Does God Exist? (2 Viewers)

[Pace Setter]

How are you any less arrogant in claiming that because you know nothing the answer is that god exists?
To me saying that I have some knowledge and have come to the conclusion that god exists is better than saying because i don't have enough knowledge god must exist lol

It is both arrogant (because you are assuming your answer is right for no justified reason), and ignorant (because you're not using any observations to come to your conclusion, ignoring alot of things).

Something interesting occurred to me while reading that. It seems that nowadays many religions are using "scientific proof" to justify the existence of their god. When faced with the argument of "prove god exists," many come up with the line, "science requires you to accept things until proven incorrect, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND!"

On the other hand, science is now treated as gospel. What the professors in the leading universities and institutions say CANT be wrong. The public tend to follow most of their theories, blasting anyone who says otherwise. It's a bit like the religious blasphemy of old when someone questions the findings of modern science. "How could they be wrong? They're experts!"

It seems to me that the new science is religion, and that the new religion is science- at least compared to how it presumably worked a couple of centuries ago. Interesting that.

 

[Pace Setter]

To Pacesetter

We as atheists admit that we don't know the answer to everything, but we're willing to look for other answers instead of simply providing a possible answer to fill the hole and never revisiting other possibilities.
1000 years ago, god controlled the mountains and made them erupt... these days, we know what causes volcano's to erupt, most people won't argue against it.
2000 years ago ,god made the sun appear in the morning and disappear at night, these days most people won't disagree that it is that we revolve around the sun.

Basically, these gaps where theists have traditionally just come to the conclusion "We don't have any other answer, lets just say god did it", have been filled by the different sciences. More than likely eventually people will accept evolution, they will accept theories of how space began as better theories become apparent.. and God will disappear into another place where we just don't have the answers YET.

And how are you so sure that the "new gaps" that we currently don't have an answer for will be answered by scientists one day? And the questions we will presumably have in the future. Perhaps science will one day answer every question asked by mankind. Or perhaps it wont. You and I dont know this. Thus it's equally as rash in believing there to be definitely no god than believing there to be definitely god. As you suggested, it's best just to say "I dont know."

If there is a god and there weren't evolution, you can have 99% of people accepting the idea. Doesnt make it any more truthful.

Think of it this way. If there was no god, and if you didnt believe in god. You die, everyone else dies--and in 500 years what you do today or tomorrow means nothing to yourself or anyone-i.e your life has been absolutely pointless. It's a lose-win situation-your correct about no god. You win there. You're existence means nothing. You lose there.

On the other hand, if there were to be god, and you didnt believe in it, it'd be either a lose-win situation or lose-lose. If god is nicer than those pedophiles reckon, then you get a nice afterlife or something. You win there. But your wrong about the existence of god. You lose there. Or if the pedophiles are correct, well anyone can figure that one out.

 

[Generator]

Think of it this way. If there was no god, and if you didnt believe in god. You die, everyone else dies--and in 500 years what you do today or tomorrow means nothing to yourself or anyone-i.e your life has been absolutely pointless. It's a lose-win situation-your correct about no god. You win there. You're existence means nothing. You lose there.

On the other hand, if there were to be god, and you didnt believe in it, it'd be either a lose-win situation or lose-lose. If god is nicer than those pedophiles reckon, then you get a nice afterlife or something. You win there. But your wrong about the existence of god. You lose there. Or if the pedophiles are correct, well anyone can figure that one out.

That second paragraph was a little strange, even though I know what you are trying to say, but anyway... Why must there be a 'god' for our life to have some sort of meaning? Aren't we capable of creating our own sense of purpose? Your life cannot be pointless if you give it meaning (be it from within or by placing your faith in the hands of a god/spiritual path).

Edit: As always, it's personal.

 

[hipsta_jess]

You cannot use science to prove or disprove as this isnt the aim of science (am willing to be corrected but has science actively and deliberately tried to disprove God-as opposed to concepts associated with God ? My knowledge of science is broad enough to assume not...)

good boy

Science can neither prove nor disprove a given statement, however support is either given or not given for the hypothesis.

Thus, the scientific world (namely biology) tend to not support the ideas of God and creationism, but rather evolution and whatever else.

 

[Pace Setter]

Why must there be a 'god' for our life to have some sort of meaning? Aren't we capable of creating our own sense of purpose? Your life cannot be pointless if you give it meaning (be it from within or by placing your faith in the hands of a god/spiritual path).

First, give an example of a time when you or anyone else did something that had "meaning." Now explain, other than survival, what other "point" is there to what you have done? Other than survival of yourself (which includes the reproductive material that may end up in offspring), what is the base motive for anything you do at all? If you're not going to last forever, what is the "point" in doing anything at all, considering that in 1000 years, nobody and nothing will know or care less about what you did in this lifetime? What is the "point," if in 10 billion years, nothing and nobody will have any clue the human race ever existed, if what you did in roughly 70-100 years here were by then, as inconsequential if not more so than your average household bacterium? Other than the popular theory of an instinct for survival, where is the basis for this "meaning?"

 

[lengstar]

The Meaning Of Life is 42.
but seriously meaning is subjective. if you feel that dedicating your life to 'God' gives your life meaning then it does. if on the other hand you find becoming the world's richest person and living a life of luxury give your life meaning then it does. also teaching students, painting art, writing a novel. these give meaning to some people's lives. the only thing that can be counted on is choice, or the illusion of choice, and the consequences of that choice.

 

[Generator]

So on and so forth

Next time try taking note of the edit. I did say that it was personal, and I for one can find a great deal of meaning in my life by trying to live through each and every moment, and I really could not care whether I end up living on within the realms of memory or not (I find the idea of an afterlife highly unlikely). I do not need a god in order to justify my existence (or what I take as being my existence, anyway).

Oh, yes, as far as I am concerned the point is in living, and at times that may well go beyond the idea of survival.

As I said, I believe that we give our OWN lives meaning, and as it's a personal issue it should not matter whether it is through a god or through your own devices.


edit: please note the many Is.

 

[snapperhead]

I am not trying to disprove God with science, rather that if he has a role it is very minor in our lives. If he did create the universe (which is debateable as the universe could have had a state in imaginary time) then that was the limit to his involvement. Flooding the Earth for 40 days and nights, even sacraficing himself upon the cross I do not believe in.

I am stuck trying to picture any God with human like qualities, he is flawed, and to put it bluntly covers up his mistakes with making humanity by flooding the Earth. He gives them free will then we stuff up he floods us. In any way I look at it, he has stuffed up and is trying to start again, at the death of many.

by using 'he', you are giving God human like qualities are you not? LOL..I was actually refering to the statement I quoted thats all.

How are you any less arrogant in claiming that because you know nothing the answer is that god exists?
To me saying that I have some knowledge and have come to the conclusion that god exists is better than saying because i don't have enough knowledge god must exist lol

It is both arrogant (because you are assuming your answer is right for no justified reason), and ignorant (because you're not using any observations to come to your conclusion, ignoring alot of things).

your reply to pacestter indicates you are agnostic not atheist...you could at least get your terms right!!
LOL

Just cause I dont offer any 'proof' doesnt mean I dont have any....again, the key words being "faith" and "belief" which convieniently always gets forgotten. I know my answer is right for me (note the stress) as its what I believe...just as your view is right for you...if you really want to know my proof,well you will have to ask as its personal!

Yep im a catholic.

@snapperhead: Do you have any knowledge on the major differences between catholic rites? Im roman catholic, the other main one i know is maronite. I know there are subtle differences such as in maronite rite baptism and confirmation come at the same time. Being around many maronites it does not seem much different to roman catholic

According to a book I have at work on Religions in Australia, there were about 13 or 14 different branches of the Catholic Church present in Australia in 2000. There are subtle differences as you alluded between variants but there are also differences due to diocesean regulations within the Roman Catholic Church as well eg when things are done, the notion of group baptism (where 2 or more children are baptised) vs individual, the concepts of combining sacraments vs separate stages+ differences in ages....way too confusing. Just to make things really confusing, High Anglicans are virtually identical to Roman Catholics (right to kneeling before communion which flies in the face of Low Church Anglicanism/Sydney Anglicanism) and in S.A, there are Anglo-Catholic Churches and schools....

sorry about the long post ....

 

[katie_tully]

Something interesting occurred to me while reading that. It seems that nowadays many religions are using "scientific proof" to justify the existence of their god. When faced with the argument of "prove god exists," many come up with the line, "science requires you to accept things until proven incorrect, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND!"

On the other hand, science is now treated as gospel. What the professors in the leading universities and institutions say CANT be wrong. The public tend to follow most of their theories, blasting anyone who says otherwise. It's a bit like the religious blasphemy of old when someone questions the findings of modern science. "How could they be wrong? They're experts!"

It seems to me that the new science is religion, and that the new religion is science- at least compared to how it presumably worked a couple of centuries ago. Interesting that.

Not entirely true.
Any person who knows anything about the fundamentals of science knows that it comprises of two things;
Law and Theory.
Laws have been proven, they aren't wrong. Theories are ideas yet to be proven wrong/right.
What many dont understand is that the scientific theory of life is a "theory". Darwin's theory of Natural Selection...a theory.
There are events that can be proven/disproven with a scientific experiment, basic ones...or logical thinking.
If you believe everything your uni lecturer tells you, you're a dick.

That said. Maybe science is the new religion.
God isn't working towards a cure for cancer now, is he?

 

[katie_tully]

Not That Bright, never use "we athiests" in the same sentence. Infact, never proceed to tell the world what "we athiests" do, or do not believe. You don't speak for us all.

 

[Pace Setter]

Not entirely true.
Any person who knows anything about the fundamentals of science knows that it comprises of two things;
Law and Theory.
Laws have been proven, they aren't wrong. Theories are ideas yet to be proven wrong/right.

Actually, it's Law, theory and hypothesis. Hypothesis hasnt been proven. Theories have been proven by some method. Laws are just theories that have been irrefutably proven according to the majority of scientists, I think. That's how i remember it anyway. Either way, which part of my post was not entirely true? A religious person puts forward a theory, and he/she is telling everyone else to dispute it, because without dispute, the theory stands-although it may never become a law.

If you believe everything your uni lecturer tells you, you're a dick.

A bit tough for me, seeing as I've never been to uni. Maybe that was a more generalised statement?

That said. Maybe science is the new religion.
God isn't working towards a cure for cancer now, is he?

Is there a bit of sarcasm there? My point was about people's constructs of science and religions, not what god/a creator may or may not be doing.

 

[Pace Setter]

Next time try taking note of the edit. I did say that it was personal, and I for one can find a great deal of meaning in my life by trying to live through each and every moment, and I really could not care whether I end up living on within the realms of memory or not (I find the idea of an afterlife highly unlikely). I do not need a god in order to justify my existence (or what I take as being my existence, anyway).

Oh, yes, as far as I am concerned the point is in living, and at times that may well go beyond the idea of survival.

As I said, I believe that we give our OWN lives meaning, and as it's a personal issue it should not matter whether it is through a god or through your own devices.


edit: please note the many Is.

We learn things everyday. Maybe I'll learn something today. Other than survival, give an example of another type of justification for living that doesnt flow down to the reason of survival at the base of it all. Look around at every single little thing you do. Assuming there is no such thing as god, why do you do each? Why do you get meaning? And for every answer to why you do each, why do you need THAT(your answer), and so forth until you can no longer think of any further reasons at the base. If you come up with anything other than survival, give an example here.

 

[Generator]

Oh, yes, as far as I am concerned the point is in living, and at times that may well go beyond the idea of survival.

As I said, I believe that we give our OWN lives meaning, and as it's a personal issue it should not matter whether it is through a god or through your own devices.

That is my point of view, and it is clear that it differs to your own. Within this argument, you believe that the point of living is to survive, yet I believe that it is to live (an idea that includes, but is not entirely dependent upon, surviving).
There is no point in taking this any further when all that you seem to do is use your own frame of mind to assess the validity of my beliefs.

 

[lengstar]

answering Pace Setter:

 

[Not-That-Bright]

And how are you so sure that the "new gaps" that we currently don't have an answer for will be answered by scientists one day? And the questions we will presumably have in the future. Perhaps science will one day answer every question asked by mankind. Or perhaps it wont. You and I dont know this. Thus it's equally as rash in believing there to be definitely no god than believing there to be definitely god. As you suggested, it's best just to say "I dont know."

If there is a god and there weren't evolution, you can have 99% of people accepting the idea. Doesnt make it any more truthful.

Think of it this way. If there was no god, and if you didnt believe in god. You die, everyone else dies--and in 500 years what you do today or tomorrow means nothing to yourself or anyone-i.e your life has been absolutely pointless. It's a lose-win situation-your correct about no god. You win there. You're existence means nothing. You lose there.

On the other hand, if there were to be god, and you didnt believe in it, it'd be either a lose-win situation or lose-lose. If god is nicer than those pedophiles reckon, then you get a nice afterlife or something. You win there. But your wrong about the existence of god. You lose there. Or if the pedophiles are correct, well anyone can figure that one out.

If there is no god think of the productivity man has wasted on god, and time you have wasted not searching for the true answers?

 

[lengstar]

that works backwards. if you believe in 'God' then you know the 'answers' and so wouldn't waste time looking for them.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

But people who believe in god still look for more answers, they just limit themselves to looking for the answers within their own belief.

 

[lengstar]

yes, but they often limit it to praying.

 

[Pace Setter]

That is my point of view, and it is clear that it differs to your own. Within this argument, you believe that the point of living is to survive, yet I believe that it is to live (an idea that includes, but is not entirely dependent upon, surviving).

I can appreciate that you may have a different opinion to mine, but I did ask a question in the my post that was supposed to be answered. It wasnt a rhetorical question. So i'll ask again. What else, other than surviving, is there? You clearly stated in one of your previous posts (as well as this one) that there was something else. At least give some kind of general example.

There is no point in taking this any further when all that you seem to do is use your own frame of mind to assess the validity of my beliefs.

I've stated my "belief", in that if there were no godlike figure, the only reason for us plodding on like this is survival. This is something I consider probable, were there to be no god. You've said that you have your own reasons for living, other than survival, so I have repeated. But you havent given any examples. I've put down my case. You havent put down yours. It's hard to agree to disagree when one hasn't yet disagreed in the first place.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Pace Setter, as an atheist u understand that this one mortal life is ur life...
We like theists enjoy mortal pleasures, wether ur a theist or an atheist we both lead the same basic type of life..

Think of it as building a snowman, it's fun to build a snowman even tho it eventually melts away into nothing. Our lives will eventually be nothing, but at the moment it's fun enjoying mortal pleasures and we're living our lives.

What meaning does knowing u have a god give you? The meaning of your life is that u have a god? that's no meaning.