Is there a God?

[sees_all1]

Ii'm glad that there more "no god/gods" votes than anything else so far, it's not the results I was expecting.

It's a video game fansite forum. What were you expecting?

[Crocefisso]

Technicality but none of the god(s) should be capitalised.

Thanks for alerting me, Sy.

 

Looking around at the thread, I had no idea that the usually morose and laconic OT community could get so fired up about something as abstract as God. ;)

 

I personally do not believe in God in the traditional sense and, because it is redundant to theorise about a being other than the God of the Bible/Qur'an etc. (whose key attributes are virtually the same), I tend not to bother. This is not to say that I find discussing the matter pointless, however - if such discussion weren't allowed on this forum, it would virtually be a ghost town. :P

 

I also freely admit that my highly Catholic upbringing might have contributed to my anti-God beliefs. To illustrate quite how pious my parents are: I have two forenames. The first, Crocefisso, is an old Catholic name meaning crucifix, while the second, Girolamo, is in memory of Girolamo Savonarola, a Dominican monk who ruled Florence in the 15th century and was later burned in some piazza under Papal duress. :-D

[indy500fan]

Ii'm glad that there more "no god/gods" votes than anything else so far, it's not the results I was expecting.

It's a video game fansite forum. What were you expecting?

 

A more equal distribution between do believe and don't believe.

[Vezon Dash]

Ii'm glad that there more "no god/gods" votes than anything else so far, it's not the results I was expecting.

 

Why does this make you happy?

[Crocefisso]

Ii'm glad that there more "no god/gods" votes than anything else so far, it's not the results I was expecting.

 

Why does this make you happy?

Perhaps he is an anti-theist?

[muggiwhplar]

If there is a god, I'm sure it's more similar to "the force" from Star Wars, rather than some omnipotent deity/superhuman.

[obfuscator]

Oh good, this thread again. Because this hasn't already been discussed to death...

 

Anyway, I think there is probably some kind of sentient force controlling the universe. As to what exactly that is I can't be sure...

[Randox]

If there is a god, I'm sure it's more similar to "the force" from Star Wars, rather than some omnipotent deity/superhuman.

I've always particularly liked this interpretation myself. I generally subscribe to a more 'general will of the Universe' sort of thing I guess you could say, rather than a specific being. Though I can't say I would be surprised if we one day found out that what we believed to God was an alien or aliens. After all, technology beyond your current level of comprehension would certainly appear to be supernatural or magical. Or maybe I just watch way too much sciencefiction.

 

 

And a point about the bible that flows from my point about technology appearing to be magical, you have to consider when the scripture that become the bible (or was left out) was written. Proceeding under the assumption for a second that there is a god, regardless of the nature of said god, the word of god would have to be communicated in language that could be understood by the people of the time. Concepts like evolution, or the science involved in the creation of the universe, would have just been totally beyond understanding. The groundwork for some of the concepts we grasp today simply did not exist, and would have been pointless because the concepts wouldn't be in existence for thousands of years (there is no reason to assume that such a book would be understandable even today). So the bible was written as a product of the concepts of the times.

 

This also means that to some extent, it has to be written withing the social constraints of the times, because if you march in with concepts of how to behave (like equality) that run contrary to how eveyone has been living so far, they are going to rebel against them. Change takes time.

 

 

And as an aside while we are assuming god exists, I feel like if we weren't meant to question god, or have different religions, then either proof would be presented to us, or we wouldn't have the capacity to question such things in the first place.

[Giordano]

I can't be sure there are or are not gods in the multiverse, but I can assure you if there are, he's not going to be anything like the "morally good God". A supreme being with infinite power and wisdom, knows everything and all outcomes...lets certain human beings suffer? God isn't merciful or kind, he's an ass for not helping.

[das]

Really though, I'm a firm believer that god does exist, simply because with all of the scientific knowledge we posses and all of our achievements - we still can not scientifically disprove god's existence for the simple fact faith still exists - if proof did exist that god wasn't real - would anyone really believe otherwise? It's a paradox i like to think about

[Guest Rob]

I'm undecided. I accept that a god could exist (although I doubt it), although which god exists is the hard part to decide. There's thousands of deity possibilities, and it's hard to justify which one is "real", as they all have about the exact same amount of evidence that shows that they're real.

[Omar]

Das, science will never be capable of proving God doesn't exist because it is concerned only with phenomena (what can be known through experience) as opposed to noumena (that which is known (if at all) without the senses); a theory is considered to be scientific only if it is falsifiable, which can only be done through perception, which is something God obviously evades: that's precisely why science actually provides results (albeit within the subjectivity of the observer), as opposed, survey aside, to this thread and any such metaphysical debate. The notion of proof is inferior to any kind of search for objectivity.

Voted unsure. Now, the question is, considering one has to choose between leading a religious life and not doing so, which one should we do?

[das]

Das, science will never be capable of proving God doesn't exist because it is concerned only with phenomena (what can be known through experience) as opposed to noumena (that which is known (if at all) without the senses); a theory is considered to be scientific only if it is falsifiable, which can only be done through perception, which is something God obviously evades: that's precisely why science actually provides results, as opposed, survey aside, to this thread and any such metaphysical debate.

Voted unsure.

 

 

You're telling me we can split an atom, build a computer, get across oceans and fly in the air AND SPACE. and yet no one can scientifically disprove the fact that a higher power doesn't exist? Mankind has disproved MANY phenomena at many times through history. Why does one of the oldest still remain with...a rather large following.

 

I'm just saying, we can explain damn near everything - but not God..

 

It intrigues me. I do believe god exists.

[Riku3220]

Das, science will never be capable of proving God doesn't exist because it is concerned only with phenomena (what can be known through experience) as opposed to noumena (that which is known (if at all) without the senses); a theory is considered to be scientific only if it is falsifiable, which can only be done through perception, which is something God obviously evades: that's precisely why science actually provides results, as opposed, survey aside, to this thread and any such metaphysical debate.

Voted unsure.

 

 

You're telling me we can split an atom, build a computer, get across oceans and fly in the air AND SPACE. and yet no one can scientifically disprove the fact that a higher power doesn't exist? Mankind has disproved MANY phenomena at many times through history. Why does one of the oldest still remain with...a rather large following.

 

I'm just saying, we can explain damn near everything - but not God..

 

It intrigues me. I do believe god exists.

By that logic, ghosts, aliens, Bigfoot, chupacabras, the Lochness Monster and the Illuminati exist as well.

[Omar]

Divinities are not phenomenal; they are noumenal. They can't be perceived, at least not by everyone, as opposed to planes, atoms and computers.

Logical demonstration relies inevitably upon axioms, i.e. statements which are said to be true and are not required to be proven. For example, euclidean geometry (the kind you were taught) relies on a handful, one of which is the parallel postulate, which boils down to this: "In a plane, through a point not on a given straight line, at most one line can be drawn that never meets the given line."

This sounds obvious, but we can't really trust our senses (for example, a straw in a glass half-full of water will appear to be bent), so it sounds a bit risky to make this statement a foundation of mathematics, since math is what we rely on to shoot planes across thousands of miles of land.

In an attempt to prove the parallel postulate, some have created geometrical systems which use one of its contraries (either "no line can be drawn that meets the given line" or "an infinite amount of lines etc"). This was expected to lead to some sort of logical absurdity, and thereby prove the postulate by proving contrary statements were illogical.

It didn't. The geometrical systems that were created were perfectly valid logically speaking, although they had no common trait with reality whatsoever. The reason we use euclidean geometry is that it looks the same as the world. How do we know this? Through perception. The parallel postulate seems true because if you try to falsify it on paper, you'll fail. This is why it's the kind of geometry you're taught: practically speaking, when you want to solve a problem within your own subjectivity (for example, building a house), euclidean geometry is the one which tends to work best. No one really cares how objects are in and of themselves.

When it comes to metaphysics (does god exist? does the mind exist, or is it mere matter?), we try to use logic to answer a question for which no axioms can be defined through perception. It would be handy if we could all look up and say, "Ah, yes, I see God, he is right there on the cloud that looks a little bit like an anvil", but we can't. Therefore trying to use logic as science does to prove God's existence is a useless pursuit: as has been shown by those mathematicians who created non-euclidean geometries, when attempting to solve a problem in the real world without axioms validated by perception, you can argue a proposition and its opposite in a valid way.

Here's a better explanation.

[Powerfrog]

Really though, I'm a firm believer that god does exist, simply because with all of the scientific knowledge we posses and all of our achievements - we still can not scientifically disprove god's existence for the simple fact faith still exists - if proof did exist that god wasn't real - would anyone really believe otherwise? It's a paradox i like to think about

I could say the same about the flying spaghetti monster.

 

You can't disprove that I'm a frog that can type. It's still not logical to assume i am.

[Randox]

Das, science will never be capable of proving God doesn't exist because it is concerned only with phenomena (what can be known through experience) as opposed to noumena (that which is known (if at all) without the senses); a theory is considered to be scientific only if it is falsifiable, which can only be done through perception, which is something God obviously evades: that's precisely why science actually provides results, as opposed, survey aside, to this thread and any such metaphysical debate.

Voted unsure.

 

 

You're telling me we can split an atom, build a computer, get across oceans and fly in the air AND SPACE. and yet no one can scientifically disprove the fact that a higher power doesn't exist? Mankind has disproved MANY phenomena at many times through history. Why does one of the oldest still remain with...a rather large following.

 

I'm just saying, we can explain damn near everything - but not God..

 

It intrigues me. I do believe god exists.

By that logic, ghosts, aliens, Bigfoot, chupacabras, the Lochness Monster and the Illuminati exist as well.

Actually, most of those can be proven false because we actually know their origins, and therefore know they are made up (I am specifically referring to the Illuminati, chupacabras, and the Lochness Monster here).

[sarg1010]

Something (slightly off topic...) I would like to know is... If someone suddenly started claiming he/she were Jesus reborn, would anybody (the papacy especially) really believe that person? Even if said person performed "miracles", would people claim he/she were really a demon or imposter of some sort?

 

I'm not religious myself (I really don't care about religion much), but I do believe that if God is real, God is a woman/would take a woman form.

[Lord Paul]

Something (slightly off topic...) I would like to know is... If someone suddenly started claiming he/she were Jesus reborn, would anybody (the papacy especially) really believe that person? Even if said person performed "miracles", would people claim he/she were really a demon or imposter of some sort?

 

I'm not religious myself (I really don't care about religion much), but I do believe that if God is real, God is a woman/would take a woman form.

 

Some would definitely believe in him, especially if he started performing miracles. If various prophecies are to believed, the anti-Christ is supposed to come first, so some would definitely say that.

[Riku3220]

Das, science will never be capable of proving God doesn't exist because it is concerned only with phenomena (what can be known through experience) as opposed to noumena (that which is known (if at all) without the senses); a theory is considered to be scientific only if it is falsifiable, which can only be done through perception, which is something God obviously evades: that's precisely why science actually provides results, as opposed, survey aside, to this thread and any such metaphysical debate.

Voted unsure.

 

 

You're telling me we can split an atom, build a computer, get across oceans and fly in the air AND SPACE. and yet no one can scientifically disprove the fact that a higher power doesn't exist? Mankind has disproved MANY phenomena at many times through history. Why does one of the oldest still remain with...a rather large following.

 

I'm just saying, we can explain damn near everything - but not God..

 

It intrigues me. I do believe god exists.

By that logic, ghosts, aliens, Bigfoot, chupacabras, the Lochness Monster and the Illuminati exist as well.

Actually, most of those can be proven false because we actually know their origins, and therefore know they are made up (I am specifically referring to the Illuminati, chupacabras, and the Lochness Monster here).

Either way, the burden of evidence is on theists.

[Lord Paul]

Without getting to far into this discussion, one opinion that I've held at various occasions is that if there is a god, why not believe in him? (I don't think that this opinion is incompatible with Catholicism.)

 

Let's say that religion X is correct in saying that you cannot gain entrance into heaven without believing in God. If they are right, those that believed have won, and the unbelievers have lost (for lack of better words.) Now if religion X is wrong, the believers really haven't lost that much compared to unbelievers. What, a few hours a week over the course of their life? Not really that much. Assuming that there is life after death, I'm not so sure I'd want to take the risk that there might not be a god. If you ask me, trading a few hours a week is a lot better than playing the odds.

 

Now, if you don't believe in the rewarding of the good and the punishing of the evil after death, then my point is moot.

[Hamtaro]

Without getting to far into this discussion, one opinion that I've held at various occasions is that if there is a god, why not believe in him? (I don't think that this opinion is incompatible with Catholicism.)

 

Let's say that religion X is correct in saying that you cannot gain entrance into heaven without believing in God. If they are right, those that believed have won, and the unbelievers have lost (for lack of better words.) Now if religion X is wrong, the believers really haven't lost that much compared to unbelievers. What, a few hours a week over the course of their life? Not really that much. Assuming that there is life after death, I'm not so sure I'd want to take the risk that there might not be a god. If you ask me, trading a few hours a week is a lot better than playing the odds.

 

Now, if you don't believe in the rewarding of the good and the punishing of the evil after death, then my point is moot.

Conveniently, that philosophy was held by Blaise Pascal (a Catholic). Theists refer to that as Pascal's Wager. The problem with that, though, is that any monotheistic religion could be correct and you may have picked the wrong one.

[Lord Paul]

Without getting to far into this discussion, one opinion that I've held at various occasions is that if there is a god, why not believe in him? (I don't think that this opinion is incompatible with Catholicism.)

 

Let's say that religion X is correct in saying that you cannot gain entrance into heaven without believing in God. If they are right, those that believed have won, and the unbelievers have lost (for lack of better words.) Now if religion X is wrong, the believers really haven't lost that much compared to unbelievers. What, a few hours a week over the course of their life? Not really that much. Assuming that there is life after death, I'm not so sure I'd want to take the risk that there might not be a god. If you ask me, trading a few hours a week is a lot better than playing the odds.

 

Now, if you don't believe in the rewarding of the good and the punishing of the evil after death, then my point is moot.

Conveniently, that philosophy was held by Blaise Pascal (a Catholic). Theists refer to that as Pascal's Wager. The problem with that, though, is that any monotheistic religion could be correct and you may have picked the wrong one.

 

Ahhh thank you, I've never researched it before, just thought about it in the shower :P.

 

Yep, any religion can be correct. I'd start out by looking at religions that actively claim to be "correct" and then research each and decide which one is right.

[Kimberly]

Something (slightly off topic...) I would like to know is... If someone suddenly started claiming he/she were Jesus reborn, would anybody (the papacy especially) really believe that person? Even if said person performed "miracles", would people claim he/she were really a demon or imposter of some sort?

 

When I lived in Philadelphia as a kid, there was a man who claimed that very same thing. He even went so far as to adopt the 'style' that Jesus is often portrayed as - white toga with red sashes, long brown hair, bare feet, etc. He lived off the kindness of others and preached the teachings of Jesus. He was essentially laughed out of the community. To see him walking down the street was always a sad thing. His feet would always be black from walking on the dirty streets, he would always be alone, and the people he left in his wake were usually snickering behind his back. His adherence to the teachings of Jesus were admirable on its own, but he became more of a figure of pity than admiration - even in the eyes of those who were more open to the notion of the Savior come again than others.

 

The concept that the Savior of any religion returning again to save humanity is often played on in literature, tv, etc because the rejection they would likely face today probably mirrors society's rejection of those figures in the past.

 

 

If you ask me, trading a few hours a week is a lot better than playing the odds.

 

In a lot of religions, simply going to their place of worship once a week like you said isn't enough to qualify for that deity's mercy/salvation/access to the Afterlife.

 

Either way, the burden of evidence is on theists.

 

I never really liked that mindset. Burden. If a scientist was atheist, but had the means to empirically test whether or not a divine power existed, would they really refuse out of principle, because the "burden of proof" doesn't lie with them? Everyone, regardless of their beliefs, would like to see it proven/disproven, wouldn't they? Logically, you're completely right, but...I don't know. It gets misused far too much for the wrong reasons I think...

[Range_This11]

No.