Is God real post your thoughts!

[Lateralus]

He's arguing whether or not a God exists. Not God's supposed attributes.

 

 

 

Obviously, if we're arguing whether or not a God with certain attributes exists then it is relevant to point out inconsistencies in said attributes, but that's not what he was talking about.

 

 

 

Does a God exist? I don't think we really have any way of knowing, but even if we did prove the existence of a creator, we wouldn't know its attributes, its will, whether or not there was a moral standard or not, and if there was, the answer to the Euthyphro problem etc etc the list is endless. It's irrelevant really, the whole thing would just become redundant.

 

 

 

thanks for covering me there

 

 

 

to lobsta

 

 

 

Its grossly incorrect to assume you can narrow down the fundamentals of god to a few examples of a few religions. The religion I adopted is similair to the philosophy Albert Einstein(quotes on page sorry I cant give a narrower link) in that the universe its self and the pursuit of its truths is god. Unless you wish to argue the universe, science, math, and philosophy dont exist then you must concede my "god" does.

 

 

 

I don't understand why people take something like the fundamental laws of the universe and then call it god. In what sense are the universe, science, math and philosophy god?

[lobsta]

 

 

 

Its grossly incorrect to assume you can narrow down the fundamentals of god to a few examples of a few religions. The religion I adopted is similair to the philosophy Albert Einstein(quotes on page sorry I cant give a narrower link) in that the universe its self and the pursuit of its truths is god. Unless you wish to argue the universe, science, math, and philosophy dont exist then you must concede my "god" does.

 

 

 

Yes you are absolutely correct. But the problem is, as I have said before, people believe in many different versions of God. Muslims believe in a different version to Christians. Because Christianity and Islam are some of the most popular Religions on the planet, it would not be wrong to pick their 'Gods' as an example. Stop being pugnacious.

 

Albert Einstein was not religious. He was Pantheist, which basically means he used the term God as a metaphor. I think it would be nice to use God as a metaphor, however, discourse about semantics is not what this topic is about.

 

 

 

Some Einstein quotes; "It was of course a lie, what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and have never denied this, but expressed it clearly. If something is in me that can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

 

 

 

"I am a deeply religious non-believer, that is a somewhat new kind of religion."

[mmmcannibalism]

 

 

 

Its grossly incorrect to assume you can narrow down the fundamentals of god to a few examples of a few religions. The religion I adopted is similair to the philosophy Albert Einstein(quotes on page sorry I cant give a narrower link) in that the universe its self and the pursuit of its truths is god. Unless you wish to argue the universe, science, math, and philosophy dont exist then you must concede my "god" does.

 

 

 

Yes you are absolutely correct. But the problem is, as I have said before, people believe in many different versions of God. Muslims believe in a different version to Christians. Because Christianity and Islam are some of the most popular Religions on the planet, it would not be wrong to pick their 'Gods' as an example. Stop being pugnacious.

 

Albert Einstein was not religious. He was Pantheist, which basically means he used the term God as a metaphor. I think it would be nice to use God as a metaphor, however, discourse about semantics is not what this topic is about.

 

 

 

Some Einstein quotes; "It was of course a lie, what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and have never denied this, but expressed it clearly. If something is in me that can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

 

 

 

"I am a deeply religious non-believer, that is a somewhat new kind of religion."

 

 

 

If I choose to view god purely as a metaphor its not semantics, its just an abstract model. Temperature is nothing but the vibrating of particles but we still measure it.

 

 

 

We agree their are flaws in the christian and muslim traditions, but that doesnt relate to whether some kind of god exists. Edison made one hundred or so things before he got a light bulb, certainly the incadensant bulb didnt become impossible since the first few forms were wrong

 

 

 

on the quote, not believing in a personal god while religious entails ignoring religious establishment and believing the universe exists defined by science but their is some divine mechanism behind it.

 

 

 

I don't understand why people take something like the fundamental laws of the universe and then call it god. In what sense are the universe, science, math and philosophy god?

 

 

 

Largely metaphorical, feeling the universe has some divinity in it means searching for the source which I believe to be science math philosophy etc.

[Lenticular_J]

I don't understand why people take something like the fundamental laws of the universe and then call it god. In what sense are the universe, science, math and philosophy god?

 

As much in the sense as trees and rocks, I suppose. I don't enjoy all the negative connotations that come with the word, but you could call it paganism in a sense.

[Bloodkay]

I don't understand why people take something like the fundamental laws of the universe and then call it god. In what sense are the universe, science, math and philosophy god?

 

As much in the sense as trees and rocks, I suppose. I don't enjoy all the negative connotations that come with the word, but you could call it paganism in a sense.

 

 

 

There are two reasons (but mainly one) why paganism comes with "negative connotations". This can also apply to any religion.

 

Firstly are all the people who commit negative actions for their belief, in this case, paganism.

 

Secondly, and mainly, people(mostly) just don't understand other religions. That comes to misunderstandings and a big reason why many religions are thought wrongly of. (Satanism for example: it has nothing to do with Satan.)

[user1991]

 

 

 

Its grossly incorrect to assume you can narrow down the fundamentals of god to a few examples of a few religions. The religion I adopted is similair to the philosophy Albert Einstein(quotes on page sorry I cant give a narrower link) in that the universe its self and the pursuit of its truths is god. Unless you wish to argue the universe, science, math, and philosophy dont exist then you must concede my "god" does.

 

 

 

Yes you are absolutely correct. But the problem is, as I have said before, people believe in many different versions of God. Muslims believe in a different version to Christians. Because Christianity and Islam are some of the most popular Religions on the planet, it would not be wrong to pick their 'Gods' as an example. Stop being pugnacious.

 

Albert Einstein was not religious. He was Pantheist, which basically means he used the term God as a metaphor. I think it would be nice to use God as a metaphor, however, discourse about semantics is not what this topic is about.

 

 

 

Some Einstein quotes; "It was of course a lie, what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and have never denied this, but expressed it clearly. If something is in me that can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

 

 

 

"I am a deeply religious non-believer, that is a somewhat new kind of religion."

 

 

 

If I choose to view god purely as a metaphor its not semantics, its just an abstract model. Temperature is nothing but the vibrating of particles but we still measure it.

 

 

 

We agree their are flaws in the christian and muslim traditions, but that doesnt relate to whether some kind of god exists. Edison made one hundred or so things before he got a light bulb, certainly the incadensant bulb didnt become impossible since the first few forms were wrong

 

 

 

on the quote, not believing in a personal god while religious entails ignoring religious establishment and believing the universe exists defined by science but their is some divine mechanism behind it.

 

 

 

I don't understand why people take something like the fundamental laws of the universe and then call it god. In what sense are the universe, science, math and philosophy god?

 

 

 

Largely metaphorical, feeling the universe has some divinity in it means searching for the source which I believe to be science math philosophy etc.

 

 

 

I can't find your post, so would you please either link me/demonstrate your arguments from math/science for God?

 

 

 

I remember reading them a while back (I think it was you), and noticing some flaws but didn't have enough time to post a reply.

[mmmcannibalism]

[hide=]

 

 

 

Its grossly incorrect to assume you can narrow down the fundamentals of god to a few examples of a few religions. The religion I adopted is similair to the philosophy Albert Einstein(quotes on page sorry I cant give a narrower link) in that the universe its self and the pursuit of its truths is god. Unless you wish to argue the universe, science, math, and philosophy dont exist then you must concede my "god" does.

 

 

 

Yes you are absolutely correct. But the problem is, as I have said before, people believe in many different versions of God. Muslims believe in a different version to Christians. Because Christianity and Islam are some of the most popular Religions on the planet, it would not be wrong to pick their 'Gods' as an example. Stop being pugnacious.

 

Albert Einstein was not religious. He was Pantheist, which basically means he used the term God as a metaphor. I think it would be nice to use God as a metaphor, however, discourse about semantics is not what this topic is about.

 

 

 

Some Einstein quotes; "It was of course a lie, what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and have never denied this, but expressed it clearly. If something is in me that can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

 

 

 

"I am a deeply religious non-believer, that is a somewhat new kind of religion."

 

 

 

If I choose to view god purely as a metaphor its not semantics, its just an abstract model. Temperature is nothing but the vibrating of particles but we still measure it.

 

 

 

We agree their are flaws in the christian and muslim traditions, but that doesnt relate to whether some kind of god exists. Edison made one hundred or so things before he got a light bulb, certainly the incadensant bulb didnt become impossible since the first few forms were wrong

 

 

 

on the quote, not believing in a personal god while religious entails ignoring religious establishment and believing the universe exists defined by science but their is some divine mechanism behind it.

 

 

 

I don't understand why people take something like the fundamental laws of the universe and then call it god. In what sense are the universe, science, math and philosophy god?

 

 

 

Largely metaphorical, feeling the universe has some divinity in it means searching for the source which I believe to be science math philosophy etc.

 

 

 

I can't find your post, so would you please either link me/demonstrate your arguments from math/science for God?

 

 

 

I remember reading them a while back (I think it was you), and noticing some flaws but didn't have enough time to post a reply.

[/hide]

 

 

 

No, that wasnt me

 

 

 

just to note, dont take my sense of science being god too literally. Its more of an agnostic sense of maybe its god maybe its just awesome but at least they work whether divine or not. I dont have a shrine to Albert Einstein in my room though that would be pretty sweet hmm...

 

 

 

I guess in a sense we have to debate god's existence within some frame, if not someone can just say they worship a can of soup as god and its technically real.

[Dizzle229]

There has to be a God, everything could not have been created from nothing, but I think the way we think of God is way wrong.

 

 

 

There is almost certainly God, but people who claim to know "facts" about what it wants and even if it still exists are full of crap, because there is absolutely no way anyone could possibly know.

[H2PM]

There has to be a God, everything could not have been created from nothing, but I think the way we think of God is way wrong.

 

 

 

There is almost certainly God, but people who claim to know "facts" about what it wants and even if it still exists are full of crap, because there is absolutely no way anyone could possibly know.

 

 

 

Allright then. Give me physical proof he exists.

 

 

 

Not just paintings or the bible.

 

 

 

Give me physical proof.

[Lenticular_J]

Back to the good ol' game of assholery, eh? Maybe we should go back down the "Who has to give the evidence" road for the 10000000th [bleep]ing time. Anyways. You want physical proof that He exists, by my beliefs? You can sit there and type.

 

 

 

Oh, I'm such a smartass. ^_^

[baalboy5]

There has to be a God, everything could not have been created from nothing, but I think the way we think of God is way wrong.

 

 

 

There is almost certainly God, but people who claim to know "facts" about what it wants and even if it still exists are full of crap, because there is absolutely no way anyone could possibly know.

 

 

 

Allright then. Give me physical proof he exists.

 

 

 

Not just paintings or the bible.

 

 

 

Give me physical proof.

 

Who said God was physical? As stated in my 'Kill Thread' God isn't physical. so there cant be physical evidence.

[venomai]

There has to be a God, everything could not have been created from nothing

 

And who created the creator? :lol:

 

 

 

"God's creation was unique" or "turtles all the way down," perhaps? With a slice of Occam's razor, we can just as easily apply these characteristics to the universe itself. (For the latter, see the Cyclic Model.)

 

 

 

I don't understand why people take something like the fundamental laws of the universe and then call it god. In what sense are the universe, science, math and philosophy god?

 

God is defined relative to culture. Many cultures worship something other than a sentient being.

[EdgedThesis]

There has to be a God, everything could not have been created from nothing, but I think the way we think of God is way wrong.

 

 

 

There is almost certainly God, but people who claim to know "facts" about what it wants and even if it still exists are full of crap, because there is absolutely no way anyone could possibly know.

 

 

 

Who said anything was created?

 

 

 

Things formed, coalesced, revolved, rotated--but as far as we know, no creation took place.

 

 

 

Since the Universe contains time within it, and is not contained within time, it is essentially timeless. It has no alpha or omega, no beginning, or end. Neither a creation or a destruction.

 

 

 

It just is.

[dpattle]

There has to be a God, everything could not have been created from nothing, but I think the way we think of God is way wrong.

 

 

 

There is almost certainly God, but people who claim to know "facts" about what it wants and even if it still exists are full of crap, because there is absolutely no way anyone could possibly know.

 

 

 

Who said anything was created?

 

 

 

Things formed, coalesced, revolved, rotated--but as far as we know, no creation took place.

 

 

 

Since the Universe contains time within it, and is not contained within time, it is essentially timeless. It has no alpha or omega, no beginning, or end. Neither a creation or a destruction.

 

 

 

It just is.

 

 

 

And yet for some reason you don't think this could be true of God? He has no beginning nor end, he just is? Your own words right? As someone before mentioned and i thought was an awesome way of looking at it, who created gravity? Noone, it just is. Same as the God i believe in.

[user1991]

There has to be a God, everything could not have been created from nothing, but I think the way we think of God is way wrong.

 

 

 

There is almost certainly God, but people who claim to know "facts" about what it wants and even if it still exists are full of crap, because there is absolutely no way anyone could possibly know.

 

 

 

Who said anything was created?

 

 

 

Things formed, coalesced, revolved, rotated--but as far as we know, no creation took place.

 

 

 

Since the Universe contains time within it, and is not contained within time, it is essentially timeless. It has no alpha or omega, no beginning, or end. Neither a creation or a destruction.

 

 

 

It just is.

 

 

 

And yet for some reason you don't think this could be true of God? He has no beginning nor end, he just is? Your own words right? As someone before mentioned and i thought was an awesome way of looking at it, who created gravity? Noone, it just is. Same as the God i believe in.

 

 

 

No, the problem arises when you try to, in order to explain why the Universe is here, claim that God is infinite. For example, you say "the universe must have had a beginning, something must have started it, it can't have just been" and in order to explain this you fathom God.

 

 

 

Look at it this way. To explain the Universe (the most complex physical thing), you create a God, more complex, than the thing that you can't explain in the first place. You give God the qualities of being either outside time or in time and somehow outside time at the same time, and a bunch of other stuff too, in order to explain how the Universe exists. This leads to the question, "where did God come from?", and you can't say "he just is," because you've already said that the universe must have had a beginning, and the universe is in turn less complex than God. This then leads to an infinite regression.

 

 

 

That is the fundamental difference between what you're saying. Obviously, I'm not sure of the scientific data behind the idea that the universe just is, if indeed there is any at all, but if what we're talking here is the complexity of certain propositions, the universe being infinite is indeed less complex than God being infinite.

[Dizzle229]

God is just like the Universe. He just... is. But what I'm taking a shot at is people who claim to know anything about it.

 

 

 

Someone said God is not physical. Maybe. But do we know for sure? No, we don't. So IS he physical? Well that is a possibility. We don't know.

 

 

 

I believe that God created the universe, only because that's pretty much that's what makes God God. Does he have control of this universe? Who knows? Does he care? Who knows. Does he have the sentience to care? And if God was physical, does he even still exist?

 

 

 

Well until we know exactly what God is (unlikely), we will never know, and there will never be an answer to this question. The debate will continue because on the Atheist side, there is no proof to be found, only challenge those who do believe in God. On the religious side, we try and present proof, and to be honest, though I do believe in God, I don't think that that proof is ever going to happen, or if we do get proof, not for a very, VERY long time.

[lobsta]

 

 

 

Look at it this way. To explain the Universe (the most complex physical thing), you create a God, more complex, than the thing that you can't explain in the first place. You give God the qualities of being either outside time or in time and somehow outside time at the same time, and a bunch of other stuff too, in order to explain how the Universe exists. This leads to the question, "where did God come from?", and you can't say "he just is," because you've already said that the universe must have had a beginning, and the universe is in turn less complex than God. This then leads to an infinite regression.

 

 

 

That is the fundamental difference between what you're saying. Obviously, I'm not sure of the scientific data behind the idea that the universe just is, if indeed there is any at all, but if what we're talking here is the complexity of certain propositions, the universe being infinite is indeed less complex than God being infinite.

 

Thank God for some sense finally! You are absolutely correct. God does NOT solve the problem, he/she/it only aggravates it. How did God create the universe? Did God have a choice, could he/she/it have created it in any other way? What created God? And so on ad-infinitum... Because humans do not know about the origins of the Universe, does not mean that God should fill that gap by default. The idea that some kind of intelligence created the Universe is far more improbable than the idea that the Universe came together 'naturally' (I don't really know how to articulate that last point very well).

 

God creates more problem than he/she/it, solves.

[lobsta]

Back to the good ol' game of [wagon], eh? Maybe we should go back down the "Who has to give the evidence" road for the 10000000th [bleep] time. Anyways. You want physical proof that He exists, by my beliefs? You can sit there and type.

 

 

 

Oh, I'm such a smartass. ^_^

 

If I told you I had a cream that would make you invisible, surely you would want physical proof that it worked? If I told you that manbearpig has been stalking you for 4 days, surely you would want some form of proof? Yet you are happy not to have any proof on a topic so complex as the creation of the Universe?

[Lenticular_J]

1) I don't care. If you used it and robbed me, so be it - I'll pay more attention next time. If it doesn't work, nobody's the better or the worse.

 

 

 

2) Well, considering I know that that's a fictional character on South Park, due to the show's warning, I would not be afraid at all. If you told me a real person was stalking me, and I actually believe you, I'd tell the cops. But since I doubt would believe you, since you're just a figment of my imagination, I'd ignore it.

 

 

 

3) Nobody has proof on the creation (per se) of the universe, just general ideas on how, where, and when everything's going.

 

 

 

Live and let live.

[user1991]

 

Live and let live.

 

 

 

Yes, but we need more encouragement from the moderately religious (like you) towards those in the religious right. I don't think you believe me, but I really don't care if people believe in God - it's their choice, not any of my business. The problem I have is when the religious try to influence the law/public education, or scare people into the faith with their religious beliefs - and this is exactly what a lot of them have been doing. In fact, I think that religion is inherently like this in its make up, ie theres a part of it that says "go out and preach", and this can only be avoided with a conscious decision of the believer to say to themselves, this is what I believe, let everyone else believe what they want. Obviously, if the religious want to advertise the virtues of their religions, that is fine - but I draw the line at religion having influence in public policy.

 

 

 

I don't think that's too unreasonable.

[Zierro]

Back to the good ol' game of [wagon], eh? Maybe we should go back down the "Who has to give the evidence" road for the 10000000th [bleep] time. Anyways. You want physical proof that He exists, by my beliefs? You can sit there and type.

 

 

 

Oh, I'm such a smartass. ^_^

 

If I told you I had a cream that would make you invisible, surely you would want physical proof that it worked? If I told you that manbearpig has been stalking you for 4 days, surely you would want some form of proof? Yet you are happy not to have any proof on a topic so complex as the creation of the Universe?

 

 

 

Of course those are all ridiculous claims. A universe that wasn't divinely inspired sounds just as ridiculous as one that was. I don't see why the existence of god is compared to the existence of things obviously no one accepts the existence of. (Hey, your fly is down. =/= There's a giant blue alien dancing on your head with a cup of burning ice!)

[Flyingjj]

Obviously, if the religious want to advertise the virtues of their religions, that is fine - but I draw the line at religion having influence in public policy.

 

 

 

I don't think that's too unreasonable.

 

I'm not going to drag myself back into this thread, but the only problem with that is that people aren't trying to drag religion into politics, they are trying to drag their beliefs into politics. Everyone does, even those who aren't religious. Those who are just happed to have different beliefs than those who do. Obviously, justifying by saying "God says so" isn't a good reason in real life, but, for example, I would argue that I am pro-life not because I am religious, but because I believe that a chance of life is worth more than 9 months of an individual's life.

[user1991]

Obviously, if the religious want to advertise the virtues of their religions, that is fine - but I draw the line at religion having influence in public policy.

 

 

 

I don't think that's too unreasonable.

 

I'm not going to drag myself back into this thread, but the only problem with that is that people aren't trying to drag religion into politics, they are trying to drag their beliefs into politics. Everyone does, even those who aren't religious. Those who are just happed to have different beliefs than those who do. Obviously, justifying by saying "God says so" isn't a good reason in real life, but, for example, I would argue that I am pro-life not because I am religious, but because I believe that a chance of life is worth more than 9 months of an individual's life.

 

 

 

There are millions of people who believe that scripture should be the law of the land, both in the East and the West.

 

 

 

And on that abortion token, this isn't the right thread, but in order to be consistent, would you stop a rapist raping a woman? That's a chance at life is it not? Isn't that chance of life worth more than the mental/physical trauma the woman would go through?

 

 

 

Arguments from potential don't really work because if indeed there is "potential for life" then there is not life. No thoughts, no feelings, no pain, no suffering, no consciousness, no person.

[Flyingjj]

 

And on that abortion token, this isn't the right thread, but in order to be consistent, would you stop a rapist raping a woman? That's a chance at life is it not? Isn't that chance of life worth more than the mental/physical trauma the woman would go through?

 

 

 

Arguments from potential don't really work because if indeed there is "potential for life" then there is not life. No thoughts, no feelings, no pain, no suffering, no consciousness, no person.

 

You know very well what I meant by that example. A rapist is not a chance for life, it's as you say a potential. There is a difference, if subtle.

 

 

 

If a woman does not have an abortion, things will go naturally. In a rape situation, the rapist must act for something to happen. I could then interfere with my own action because an action is taking place by the will of someone else.

 

 

 

And I just won't go into the debate about what defines a person, because your position is already clear, and me arguing with that solves nothing.

 

 

 

Aside from all that, my point on topic still stands. People want the scripture to be the law of the land because they believe in it, not because God says so. Of course, that is a major factor for some people, and those are the people you call religious extremists. Every religion has them, even atheists.

[user1991]

 

And on that abortion token, this isn't the right thread, but in order to be consistent, would you stop a rapist raping a woman? That's a chance at life is it not? Isn't that chance of life worth more than the mental/physical trauma the woman would go through?

 

 

 

Arguments from potential don't really work because if indeed there is "potential for life" then there is not life. No thoughts, no feelings, no pain, no suffering, no consciousness, no person.

 

You know very well what I meant by that example. A rapist is not a chance for life, it's as you say a potential. There is a difference, if subtle.

 

 

 

If a woman does not have an abortion, things will go naturally. In a rape situation, the rapist must act for something to happen. I could then interfere with my own action because an action is taking place by the will of someone else.

 

 

 

And I just won't go into the debate about what defines a person, because your position is already clear, and me arguing with that solves nothing.

 

 

 

Aside from all that, my point on topic still stands. People want the scripture to be the law of the land because they believe in it, not because God says so. Of course, that is a major factor for some people, and those are the people you call religious extremists. Every religion has them, even atheists.

 

 

 

Please demonstrate how atheism is a religion? Atheism is simply lack of belief in a God/s. It's possibly the easiest thing to understand ever. No Gods, no scripture, no prayer, no sacrifice, none of that. Our position is so ridiculously easy to understand yet you continue to portray at as something which it isn't.

 

 

 

And on the abortion issue (really shouldn't in this thread, but whatever,) how does a rapist's actions change anything? There is still the potential for life, and if the potential for life is more important than 9 months of an individuals life as you put it, then it is more important than the possible mental/physical trauma a person may go through. I don't see how there being an outside action changes anything in terms of arguing from potential. Your argument basically boils to "well it will be a person at some point" (unless of course you already consider it a person, in which case why would you even make an argument from potential), which is ridiculous because if it isn't a person, it isn't a person - whether it will be at some random point in the future is irrelevant. There are gradations in personhood, and a fetus, at least up to a certain point, possesses none of the things that we typically associate with being a person/having consciousness of one's own self existence etc in other areas of life. If someone is brain dead, then they are no longer a person. They are a human being yes, but personhood, in my opinion anyway, is something different.

 

 

 

And back to the topic at hand, God - people want scripture to be the law of the land because they believe in it - and they believe in it because they believe it to be the word of God. I generally dislike religious belief concerning homosexuality for example, and if I see a Christian/Muslim spouting homophobic statements in a public forum I will argue with them - yet I would not, in a million years, condone making such thought illegal. Unfortunately, I can't say the same for the religious right.