Thread: Why God Exists.

To some the belief in a God is neither logically satisfying nor emotionally beneficial.

It can be seen as little more than an intellectual and/or psychological handicap thrust upon men from a bygone age, before science medicine and technology endeavored to more meticulously understand and improve the lives of people.

The belief in a God--or the practice of religion--seems radically biased and subjective. Science, on the other hand is meant to eliminate bias and promote objectivity. Religion values above all what is moral, while science values above all objective truth.

It can be seen as more of an obstacle or burden than anything, which is driven home by the fact that history [or even one's own experience] shows that religious people are not above error as they'd like to believe, and can be narrow-minded and hypocritical of their own beliefs when applied to their own actions.

Religion has caused wars, death of the innocent, and has even endeavored to belittle [or silence entirely] well-intentioned and innovative voices in a multitude of arenas.

It would also seem as though there are too many gaps or irregularities than can be be explained away, and to an analytical mind this is reason to abandon it to look for other, more succinct theories.

The belief in a God alone does not attempt to understand how or why the universe was created, how/why it works the way it does, and it alone does not protect one from either adversity or ignorance.

There are plenty of other theories and principles which explain the creation of the world, how it works, and why people work and behave as they do...and none of them need the inclusion of a God in order to be logical.

In addition, the existence of God is not falsifiable and therefore science by definition is not concerned with it.

These failures, coupled with the contradictions and questions it leaves one with...one might think it's just a concept without much purpose; one with a lot of pitfalls and not many advantages.



[i must say i enjoyed reading the other posts much more than i did re-reading my own. but heck, i gave it a shot.]

What started everything...I totally agree with the big bang. I mean, I really do. But SOMETHING set the ball rolling, something made the first move. With no players, chess pieces sit still on the table.

God is making the first move in a cooperative chess game by giving us everything, and it is up to his followers to compete with Satan and move the next piece. When we finally do, we will achieve eternal salvation. This is metaphorically of course, but it shows why we must worship and believe in God. Furthermore, God loves everyone, and all things. I don't see why anyone wouldn't want that assurance. If Christians are right, they go to heaven. If they're wrong, they suffer the same fate as all the right atheists.

But we're NOT wrong, there is clear evidence in God's existence! Where do emotions come from? Why is each animal perfectly fit for its task? Why do we keep being sent tests like 9/11 and global warming? GOD. GOD IS THE ANSWER!

Why can't you people open your eyes! Why can't you see! It's for your own benefit. God wants you, and your fellow humans need you to serve with us, and help him.


MEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR R.

Originally Posted by Mario92

That is a very good, well-thought-out argument. Why don't you actually believe this?

Thank you. I don't actually believe it because it's just one way of interpreting the facts. Science is very good at determining objective facts, but I do not believe it is within the realm of science to interpret those facts philosophically. That is the philosopher's job.

Whatever meaning (or lack thereof) you ascribe to something doesn't change the objective reality of that thing - however, it may completely change the nature of that thing as it relates to how you live your life, and it may take on new qualities that are only present because of your perception of the thing, rather than any quality inherent in the thing itself. Those qualities will only be present for you, and cannot be objectively defined. Others may share your perceptions, but that still does not change the basic nature of the thing. For instance, a child's safety blanket does not emit magic waves of happy warm comfort. The object itself is not what gives the child comfort; rather, it is what the child believes about that object (or associates with that object - the object is now more than a blanket, it is a symbol) that lends it the power to calm. That does not mean that the calming effect isn't real. Am I conveying my point in a way that makes sense?

Also, there's something about cause and effect in relation to the nature of time that bothers me, but I don't know if I have the lexicon (or even the education) to properly articulate it.

In any case, I have many more experiments to run before I settle on any kind of belief concerning the nature of the universe. I consider myself pretty familiar with atheism's arguments, and I think it's a great thought experiment to try and argue from the "opposite" side. I'm glad to see I can apparently argue it pretty well - it's confirmation that I understand the arguments.

Originally Posted by AbstractAsylum

What started everything...I totally agree with the big bang. I mean, I really do. But SOMETHING set the ball rolling, something made the first move. With no players, chess pieces sit still on the table.

God is making the first move in a cooperative chess game by giving us everything, and it is up to his followers to compete with Satan and move the next piece. When we finally do, we will achieve eternal salvation. This is metaphorically of course, but it shows why we must worship and believe in God. Furthermore, God loves everyone, and all things. I don't see why anyone wouldn't want that assurance. If Christians are right, they go to heaven. If they're wrong, they suffer the same fate as all the right atheists.

But we're NOT wrong, there is clear evidence in God's existence! Where do emotions come from? Why is each animal perfectly fit for its task? Why do we keep being sent tests like 9/11 and global warming? GOD. GOD IS THE ANSWER!

Why can't you people open your eyes! Why can't you see! It's for your own benefit. God wants you, and your fellow humans need you to serve with us, and help him.


MEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR R.

Pascal's Wager is a fallacy. It's not just Christianity and Atheism that are competing...it's Atheism and thousands of other religions. What if both Christians and Atheists are wrong, and it's the Muslims who are right? Or the Jews? Or the Rastafarians?

There's a one word answer for why animals are perfectly fit to their tasks: evolution. It's not a mystery why animals are good at what they do; it's beautiful and awe-inspiring, but not mysterious.

Emotions come from chemical reactions in our brains.

p.s. - i think this is genuinely spot on:

Originally Posted by OuroborosEterna

Whatever meaning (or lack thereof) you ascribe to something doesn't change the objective reality of that thing - however, it may completely change the nature of that thing as it relates to how you live your life, and it may take on new qualities that are only present because of your perception of the thing, rather than any quality inherent in the thing itself. Those qualities will only be present for you, and cannot be objectively defined.

this--coupled with this person's previous post--says so much that's worth understanding [and is needed in this corner of the forum] in my opinion.

so thank you for it.

Originally Posted by OuroborosEterna

Pascal's Wager is a fallacy. It's not just Christianity and Atheism that are competing...it's Atheism and thousands of other religions. What if both Christians and Atheists are wrong, and it's the Muslims who are right? Or the Jews? Or the Rastafarians?

There's a one word answer for why animals are perfectly fit to their tasks: evolution. It's not a mystery why animals are good at what they do; it's beautiful and awe-inspiring, but not mysterious.

Emotions come from chemical reactions in our brains.

Ermm....evolution is a lie planted in your head by Satan! And all other religions besides Christianity are bullshit, obviously. Like, multiple Gods? Why would someone all-powerful need all-powerful helpers? The Quran is a violent book that encourages wife-beating, polygamy, and genocide. Pastafarianism is a joke religion, and Christianity stems from a fact that Jewish believers neglect.

A lot of mindsets from around the world, like Taoism, can be easily fit with Christianity's virtues.

(This is really fun!)

Originally Posted by acatalephobic

this--coupled with this person's previous post--says so much that's worth understanding [and is needed in this corner of the forum] in my opinion.

so thank you for it.

I'm glad you found value in my posts.

Originally Posted by AbstractAsylum

Ermm....evolution is a lie planted in your head by Satan! And all other religions besides Christianity are bullshit, obviously. Like, multiple Gods? Why would someone all-powerful need all-powerful helpers? The Quran is a violent book that encourages wife-beating, polygamy, and genocide. Pastafarianism is a joke religion, and Christianity stems from a fact that Jewish believers neglect.

A lot of mindsets from around the world, like Taoism, can be easily fit with Christianity's virtues.

The Bible contains genocide, wife-killing, and polygamy as well. The Old Testament is full of it. While you may say that the new covenant enacted by Jesus negates all of that, the fact that it's still part of the Holy Book of Christianity is disturbing.

And, I was talking about Rastafarianism, not Pastafarianism. Although both are equally likely to be true.

Also...prove Satan exists before telling me he's responsible for implanting evolution. In my brain.

(It is fun, isn't it? )

Originally Posted by Rainman

(Sorry, Enterer, I didn't mean to call you out on something you didn't say, that post was meant for Black Eagle, and that's been corrected. Sorry again cheers )

No worries, it's just that I have enough trouble definding the shit that comes out of my OWN mouth.

Originally Posted by O'nus

There is no need, it is an arbitrary definition of God.

Yes, it’s arbitrary, but it’s not without consequence. You could just as easily say “there is no God, there is only energy”. By declaring that energy to be ‘God’ you have chosen to count yourself among the ‘believers’. You have aligned yourself with people who believe in all sorts of superstitions and myths at the expense of rational thought.

Originally Posted by O'nus

I professed that, if anything, the morality attached to this God would be the flourishing of energy within us all. Tell me, how is that anti-humanistic?

It’s not. I am saying that religion is not necessary for humanistic action, and that religion, despite a humanistic component, leads to all kinds of things that are anti-humanistic, such as war, ignorance, xenophobia, voting Republican and all manner of self destruction.

I find it interesting that the theists don't seem to give the most basic and potent of arguments for atheism.

Arguments like, 'there is no evidence that God exists'. Or 'there are hundreds of mutually contradictory religions and none has any more evidence than any other; rather one tends to stick with the religion one is introduced to as a child, hence the geographical distribution'.

Rather, the arguments are based on semantic ideas to do with vague concepts like 'order and chaos' or 'free will'.

Could a theist explain why this is? Why don't you consider the above arguments worth arguing?

Warning

Please abide by the rules of the thread. Debate for the opposite side of yours as best as possible. Do not complain about others incapability to debate. All deviations will be removed from now on.

For example; the post above this one.

Originally Posted by The Enterer

Yes, it’s arbitrary, but it’s not without consequence. You could just as easily say “there is no God, there is only energy”. By declaring that energy to be ‘God’ you have chosen to count yourself among the ‘believers’. You have aligned yourself with people who believe in all sorts of superstitions and myths at the expense of rational thought.

I never made the leap of declaring that "God" has anymore characteristics than energy with consciousness. No science can claim to know or not know of energies consciousness or non-consciousness. Also, there is no one that can claim to know any instant before kinetic energy (ie. before the big bang). In that case, I am not making leaps of any kind to say, "Oh, therefore God is real". I am simply saying that God would be the indeterminate energy which we have not explored yet due to incapability. There are no dogma's in this instance but your prejudiced ones that you must be assuming I am making.

It’s not. I am saying that religion is not necessary for humanistic action, and that religion, despite a humanistic component, leads to all kinds of things that are anti-humanistic, such as war, ignorance, xenophobia, voting Republican and all manner of self destruction.

Exactly. This is why I said we can only speculate on the morals of this energy, at best. The best thing to hope for is the flourishing of God, of this energy, and of love. If I define this Gods morality as being the flourishing of God, then how exactly does that justify war, ignorance, etc.? It does the opposite.

Originally Posted by stonedape

Because it allows people to hold onto their dogmas. As long as people have dogmas people will fight over them. As long as we keep up the opposing herds mentality we will never fully develop as a species.

What dogma's? When did I ever specify any dogma's?

If anything, you are closer to asserting the dogma that we cannot ever know that there is a God or that there is definitely no God whatsoever. I think you are being a little prejudice on my argument.

~

Uh what's the point in this thread if we don't discuss the results?

It's not yours anyway it's Carou's.

Originally Posted by Xei

Uh what's the point in this thread if we don't discuss the results?

It's not yours anyway it's Carou's.

He's acting under my order. Bwahaha. I'm the man behind the curtain.


And I'd love people to be able to discuss the results, but doing so is not practical in this thread, because it will inevitably end in the whole thread returning to people just arguing about why either theists or atheists arent as good.



And the point of the thread is for indivudals to be able to explore anothers point of view from a non hostile way, as in they aren't trying to win against it. They're trying to find the strengths in it. :3

And people don't need to talk about the results to benefit from that.

Originally Posted by O'nus

What dogma's? When did I ever specify any dogma's?

If anything, you are closer to asserting the dogma that we cannot ever know that there is a God or that there is definitely no God whatsoever. I think you are being a little prejudice on my argument.
~

True enough. I'll go back to your initial argument. You claim:

If we define God as an omnipresent being, then it is energy.

If we define God as omniscient, then it is energy.


There are holes in your logic. How is energy a being? A being to me means a discrete entity, like a human being. If everything is made of energy, why not just call it everything?

Originally Posted by stonedape

True enough. I'll go back to your initial argument. You claim:

If we define God as an omnipresent being, then it is energy.

If we define God as omniscient, then it is energy.


There are holes in your logic. How is energy a being? A being to me means a discrete entity, like a human being. If everything is made of energy, why not just call it everything?

Simply remove the word 'being' and the issue is solved.

Nothing is more omnipresent than energy.

Nothing is omniscient aside from energy.

~

Originally Posted by Xei

I find it interesting that the theists don't seem to give the most basic and potent of arguments for atheism.

Arguments like, 'there is no evidence that God exists'. Or 'there are hundreds of mutually contradictory religions and none has any more evidence than any other; rather one tends to stick with the religion one is introduced to as a child, hence the geographical distribution'.

Rather, the arguments are based on semantic ideas to do with vague concepts like 'order and chaos' or 'free will'.

Could a theist explain why this is? Why don't you consider the above arguments worth arguing?

Um...I'm pretty sure I made some of those arguments.

Not to mention there's a very basic problem facing theism; the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. So, theists...can you come up with a testable hypothesis for why God exists?

Pascal's Wager is a fallacy. It's not just Christianity and Atheism that are competing...it's Atheism and thousands of other religions. What if both Christians and Atheists are wrong, and it's the Muslims who are right? Or the Jews? Or the Rastafarians?

Granted, I could have done more with that above one, liking mentioning that each competing religion is equally implausible. What about this?

The aurora borealis for instance is a spectacular natural phenomena. The native Inuit people of the north have a host of superstitious beliefs surrounding this phenomena. However, today, we know that it doesn't serve as some kind of doorway to the spirit realm, but rather is a beautiful effect caused by the interaction of solar radiation and the Earth's magnetic fields.

In addition, the fact that science can't explain everything (yet) is no good argument for the presence of a supernatural entity. I like to refer to Dawkin's "God of the Gap" argument. Theists tend to plug any hole in scientific knowledge with "God." However, as time goes on, scientists inevitably fill in the gaps with solid evidence that has everything to do with the natural world and nothing to do with the supernatural. (This can especially be seen in evolution - over time we keep finding more and more of the so called "missing links," which means slowly closing the loopholes theists can try to use as leverage).

Are those not pretty good arguments in favor of atheism?

[I don't believe in the Catholic God so I'll be on his side]

Originally Posted by OuroborosEterna

Mankind has a long history of erroneous beliefs that through the scientific method have slowly been unraveled. While we may not understand everything, we have found time and time again that phenomena once thought inexplicable has a perfectly natural and material explanation.

The aurora borealis for instance is a spectacular natural phenomena. The native Inuit people of the north have a host of superstitious beliefs surrounding this phenomena. However, today, we know that it doesn't serve as some kind of doorway to the spirit realm, but rather is a beautiful effect caused by the interaction of solar radiation and the Earth's magnetic fields.

In addition, the fact that science can't explain everything (yet) is no good argument for the presence of a supernatural entity. I like to refer to Dawkin's "God of the Gap" argument. Theists tend to plug any hole in scientific knowledge with "God." However, as time goes on, scientists inevitably fill in the gaps with solid evidence that has everything to do with the natural world and nothing to do with the supernatural. (This can especially be seen in evolution - over time we keep finding more and more of the so called "missing links," which means slowly closing the loopholes theists can try to use as leverage).

Not to mention there's a very basic problem facing theism; the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. So, theists...can you come up with a testable hypothesis for why God exists?

This is irrelevent. There is NO proof of God because He wants to test us. Life is a test. God wants to see if we are loyal enough to love Him even in the hardest times. Faith is what God wants. If God just came on Earth and prooved that he was the all-powerful one who created us and everything, then, we would obviously all respect him and believe in his existence. Where would be the proof of love? People who don't like him would pretend to like him 'cause they know he exists and they fear his punishment.

As it can be easily seen, God has created the world in a way to hide the prooves of his existence. God made sure everything was perfect. In the Bible, God gives the knowledge of science, astronomy and math to some people in the Old Testament. He could do this because its him in fact who created science. He created the perfect laws of ecosystem so that the world could sustain itself without God.

God did not want any proof of him on Earth. He sent Jesus on Earth and talked to many prophets so the news could be told. This did not prove anything so it was good. People were then supposed to feel the truth and to realize that God did indeed exist through Faith.

This is why it is not easy to prove God.

Now, you say that Theists use the absence of knowledge in certain areas of science to prove God existence but that with time, these holes of knowledge are filled up with scientific knowledge contradicting what has been stated.

This is very irrevelent because you are saying that because it hapened for some unknown facts of the world that it will happen for every unknown facts. Obviously there are things that people didn't know and that we found out later on and obviously we will keep evoluating in knowledge and learning more of what God created. But some things like what caused the Big Bang might never be found out because God could not hide the part where he created the world with another scientific reason. And if scientists ever found that what caused the Big Bang, that would just mean that God was again, smarter than we thought and was able to hide another of his actions to test our faith and love.

All of this is why the burdain of proof is always on theists, its simply because theists believe in something that cannot be proved for an obvious reason. Anyways, just imagine God exists, all of you atheists. And know that he doesn't want to be proven. Then just tell me how could a scientist prove his existence and that has not worked?

Originally Posted by Lucidness

Religion causes war.

Land causes war
Money causes war
Ethics/morals causes war
etc...

No, they don't cause war! Humans cause war and they use things such as Religion as an excuse but even if it wasn't for Religion, they'd find another reason to fight 'cause that's the way they are.


[Hope I did okay]

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

And the point of the thread is for indivudals to be able to explore anothers point of view from a non hostile way, as in they aren't trying to win against it. They're trying to find the strengths in it. :3

It seems to me like the exercise is a good way to challenge your own beliefs as well, no? Maybe that was not your point, but as someone who likes to challenge his own belief system, that is what I find worthwhile about the exercise.

Originally Posted by The Enterer

It seems to me like the exercise is a good way to challenge your own beliefs as well, no? Maybe that was not your point, but as someone who likes to challenge his own belief system, that is what I find worthwhile about the exercise.

Finding stengths in a viewpoint that is opposed to your own implicitly means that you challenge your own viewpoint.

Read harder.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Simply remove the word 'being' and the issue is solved.

Nothing is more omnipresent than energy.

Nothing is omniscient aside from energy.

~

But where does this God fellow come in then? You can't just take words out of a definition. It changes the meaning. If the meaning of the word is up to interpretation, what is the point of having a debate?

From dictionary.com
Omniscient-having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things.

How exactly does energy fit this description? How can energy know anything without having a brain? Does a rock know things? Does energy hear the tree falling in the forest when no one is around?

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

Finding stengths in a viewpoint that is opposed to your own implicitly means that you challenge your own viewpoint.

The only problem I'm having with this thread is that I'm not really much of an atheist or theist. No viewpoint is really opposed to mine, I just see some value in both viewpoints and don't hold either as Truth. I usually just debate the atheists on this forum because there's always been more of them and their arguments are more concise and well thought out.

The problem with the question do you believe in God is that it implies certain things based on who is asking the question. If someone was to ask me do I believe in God and they implied what O'nus is arguing, I would say yes. However I've never had anyone other than a theist(meaning someone who worships a deity) actually ask me that question.

Spoiler for .:

Whats the opposite of 'I don't know'? Oh wait, I know...

All of your arguments are invalid because I am God.

Originally Posted by Xei

I find it interesting that the theists don't seem to give the most basic and potent of arguments for atheism.

Arguments like, 'there is no evidence that God exists'. Or 'there are hundreds of mutually contradictory religions and none has any more evidence than any other; rather one tends to stick with the religion one is introduced to as a child, hence the geographical distribution'.

Rather, the arguments are based on semantic ideas to do with vague concepts like 'order and chaos' or 'free will'.

Could a theist explain why this is? Why don't you consider the above arguments worth arguing?

Those arguments are fundamentally invalid. "There is no evidence that god exists" is purely a subjective opinion.

'there are hundreds of mutually contradictory religions and none has any more evidence than any other; rather one tends to stick with the religion one is introduced to as a child, hence the geographical distribution' is merely a statement about sociology as it pertains to religious affiliation and doesn't really address the existence of god at all. All religions could be completely wrong and it still wouldn't mean much about the existence of god. Conversely, all religions could be equally correct and whatever religion one adheres to would have little effect.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

'there are hundreds of mutually contradictory religions and none has any more evidence than any other; rather one tends to stick with the religion one is introduced to as a child, hence the geographical distribution' is merely a statement about sociology as it pertains to religious affiliation and doesn't really address the existence of god at all. All religions could be completely wrong and it still wouldn't mean much about the existence of god. Conversely, all religions could be equally correct and whatever religion one adheres to would have little effect.

I think he is saying that people who believe in God don't believe in him because they have the feeling he does or because they feel a relationship between them and him or even that they have faith in him, but that thye only believe in God because they were taught to believe in him and because they grew somewhere people were telling them that he existed. It's like Santa Clause. Everyone believed in him when they were young because everyone told them he existed.

Originally Posted by SleepyCookieDough

I think he is saying that people who believe in God don't believe in him because they have the feeling he does or because they feel a relationship between them and him or even that they have faith in him, but that thye only believe in God because they were taught to believe in him and because they grew somewhere people were telling them that he existed. It's like Santa Clause. Everyone believed in him when they were young because everyone told them he existed.

Okay. That still doesn't have much to do with the existence of god. Before Isaac Newton developed his theory of gravity people believed that god held up the heavenly bodies (sun, moon, etc.) They were taught that these things stayed up, and that they stayed down because of god, and of course they also felt it. Your explanation seems to imply that in this situation, because what they were taught about what held up the sun and held them down was wrong; gravity must not exist and no one really felt anything.

Your example of Santa Claus is an interesting one, because you say that everyone believed in him when they were young because that's what they were told, and then imply that he actually doesn't exist. What children are told about Santa Claus may be wrong, but Saint Nicholas is as real as Abraham Lincoln.

Even still, I'm not even arguing that Xei is wrong and that god exists, I'm only saying that his arguments are not valid. Even if everything taught about god is wrong, that still means nothing about the actual existence of god.

We're just arguing for the fun of arguing, right? Sorry, for going back on my actual side. I'll go back on my opposite side when a theist tries to disprove him.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Okay. That still doesn't have much to do with the existence of god. Before Isaac Newton developed his theory of gravity people believed that god held up the heavenly bodies (sun, moon, etc.) They were taught that these things stayed up, and that they stayed down because of god, and of course they also felt it. Your explanation seems to imply that in this situation, because what they were taught about what held up the sun and held them down was wrong; gravity must not exist and no one really felt anything.

No, that's not it. I'm saying that, well Catholics say they believe in God because they have faith and feel his presence and blahblahblah while the true reason why they believe in him is because they were taught to. This only disprove his existence because it disaproves the emotional relationship between a Catholic person and God and that their belief in God is similar in their belief that 1+1=2 (taking out the wheter it's true or not. I'm just saying that religion is more of a cold emotionless science) if you get what I mean. I'm maybe not expressing myself the right way.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Your example of Santa Claus is an interesting one, because you say that everyone believed in him when they were young because that's what they were told, and then imply that he actually doesn't exist. What children are told about Santa Claus may be wrong, but Saint Nicholas is as real as Abraham Lincoln.

I'm talking about the traditional Santa Claus. Santa Claus does not exist. Kids do not believe in Saint Nicholas. They believe in a jolly fat man with a beard and red clothes who rides flying raindears and lives in North Pole with elves who build gifts for everyone in the world. Saint Nicholas did exist, I know. But he is not the same as Santa Clause even though Santa Claus was based from him.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Even still, I'm not even arguing that Xei is wrong and that god exists, I'm only saying that his arguments are not valid. Even if everything taught about god is wrong, that still means nothing about the actual existence of god.

Well, if everything taught about God is wrong, then, the God, if he exists is not the one who we have been taught of.

I get what you mean though. (that you're not arguing that Xei is wrong but just that it's not proof...)