipulate time. God himself created time.

In higher dimensions there is no beginning or end.
Correction: I always hate a cop-out to a multiverse and a make no exceptions. I would not call God being in a higher dimension, particularly as the terminology you have used implies a different meaning

Time is everywhere. So things don't have to have a "beginning". (hard to imagine because we are in a 3 dimensional universe with the laws of physics specific to this universe).
This sort of undoes your argument from earlier as some have noticed

Therefore there does not need to be a creator for God assuming he/it is of higher dimension.
I dispute the 'higher dimension' bit, as it implies pantheism (look it up), which is a serious problem.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 9)

Top