Deity Existence
 

Well, I decided to make it a full scale discussion :D.

Poll borrowed from another site.


1 RULE: ATTACK THE ARGUMENT, NOT THE ARGUER

If you have any input whatsoever to add to this thread, and it happens to be closed, please take the time to ask a mod to re-open it, and then put in your thoughts. Thank you. :)

can of worms now open... let the feasting begin.

You left out "There may be a god/gods, but so far there is no proof of their existence."

Well, I'm an athiest, I just find the whole bible story a little too farfetched.
But other people have many differnat beliefs and I respect that ^^

I don't suppose I can edit the poll?

I added it for you.

I'd choose the added option as well. Not much of a believer, but not much of a non-believer. If.. that makes sense.

Kk. KT, now move one vote from the one before the last one to the added one @_@

Thank you ;D

i understand i chose the new option for practicly the same resone not much of a believer and ihave my own gods that i love if tere really is no true ''god''

This is the most civil topic on religion I've ever seen on any message board. Boring.

ROFLMAO.

srsly.

My family looked at me all funny and stuff.

Don't worry Hrae, I'm gonna make my full post soon enough.

i don't think there is such a thing as a god but i believe in a higher power that cant be explained... like karma, do good get good do bad get bad kinda thing

What makes you feel that way, Deoial?

Deoial, I believe that is referred to as agnosticism.

You should check it out ^^
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

Believing in a higher power or an afterlife, but not being sure. It's kind of a personal religion because there are really no set standards or practices. It's basically claiming ignorance..

Agnosticism doesn't mean "not being sure" or "ignorant." It means "doesn't know." It's quite a bit more firm than just not being sure. He said he believes in karma and/or a higher power, both of which are metaphysical truth claims. It is unknown whether or not these are true, as there is simply no evidence to support those claims. Those who make a truth claim must be prepared to back it up with evidence, otherwise our entire system of reason is meaningless.

Of course, if there is evidece, I'd love to see it.

well ive looked into a few religions (there a ton out there i didnt want to get carried away) and the closest things to what i feel is correct at least for me is a combination of Wicca and Buddhism, mostly because of the respect for all living things and all things not living as well. and the whole karma/energy of the universe just seems about right, ever seen the movie The Secret?

Well, I know I said "soon enough" but I was busy. Busy, I tell you!

Right:

1. For people who voted "many gods" and "personal god":

When a theory is proposed, one needs to offer evidence to back it up. Just because there is no proof against your theory, doesn't make it true. For example, there's Russell's Teapot:


Next, for those who say that the fact that the universe exists is itself proof of a God, the answer, is that it might be. But it is most certainly not proof of a personal God. Why couldn't it just be some sort of primal energy/force, mindless "thing" as it were that created the universe? Why a living, benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient creature? In other words, why couldn't it be an impersonal God? I'll deal with that later.


Next, for those who think that this personal god/gods are described by religion: I find it really amazing that most religions have contradictions among themselves, and yet everybody manages to conveniently ignore them and go on with life. You do not need a God for some sort of spiritual "reassurance". How you find reassurance from something/someone that might (with a very small probability, I might add) exist.

You do not need a God to be moral. If it is the fear of God that drives you to be good, then it's obvious that if God said "It's okay to have extramarital sex, it's okay to rape everyone." then you wouldn't find anything wrong with it. I, on the other hand, would. My code of morality is based on what is permissible by my mind, while yours is run by what is permitted by your God. For all those who think that atheists are immoral, then let me kindly point out, that I am a hell lot more moral than the Old Testament god.


2. For those who voted "Impersonal God"

I can understand your choice a lot more, because I can see the need to formulate an explanation for the existence of the universe. However, this is a rather redundant position, because it begs the question "What created the impersonal god?" Sort of like a "It's turtles all the way down." argument.


3. For those who voted for any of the other two:

I share your opinion, what more can I say? :D Just remember, that there might be a god. We can't say for sure.

Ha! Both Russell's Teapot and "turtles all the way down." What more is there to say?

what contradictions you make a statement but do not use facts to back up your statement.

If my understanding you correctly if it is okay in your mind to do what you want than it is moral? then in your mind if rape was okay and moral than it would be okay and moral right.

How was he immoral?

Point conceded, only because I'm not well versed enough in christianity to point them out. I'll be happy to provide stuff from my own religion if you want.

I can throw that question right back at you. If God said it was okay to rape, would you? I think not. Why not? Because of your mind.



Get ready for quotes:


The God was immoral because:

He had no "religious tolerance" and encouraged the killing of those who dodn't follow him.

(Numbers 25:1-9 NLT)


More encouragement of war, and plunder:

(Deuteronomy 3:1-7 NLT)


Promise of sexual satisfaction:

(Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)


Taking of girls as war trophies:

(Numbers 31:25-35 NLT)

Racism:

(Isaiah 14:1-2 NAB)

You realize, of course, that the argument will be made that since YHWH is the originator of the innate moral code, he will be able to violate it and still not be considered immoral. It's a bit of a semantic trap.

Of course, I could never follow a diety that wouldn't show mercy to someone like Jephthah. (See: Judges 30-40). Sure, the guy made a vow, but an all-powerful diety that cares about his creations could have (and, at least in my opinion, should have) stepped in and let him off the hook. Guess that only worked for Abraham.

YHWH was capricious at best and sadistic at worst.

Edit: As for an example of contradiction, I'd really like to know what Jesus did right after his baptism. Did he run off into the wilderness for his temptation by Satan (as in Mark 1:12)? Or did he gather some followers and attend a wedding (as in John 1:40-2:1)?

See that's why I just believe what I believe. So many different peoples' interpretations of what's right and what isn't...

there is no ONE right answer.

Why do I get told I'm going to hell when Christianity believes in Hell, but let's say Buhddism doesn't?

I really just don't think it's fair to anyone to tell them that one religion is better or more correct than any one else.

((My two cents, not saying anyone here has done anything towards me, just that's what I think))

:)

Just my personal opinion... I'd like to think that I'm in complete control of my life, and no other power can change the course of it in any way. And if something negative happens, I don't sit by my bed and ask for someone else to make it better, I try to fix it or get through it. I don't believe god(s) had anything to do with creation a vaccination for small pox or polio, or that they had anything to do with the plague or HIV/AIDS. I'm sure something that is 'all-powerful' could have prevented the holocaust, or any other disaster.

There's also the question of which religion to follow if you believe in a personal God. Do you follow Vishnu? Buddha? Yahweh? Or Jupiter? If you're Christian, and it turns out the Greeks were right all along, Hades is going to be pissed at you when you end up at Erebus/Tartarus.

I can't quite agree with you on that one. We may not currently have the tools to answer it (and may never) but there is one right answer.

Unless you're meaning that any sort of metaphysical/supernatural claim is equal because they're all baseless...then I'll agree with that. There is as much evidence supporting the claims of the adherents of the Flying Spaghetti Monster as there is evidence supporting the claims of Christianity, Scientology, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.

Personally? I don't care if you believe there are tiny little leprechauns living in your garage as long as you're not trying to influence public policy. Once you start getting into the realm of politics, please check your superstitions at the door.

just wanted to point out Buddha is not a god in fact the whole Buddhist's religion has no higher power. Thus its basis of appeal to me :D just wanted to clarify.

It seems that most of FF leans toward the agnostic side.

My argument is whether or not it can be proven that there is a deity of sorts, or not. Geological records of the Earth indicate that Earth was formed billions of years ago—along with fossilized remains of organisms that no longer exist today. The Bible says that the Earth was created in seven days. This can be argued as impossible, since it's evident that many billions of years of have elapsed before we have gotten to this day and age.

Yet, Christianity has its own argument. The Lomonosov-Lavoisier law (AKA the Law of Conservation of Matter/Mass) states that "matter cannot be created nor destroyed." The Big Bang theory, as advocated by many scientists, has one key flaw: Where did this matter come from? If an enormous explosion occurred, it would certainly blast matter the way the universe is currently expanding. However, no good explanation for where the matter came from exists.

I will say that I advocate the Big Bang theory over Creationism, despite the flaws. The concept of an insubstantial entity creating a world seems far more far-fetched. No offense.

There is one question that I have not seen satisfactorily answered in any of the forums I have seen for a discussion of this sort.

If God is omnipotent, can he make an object so heavy he cannot lift?

The answers I have seen so far are:

1. That is an illogical question and a contradiction. It's like asking if god can make a circle with corners, or other impossibilities.

2. God is beyond logic.

3. God can only do what is logically possible.

Rebuttals:

1. It's only a contradiction for an omnipotent being. None of us can make a circle with corners because that is a contradiction in terms. But each and every one of us can make an object so heavy that we cannot lift it. Does that make me more powerful than god? So that's in effect saying, "God can do anything, except that which he cannot do", which is a waste of words.

2. :rolleyes: "God is beyond logic, and can therefore not be discussed using logic." Even this statement is derived by simple logic. Logic drips through every implication, and every inference made. Nothing "transcends" logic.

3. Yeah, and making a whole universe out of nothing is really logical. See rebuttal 1 as well.

If you have any other replies to this, please do post.

Also, god cannot be omnipotent and omniscient at the same time. It's explained by this handy little verse I picked up from "The God Delusion":

Can omniscient God, who
Knows the future, find
The omnipotence to
Change His future mind?

Any input on this would also be appreciated.

And of course if anybody would care to answer the "What created God?" question, that would be nice too.

God can do anything. Therefore he can create something he cannot lift while being able to lift it. Don't ask how. It will blow your mind.

I see no correlation between that sentence being logical and the executive conclusion that every implication and inference is also logical + that nothing transcends logic. Maybe we just haven't found that something yet :uhoh:


Some paradoxes themselves seem to defy logic until the sometimes obvious solution presents itself.


See ''God can do anything.''

Who says he/she/it can't see forever into the future and have the ability to change his/her/its mind? Maybe there is no need to change the original decision if it's always the right one in the first place?

See ''Wasn't God always there?''


If you are a believer in a religion, I'd think that science need not necessarily apply. Deities and religion are a convenient way of explaining everything in a neat package that is acceptable and fair while reducing the world to terms that are easy to accept. Anything and everything to a true believer can be explained by "Because it is.'' an argument that is of course unsatisfactory to skeptics.


I'm not a believer in any religion myself. There might be a God, there might not. I personally fail to see the point over all the arguing back and forth over something that might forever remain unresolved and that seems to have
no clear impact on my life.


Edit: I'd have voted for ''There may be a god/gods, but so far there is no proof of their existence.'' but it doesn't really fit for me. I'd be more ''''There may be a god/gods, but who the heck really knows?''

The very word makes religion what it is.

Belief.

Whether a person chooses to follow a faith or not, Most religions demand:

Belief.

To fall back willingly and unquestioningly toward something you can neither question nor explain, It is called

Belief.

If someone wholeheartedly believes in buddha, So be it.

Personally, I'd rather believe in nothing and be wrong then believe in SOMETHING and be wrong.

That is a cop-out. Just read your sentence again and see if it makes any sense.

I don't see how there can be anything that can transcend logic. Maybe we haven't seen it yet? And maybe we also haven't seen a bar of chocolate do the salsa of its own volition. That doesn't mean we'll never see it does it? :rolleyes: Even this is a cop out.

Seen.

The meaning of the verse is this:
God knows the future.
So god knows what decision he/she/it is going to take in the future, for sure.
But since god can do anything, can he/she/it change that decision? If yes, he/she/it is not omniscient, because he/she/it did not know forever that he/she/it was going to pick that choice. If not, he/she/it is not omnipotent.

Irrelevant.

Wasn't the universe always there? Yes, yes, I know what's coming. We know there was a definite time of creation for the universe, or rather, a definite moment in which a singularity expanded, and the universe was formed, and therefore the universe could not have existed forever. But that singularity could most definitely have existed forever. Better than a sky-fairy who snaps his fingers and creates a billion stars, uncountable planets, asteroids, and all of existence in 6 days, 5000 years ago.

Don't you find something wrong with that? "Because it is." That isn't even an explanation. A rapist could say, "I raped her because I did." That isn't even an explanation. People instead of trying to think rationally, believe in a "god" who simultaneously keeps a check on the orbits of planets, on the hydrogen consumption of stars, on the revolution of each and every single electron, because they cannot think of a better explanation for the universe which is so "complex". How hypocritical is that? Exactly how complex would god need to be to do all this?

The point of arguing (atleast that point as it seems to me) is to rid the world of this delusion. Not everybody believes in the same sky fairy, and decide to fight over whose sky fairy is better. My uncle lost his life in the Muslim vs Hindu fights in Mumbai in 1993. It's positively disgusting. My dream is a world without religion, a world which can take a step back and think rationally, and thereby understand each other a LOT better.

Big Wordso.o
did not read whole thread
I was a catholic, and so is my family, but as i grow up and now that i can think for myself, i honestly don't know. I'd like to think theres a god, i'd like to think you go somewhere after death. That is why death is one of my greatest fears.

I was replying from the point of view of someone who might be termed a literal believer. I don't hold those views myself so I replied with what I hoped was a somewhat parodying tone, if you can use the word 'tone' in the context of the internet. You might have missed it.


My point in the end is that I don't believe that logic can be used to deny or prove the existence of a god, one way or the other. A Catholic could point to the Bible as evidence and the Scientist can point at dark matter, and neither of them would be wrong.


Religion doesn't have to be a dividing force, though of course there are thousands of examples of it being so. Blame instead the practicioners who foster intolerance.

Sorry. You sounded pretty serious.

But it can be used to estimate the probability of either option, and frankly, the odds aren't in god's favour. The Bible isn't "evidence". Where is the evidence that Jesus walked on water? Where is the evidence that god spoke to Moses?

Religion does not have to be a dividing force, but the point is, as long as there are differences in the stories (which are myths) put forward by them, there will be violence. There is no difference between them and a savage cult at that point.

As has been mentioned, belief is the only thing that holds it together. Depending on the individual, it will override anything that is put against it. Some things can't really be changed.


I'd say probability is a moot point. Even if the odds of there being a omniscient/omnipotent being were 0.00000000000000000 ad infinitum....1 % it wouldn't invalidate or prove if there was actually one or not. I think that science is open to change which is one of it's fundamental strengths, of course, change that is verified by evidence. Who knows, they might find something that credits the existence of a god.


There are those who hold the belief that the Bible is to be taken figuratively, not literally. A lot of things would make more sense then, but that's kinda moot. Religious books were written in a different time and place, the modern versions of religions have changed to adapt with the times. Example-the Bible mentions that pork and wearing clothes of different (materials?) was forbidden, but that's usually not beholden to now.


There will always be violence due to differences and intolerance. That is true. However, I think that the majority of religiously-linked violence wasn't due to a clash of belief itself, but that religion was used as the excuse and front for the violent action. The religions/gods themselves are full of contradictions but you have to take the way it is practiced not preached into account. Most religions on a whole advocate understanding (selective as it may be) and tolerance but it is rarely practiced.


(hooray for barely-readable response)

Science and reason deals in probabilities. You can't prove that YOU exist to a probability of 100%.


You must not know many Orthodox Jews. The dietary laws are very much adhered to. I can't speak to the level that dietary halal is kept, but that fact that McDonald's in Dearborn, Michigan is serving halal McNuggets suggests the demand was enough to warrant the change.

Existence is subjective. Of course, I can't prove anything =[


I meant the part about the refinment and change within adherence to doctrine to refer to Christianity in particular, which is why I used the Bible as an example, rather than the Qur'an or the Torah. Halal is of course strictly followed here, all the McDonalds have a nice certificate to prove it.

And that is exactly what is so irrational.

A:"Your mother is dead."

B:"I believe she's alive."

C:"No, she's dead." *shows dead body*

D:"I still believe she's dead."

While this analogy may seem false because in this case, it has been definitively proven that A's mother is dead, but it has not been proven that god does not exist, but I'm using this analogy for religion. People cannot walk on water. Women cannot have virgin births. A person cannot be transplanted with the head of an elephant. And yet, they let their senses escape them, and keep on "believing". It's inhuman really.



Similarly, you cannot invalidate or prove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Invisible Pink Unicorns. That does not mean they exist.



Achilles was dipped in a river to make him all but invincible, but that's a myth. Apollo turned the crow black, but that's a myth. The sun is actually a chariot, but that's a myth. But a woman conceives while being a virgin, and everybody believes. A god creates an army out of his hair, and everybody believes.

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen Henry Roberts

I think the above quote is just magical in its simplicity. Just think. Zeus was not real, but Yahweh was. Jupiter was a myth, but Allah exists. Why?

As for the bible being taken figuratively, who is to decide how it is going to be interpreted? It makes for a nice read, but it should be treated as nothing more than fiction.


I agree. Except on the what to take into account bit. This is a question that I haven't answered for myself yet: Should a religion be judged by the teachings of its books, or the end result of the preaching on the majority of its followers?

The parts of the Bible that refer to dietary laws and fabrics and such were in the Old Testament and the covenant with Abraham. Those became null through the new covenant established by Jesus. It's internally consistent within the faith as to why they don't follow the rules from the Jewish books.

Of course, I'm keeping in mind that you're merely playing advocatus diaboli here.