Is God real post your thoughts!

[user1991]

Personally, I just don't have any good reason to believe.

 

 

 

The best reason not to. There's no need to trash religion or waste your time whining about it when you can just simply ignore it. It's our choice to follow religion, it's your choice not to. That's what it boils down to and that's where it should stop, really.

 

 

 

And as soon as you stop trying to put your religion into education/law and using it as justification for denying people rights etc, we will let it be.

[Draconic]

Personally, I just don't have any good reason to believe.

 

 

 

The best reason not to. There's no need to trash religion or waste your time whining about it when you can just simply ignore it. It's our choice to follow religion, it's your choice not to. That's what it boils down to and that's where it should stop, really.

 

 

 

And as soon as you stop trying to put your religion into education/law and using it as justification for denying people rights etc, we will let it be.

 

 

 

I would't generalize people if I were you, especially on topics like this.

 

 

 

I, for one, am absolutely sick of creationists trying to get their ideological and irrational beliefs in schools, getting some people denied certain rights, the oppression of women in the middle east... Those happenings are caused by religion, or by people infuenced by religion, however that doesn't mean all religious people are like that. Though Islam is the cause of the oppression of women in the middle east, that doesn't mean there are no devout muslims who view women as equal.

 

 

 

Though I do know that things like that can make it hard to be tolerant of religion or its followers, you really must learn to do so.

[user1991]

Personally, I just don't have any good reason to believe.

 

 

 

The best reason not to. There's no need to trash religion or waste your time whining about it when you can just simply ignore it. It's our choice to follow religion, it's your choice not to. That's what it boils down to and that's where it should stop, really.

 

 

 

And as soon as you stop trying to put your religion into education/law and using it as justification for denying people rights etc, we will let it be.

 

 

 

I would't generalize people if I were you, especially on topics like this.

 

 

 

I, for one, am absolutely sick of creationists trying to get their ideological and irrational beliefs in schools, getting some people denied certain rights, the oppression of women in the middle east... Those happenings are caused by religion, or by people infuenced by religion, however that doesn't mean all religious people are like that. Though Islam is the cause of the oppression of women in the middle east, that doesn't mean there are no devout muslims who view women as equal.

 

 

 

Though I do know that things like that can make it hard to be tolerant of religion or its followers, you really must learn to do so.

 

 

 

I'm aware that a lot of Christians don't believe in those things.

 

 

 

However, Barihawk said "why can't you just leave the religious alone?" - and I'm saying it is because the religious cannot leave everybody else alone. If they did I wouldn't have a problem with them personally. Sure I would disagree with them, and I would debate, because I find it interesting, but I really wouldn't care to the same extent that I do now. When I said "you", I meant "the religious." Obviously that is a generalization - but how far do you expect me to go? It is pretty obvious that not all Christians believe the same thing (some truth btw). What Barihawk said, basically boils down to "why waste your time arguing with us? why can't you leave us alone?" and my answer is because lots of you, and in some cases the majority of you, continue to deny people rights/push for creationism being taught in schools etc etc.

 

 

 

If it came across that I was saying that every single religious person is like that - then I apologize.

[warri0r45]

The best argument is probably the argument from first cause, but still, the answer to that problem can just as easily be that there's no god and the universe "has always been". Another decent argument is that the universe's fundamental constants were fine-tuned for life, but it could just as easily be the case that we're part of some greater multiverse and any percieved "fine-tuning" is due to anthropocentrism.

 

Its one thing to apply the anthropic principle to something like evolution, we know that other stars exist, but to theorise a multiverse with no evidence is surely as bad as theorising a god on no evidence?

 

 

 

I'm not saying I think it's true or more evident than god for that matter, I'm just invoking another possibility to say why god isn't necessary (in reality I'd say neither are evident at all). As far as I'm concerned, the arguments for/against god don't definitively prove/disprove the idea at all. Perhaps we can start eliminating more illogical versions of god, but I don't think we can prove/disprove the basic idea.

[mmmcannibalism]

the more well defined a religious god is defined the more likely it is to be flawed. My basis against the christian god has always been the fact the bible contains at least one reference of god killing people just for being gay, that doenst prove/disprove anything on the existance of any god but it proves that if the christian god is all loving he must have given his people the wrong book.

 

 

 

Im sure pretty much any religion could have a critical flaw about it pointed out by an obvious contradiction in its scripture, again that doesnt disprove god but means that religion cannot be accurate.

 

 

 

There is no "reason" to believe in god just how their is no "reason" to not believe in a god. Simply because no matter what "reason" you can come up with I can bring up an opposite point that contradicts it, causing to contradictory points to be equally true.(hard to explain sorry) Whether you choose to believe there is a god or after life or whatever is wholly a personal choice backed by whatever reasoning you choose. I choose to believe in some god which I cannot understand simply because I dont feel existence ends at death, I cant give you any proof that is true and you cant give me any proof I am wrong, its simply my choice

[tryto]

The best argument is probably the argument from first cause, but still, the answer to that problem can just as easily be that there's no god and the universe "has always been". Another decent argument is that the universe's fundamental constants were fine-tuned for life, but it could just as easily be the case that we're part of some greater multiverse and any percieved "fine-tuning" is due to anthropocentrism.

 

Its one thing to apply the anthropic principle to something like evolution, we know that other stars exist, but to theorise a multiverse with no evidence is surely as bad as theorising a god on no evidence?

 

 

 

I'm not saying I think it's true or more evident than god for that matter, I'm just invoking another possibility to say why god isn't necessary (in reality I'd say neither are evident at all). As far as I'm concerned, the arguments for/against god don't definitively prove/disprove the idea at all. Perhaps we can start eliminating more illogical versions of god, but I don't think we can prove/disprove the basic idea.

 

 

 

 

 

There's always the argument from noncognitivism for that :P.

 

 

 

1. There are three attributes of existants which concern us , these are:

 

a. Primary Attributes

 

b. Secondary Attributes

 

c. Relational Attributes.

 

2. B as well as C are dependent upon and must be related to an existants A in order to be considered meaningful.

 

3. The term God lacks a positively identified A.

 

4. Because of this, the term God holds no justified A, B, or C. (From 2)

 

5. However, an attribute-less term (a term lacking A, B, and C) is meaningless.

 

6. Therefore, the term God is meaningless. (From 3, 4, 5)

 

7. Therefore, the god-concept is invalid.

 

 

 

 

 

Primary Attributesor fundamental character of a thing, may be defined as the basic nature a particular thing is composed of. What a thing is, specifically, that it may do particular things or affect those around it in a particular way. The following two types of attributes provided below can only be applied to a thing if they can be related to an existants primary attribute and the primary attribute is positively identified.

 

Secondary Attributesthe character traits or abilities a particular thing may enact or possess. examples: being generous, kind, powerful, wise.

 

Relational Attributes This is the ability of an entity to relate to other things; to interact, affect, or be connected in some such way. Causality, for instance, is an example of relationships between objects. Comparison is another (ex: that tree is taller than me). Further examples would include the descriptions of a thing as superior, inferior, or creator.

 

 

 

 

 

God has no primary attributes ever given to him by anyone; no one has ever said what god is. God is only defined in terms of a negative, which is not qualified to make a statement of entity. For example, in an attempt to define myself, I would not say "I am not Stephen Harper", because that leaves 6 billion + other humans, and any other entities capable of making this statement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the first place, when terms like is loving, is forgiving, and brings about are applied to God, they seem to mean something very different from what they mean when they are applied to human beings. For example, when we speak of a mother as being loving, we are referring in part to her behavior, and in particular the way she responds to her children. When we say that Jones brought about a fire, we are referring to certain of his bodily actions, such as his carelessly throwing a match onto a pile of paper. But when we say God is loving or God brought about a miracle, we cannot be referring to the behavior or bodily action of God, for he has no body. -Martin

 

 

 

 

 

All of the supposedly positive qualities of God arise in a distinctively human context of finite existence, and when wrenched from this context to apply to a supernatural being, they cease to have meaning. -Smith

 

 

 

Again, if I asked you, for example, what is a car? You would not respond: it is attractive, fast, and enjoyable, because that is not what a car is, and does not help me in any way. Those are secondary qualities.

 

 

 

God is only defined in terms of negative qualities. Limitless(lack of limits), infinite(lack of time), immaterial(not material), etc, etc. It makes no logical sense for me to point to my keyboard and state that it is not a insect.

 

 

 

http://www.strongatheism.net/library/at ... gnitivism/

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_noncognitivism

[mmmcannibalism]

[hide=]

The best argument is probably the argument from first cause, but still, the answer to that problem can just as easily be that there's no god and the universe "has always been". Another decent argument is that the universe's fundamental constants were fine-tuned for life, but it could just as easily be the case that we're part of some greater multiverse and any percieved "fine-tuning" is due to anthropocentrism.

 

Its one thing to apply the anthropic principle to something like evolution, we know that other stars exist, but to theorise a multiverse with no evidence is surely as bad as theorising a god on no evidence?

 

 

 

I'm not saying I think it's true or more evident than god for that matter, I'm just invoking another possibility to say why god isn't necessary (in reality I'd say neither are evident at all). As far as I'm concerned, the arguments for/against god don't definitively prove/disprove the idea at all. Perhaps we can start eliminating more illogical versions of god, but I don't think we can prove/disprove the basic idea.

 

 

 

 

 

There's always the argument from noncognitivism for that :P.

 

 

 

1. There are three attributes of existants which concern us , these are:

 

a. Primary Attributes

 

b. Secondary Attributes

 

c. Relational Attributes.

 

2. B as well as C are dependent upon and must be related to an existants A in order to be considered meaningful.

 

3. The term God lacks a positively identified A.

 

4. Because of this, the term God holds no justified A, B, or C. (From 2)

 

5. However, an attribute-less term (a term lacking A, B, and C) is meaningless.

 

6. Therefore, the term God is meaningless. (From 3, 4, 5)

 

7. Therefore, the god-concept is invalid.

 

 

 

 

 

Primary Attributesor fundamental character of a thing, may be defined as the basic nature a particular thing is composed of. What a thing is, specifically, that it may do particular things or affect those around it in a particular way. The following two types of attributes provided below can only be applied to a thing if they can be related to an existants primary attribute and the primary attribute is positively identified.

 

Secondary Attributesthe character traits or abilities a particular thing may enact or possess. examples: being generous, kind, powerful, wise.

 

Relational Attributes This is the ability of an entity to relate to other things; to interact, affect, or be connected in some such way. Causality, for instance, is an example of relationships between objects. Comparison is another (ex: that tree is taller than me). Further examples would include the descriptions of a thing as superior, inferior, or creator.

 

 

 

 

 

God has no primary attributes ever given to him by anyone; no one has ever said what god is. God is only defined in terms of a negative, which is not qualified to make a statement of entity. For example, in an attempt to define myself, I would not say "I am not Stephen Harper", because that leaves 6 billion + other humans, and any other entities capable of making this statement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the first place, when terms like is loving, is forgiving, and brings about are applied to God, they seem to mean something very different from what they mean when they are applied to human beings. For example, when we speak of a mother as being loving, we are referring in part to her behavior, and in particular the way she responds to her children. When we say that Jones brought about a fire, we are referring to certain of his bodily actions, such as his carelessly throwing a match onto a pile of paper. But when we say God is loving or God brought about a miracle, we cannot be referring to the behavior or bodily action of God, for he has no body. -Martin

 

 

 

 

 

All of the supposedly positive qualities of God arise in a distinctively human context of finite existence, and when wrenched from this context to apply to a supernatural being, they cease to have meaning. -Smith

 

 

 

Again, if I asked you, for example, what is a car? You would not respond: it is attractive, fast, and enjoyable, because that is not what a car is, and does not help me in any way. Those are secondary qualities.

 

 

 

God is only defined in terms of negative qualities. Limitless(lack of limits), infinite(lack of time), immaterial(not material), etc, etc. It makes no logical sense for me to point to my keyboard and state that it is not a insect.

 

 

 

http://www.strongatheism.net/library/at ... gnitivism/

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_noncognitivism

[/hide]

 

 

 

god is an enigma almost applies as a logical attribute. Unfortunately, since the concept of god almost certainly requires a belief he exists outside of our physics and logic logical reasoning can not be used as proof of his nonexistence. Ironically, this also opens the legitimacy of things such as the flying spaghetti monster which claims the same setup and has no way of disproving. Though someone could claim the same about a law of science, it can be ignored because science doesnt care about things such as what could maybe possibly be the cause only what can be observed.

[TheDark]

This argument is pretty pointless you ask someone a question they can't answer, but then they ask you a question you can't answer like... if god isn't real where did everything come from? If you say a single cell organism or whatever... well where did that come from? and where did what you answer about that come from? I doubt everything just happens to exist ;).

[mmmcannibalism]

This argument is pretty pointless you ask someone a question they can't answer, but then they ask you a question you can't answer like... if god isn't real where did everything come from? If you say a single cell organism or whatever... well where did that come from? and where did what you answer about that come from? I doubt everything just happens to exist ;).

 

 

 

Well, a single cell organism could possibly be formed from a chemical reaction in primordial pools on the earth leading to life developing up to the present. A signifigant amount of scientists are working on synthesizing life in a lab to prove this theory which presents an interesting question.

 

 

 

If it is proven that life can be synthetically created in a lab, do we choose to believe that a divine being created us or that we are an amazing error of physics?

[TheDark]

And where did all of that come from...?

[mmmcannibalism]

And where did all of that come from...?

 

 

 

From the big bang, now before that we have not developed many theories.

 

 

 

For the purposes of this theory im going to say Im assuming there is no god interfering because that messes up anything.

 

 

 

Pre big bang you most likely believe either god made the big bang and therefore the universe or the big bang was caused by something natural. Since science breaks down if you assume god here are my thoughts on what occured pre big bang(caution may give minor headache messed me up as I thought of a few years ago, and I dont know if any science supports this). As many people may be familiar one theory to the end of the universe is the big crunch where gravity pulls every particle in the universe back to a focal point. I feel that this will cause another big bang and a new universe, which will eventually end the same way and for a new universe etc. Now, you may have picked up that if this universe ends and causes a new universe then our universe must have been formed from a universe imploding then exploding into ours. So basically, reality has been in infinite change of universes expanding crunching and exploding, this party maintains my faith because theres something about the hopelessness of this I dont like to accept even though it makes sense to me.

 

 

 

if someone could prove that above theory wrong id be quite happy lol.

[TheDark]

Well... i could probably go on all day like this asking where did those "particles" come from etc but not really get anywhere. I watched a good documentary about ID today and you might want to watch it if you're interested it's called "expelled: no intelligence allowed" with Ben Stein. It's just an interesting thing to watch.

[mmmcannibalism]

Well... i could probably go on all day like this asking where did those "particles" come from etc but not really get anywhere. I watched a good documentary about ID today and you might want to watch it if you're interested it's called "expelled: no intelligence allowed" with Ben Stein. It's just an interesting thing to watch.

 

 

 

Well im saying that those particles just go back in time in infinite amount of time, there is no beginning to time so the particles didnt come from anywhere they just were. It doesnt seem to make sense initially but seems to solve the problem of matter coming from nothing, another reason im going into physics, this type of stuff is fascinating

[Perakp]

Well... i could probably go on all day like this asking where did those "particles" come from etc

 

Where does a circle begin, what is north of the northpole, what was before time etc :twisted:

 

but not really get anywhere.

 

\

 

 

 

What does it matter how it was created/born, couldn't we all just be happy that it is here in the first place.

[assassin_696]

Well... i could probably go on all day like this asking where did those "particles" come from etc but not really get anywhere. I watched a good documentary about ID today and you might want to watch it if you're interested it's called "expelled: no intelligence allowed" with Ben Stein. It's just an interesting thing to watch.

 

 

 

We assume that everything must have a cause because that's what all our experiences tell us. Again, we also assume that something can't come from nothing because that's what our experiences tell us. But if matter/energy is never destroyed or created, why does it make sense to ask where it came from? Why does it even make sense to assume that the non-existence of something is the necessary prior state before existence?

 

 

 

To me, there doesn't seem to be any physical reason why the Universe must have 'come' from something, and why it can't just exist. In fact, according to Victor Stenger the latter is the more preferable physical state which the former would collapse into.

[RichieMcD]

And where did all of that come from...?

 

 

 

Where did God come from? I doubt he just appeared out of nowhere, quite like how you doubt what created the universe appeared out of nowhere.

 

 

 

Both questions have no answers to a certain point, so both questions quite frankly are irrelevant.

[Allbot]

This argument is pretty pointless you ask someone a question they can't answer, but then they ask you a question you can't answer like... if god isn't real where did everything come from? If you say a single cell organism or whatever... well where did that come from? and where did what you answer about that come from? I doubt everything just happens to exist ;).

 

science has more answers and proofs than any religion does, although the beginning of everything (not just life) still cant be answered. but scientific answers are more logical, i mean what we are now came from billions and billions of years of evalution if more believable than humans being created out of earth in a second by a all powerful god and that he created the entire earth is 6 days. and religion isnt always good, it can be used by people and has been used by poeple for war and what not.

 

plus if you really think about it most religion teaches that there is a life after this one, and most of them says its eternal, now really really think about it, do u really want to live forever? eternal life in its self is the creation of those who are afraid of death.

[Zierro]

Well... i could probably go on all day like this asking where did those "particles" come from etc but not really get anywhere. I watched a good documentary about ID today and you might want to watch it if you're interested it's called "expelled: no intelligence allowed" with Ben Stein. It's just an interesting thing to watch.

 

 

 

We assume that everything must have a cause because that's what all our experiences tell us. Again, we also assume that something can't come from nothing because that's what our experiences tell us. But if matter/energy is never destroyed or created, why does it make sense to ask where it came from? Why does it even make sense to assume that the non-existence of something is the necessary prior state before existence?

 

 

 

To me, there doesn't seem to be any physical reason why the Universe must have 'come' from something, and why it can't just exist. In fact, according to Victor Stenger the latter is the more preferable physical state which the former would collapse into.

 

 

 

I can understand the idea of the universe always being here, but I can't understand how our world has nothing aside from ourselves influencing it. You can call it karma or God or whatever, but I just think something ties everything together. When you look at aspects of life like math, love, music, etc. it's kind of hard to believe that all of that just happened because of nothing more than bizarre probabilities.

[Flyingjj]

 

Where does a circle begin, what is north of the northpole, what was before time etc :twisted:

 

 

Oo, oo! I know! A circle begins where its parametric equation defines it to begin. The geographic northpole is north of the magnetic north pole, and nothing is north of the geographic northpole. Dang, you got me on the last one... :P

[Rebdragon]

 

Where does a circle begin, what is north of the northpole, what was before time etc :twisted:

 

 

Oo, oo! I know! A circle begins where its parametric equation defines it to begin.

 

Not to say that you aren't trying to make a joke, but parametric equations don't define a beginning for functions.

[assassin_696]

I can understand the idea of the universe always being here, but I can't understand how our world has nothing aside from ourselves influencing it. You can call it karma or God or whatever, but I just think something ties everything together. When you look at aspects of life like math, love, music, etc. it's kind of hard to believe that all of that just happened because of nothing more than bizarre probabilities.

 

 

 

And that's fine, it's your personal feeling. I also marvel at the beauty of mathematics, nature and the way the world seems to work. But I don't put it down to there being any deeper underlying meaning, it's just how it is. But your opinion and my opinion don't mean anything if they're not testable. We can debate our philosophies and outlooks on life but if they can't be refuted empirically then there's no reason why one is any better than the other. Spiritual people are wary of putting their deeply held beliefs up to scientific scrutiny, but I can't see any other way how they could be validated.

[mmmcannibalism]

Just a brief thought, does the riddle of if god exists equate to the paradox of schrodinger's cat? as in both options are equally true and untrue till we open the "box"

[Flyingjj]

 

Where does a circle begin, what is north of the northpole, what was before time etc :twisted:

 

 

Oo, oo! I know! A circle begins where its parametric equation defines it to begin.

 

Not to say that you aren't trying to make a joke, but parametric equations don't define a beginning for functions.

 

Okay, so technically they don't define a beginning, but in most cases you assume a t>=0 case. But then I guess you don't have an end. How about polar then, where you have a domain of angles to graph. Your start is given as an angle, as is your end.

 

 

 

I really have nothing to say about the current discussion of God, as there is not much that can be said. Neither side has evidence to support "where everything came from."

[Lenticular_J]

More the riddle of whether or not there's an afterlife.

[assassin_696]

Just a brief thought, does the riddle of if god exists equate to the paradox of schrodinger's cat? as in both options are equally true and untrue till we open the "box"

 

 

 

No. It's a completely different situation. Schrodinger's cat describes placing a cat (that we know exists) inside a box, then letting an event occur with two outcomes with are both equally likely. One kills the cat, one doesn't. The uncertaincy arises simply because we don't know which event has occurred until we open the box. I can't see any analogy between that and God.