Deity Existence

[Manzcar]

Yes, I am the starter of this thread. Yes, I believe god almost certainly does not exist because there is no proof of his existence. I am not proposing that "God does not exist because of <proof 1>, <proof 2>." I am saying god almost certainly does not exist because of lack of proof.

And no, the Bible is not proof. It says Moses talked to god. Where is the proof that he did talk? It says Mary was pregnant, and yet a virgin. How? It says Jesus walked on water. How?

I know you guys are probably tired of me bringing up the FSM over and over again, but I shall write here like this: The FSM exists.

There, I have just offered "proof" for the existence of the FSM, because the holy post number 90 in the holy page number 9 of the holy thread number 15388 in the holy forums of the FiestaFan said so. That enough proof for you?

And I am tired of your not responding to points you cannot counter. Try responding to some of the points such as the one about absolute omnipotence, and the incompatibility of it with omniscience.

Moses did talk to God. God told him to go to the Pharaoh of Egypt and tell the Pharaoh to let His people go. Now at the time Egypt was the most powerful society on earth. The Egyptians had bigger and stronger armies than any other people of that time that was known. Moses walks in and says let my people go and Egypt just says OKIE DOKIE. No, I don’t think so. The Jewish people were their slaves and did all their hard manual work. There is no way they would just let them go. So then God sent plagues on Egypt to the point where the Pharaoh told them to go. The left but Pharaoh decided to pursue them in order to kill or recapture them. Then God parted the Red Sea and the Jewish people were saved. All documented first had accounts written by Moses himself in the Bible. Not only did Moses himself live through this but all the Jewish people he brought out of Egypt. And then God gave them Manna from heaven to eat. Again first hand accounts. Again proof that Moses talked with God and was led by Him.

I am not responding to your point and I never stated that I couldn’t counter them. You still haven’t given me proof that there is not a God.

[lamchopz]

I'm going to sit on the fence because it is exactly my position at the moment in regards to this topic. However, I do see both sides of the debate and so will voice my opinion here.

Firstly, in response to the recurrent argument that God decides to sit still while watching this world collapse, this little story will be of help:

The flood came and a religious man who had no way to escape was gradually sinking. A camel rider went past and offered help. The man refused and said: "No, thank you but God will come save me". So the rider left. Moments later, a person in a boat came and offered help. The man repeated the same statement and sank further. The person in the boat left. When the man was at the verge of dying, both the rider and the person in the boat came and offered to help. The man refused, believing that God would save him because he has done lots of good deeds all his life. He sank and died. When his soul was escorted to meet God, the man angrily said: "Why didn't you save me? All my life, all I've ever done is follow your guide and be good to this world". To which God replied: "I sent the camel rider to help you. I sent the person in the boat to help you. I even sent both the camel rider and the person in the boat back to help you. Yet you repeatedly refused. What would you have asked more of me?".

Secondly, I must make clear that I don't believe in any established religion because, as controversial as my thinking might be, I believe all religions as we see are creations of the brilliant minds of the past, namely those who wrote the holy books for their respective religions and created the doctrines by which the followers have kept to this day.

Thirdly, I believe in an unseen force. I am not stating that it is "God" (a notion which, if it means anything, means just that). I am saying that there is a something we don't yet know. Perhaps, at the end of the discovery road (if it ever ends), we will discover it and for all I know, it might be the "God" that some of us now strongly profess their faith in. By conceding that there is the existence of some higher being, I am granting the opportunity, to me perfectly vindicated, that there may be a "God". I don't deny that. What I want to clarify is that, as of now, so far as the evidence accumulates, there is no positive identification of the "God" or "Gods" that the religions out there have preached.

Fourthly, as beings with extraordinary capacities for logic and insights, we are entitled to formulating our own systems of beliefs, convictions and executions thereof. Privileged with those qualities, we have managed to break ourselves (e.g. through wars that purely sprang from political schisms) and also have achieved so much. It is true that the common (and also largely ridiculous) prediction shared by the many religions is that if you don't follow their God, you're going straight to Hell. It must be considered, however, that human beings, while capable of transcribing their thoughts into beliefs which they judge by invoking their own intelligence and conception of right and wrong, the problem lies in the difference in their abilities to interpret the "moral codes". Religions were established, I believe, to standardise a set of moral codes for all to follow. That is, religions were designed to keep peope from bad thoughts, which, without a formal and explicit system, would to the procurers be perfectly justified. The analogous example is the system in which we live with a stanard set of rules so everyone can follow, e.g. traffic rules.

Lastly, every belief sustains at least a flaw, even if it is supported by powerful scientific instruments. The reason why we are growing (in figurative terms) is due to the fact that we never stop asking. Aristotle asked and answered many of his own questions, many of which were wrong but at the time, they were beautiful conjectures and could not be wrong. With the advent of modern technology, we begin to assess situations using our own logical systems. To argue against a scientific theory, we use another theory which was more shown to be more concrete - more concrete, at least, during our life time. It eludes me, though, that a debate on deities can possibly be conducted fairly using the knowledge that we form by using our own observations and theories. The principal and underlying key that has maintained religions is that "God" created us, and therefore, has the power to create the laws themselves. By using our science to support/refute the existence of God, who supposedly crafted this science, is not conducive to progress. To further this point, consider that when Newton's laws came about, later the introduction of Maxwell's famous electromagnetic equations, the contemporary scientists actually believed that we knew everything there was to know, until Einstein came along, followed by the advent of quantum mechanics. The point is that our peception has a limit. By using knowledge within a limit to argue a point that is still outside the current limit of science is to me not feasible. I have seen a debate using the highly intricate Relativity and biological developments and the result is still a draw, at least, where I left it.

If I have to choose between science and Creationism, I will gladly pick science because Creationism, if popularised, will bring a demise to our advancements. To surmise the existence of a God, however, is largely a matter of belief and to me, is not the least convicing. To outright refuse the existence of a higher being is also a matter of belief and is not any more persuasive. The two beliefs can be backed up with science (yes, science) and still result in no victory for either side.

This is why I am tolerant of beliefs - everyone's entitled to his or her belief. To have me make a decision will require the eventuation of scientific studies which, in this life time, will most likely not be close to inventing a time machine (even though early promising sign has been sighted - quantum jump, anyone?). And since we can't convince each other to relinquish our own convictions, it's best to live in peace. It is much better than the crusades of the medieval ages, the religious persecutions that stain our hsitory, and perhaps more broadly, the wars of any rationale - religious or political, but in the end, it's political - that were the results of ideological differences, manifested through violence.

This is why I'm sitting on the fence in this issue. Life is too complex to evolve due to chance or life is just so wonderful because it miraculously evolved by chance. It's your take, and remember, it is just what we currently believe in.

[Senyx The Soulless one]

Nice way of putting it, Lam.

[Jikanu]

Well for one, The "Truth" i was raised to believe is that God has always been there. An eternity before us, Sitting there, no one created him, He has just always been there, If you think to hard, Your head starts to hurt, no?
And secondly, Why would god sit there for an infinity before us? Was he bored and decided to make us?

And also: Adam and Eve were the most base version of humanity, God knew that they were capable of wrongdoing and gave them that choice, I believe that god knows what we would have all done, before we, ourselves did it, Fair? No. But that's just how lovely he is.
I personally would have been happy naked and stupid. But clothed and banished from a garden seems okay too..

My point stands: What god is that merciless?

Perhaps it's not that he's merciless... perhaps the world is going to have some kind of dramatic change because of everything that's happening. perhaps the world will be 10 times better because of all of this in a few years. maybe a new government will form and we'll have world peace. Who knows till it happens?

And on the topic of original sin: Life is passed down from our forefathers, and so is the first sin. it's simply it's nature. it's not a sin in the regular sense of the word, just a lack of holiness.

And as for the omnipotent vs. omnicient view, how do you know he IS going to change anything? who's to say he didnt plan this out at the beginning of time and is just going to stick to his plan?

And lastly, to lam: who's to say science and creationism cant co-exist? Who's to say he didnt use the laws of science to his advantage and begin creating with it? I'm Catholic, for example, but i still believe in evolution, i just believe it was God molding it out and stuff. And the only real current area of science that religion hinders is stem cell research, which could be viewed as wrong outside of religion too.

[Vasu]

Moses did talk to God. God told him to go to the Pharaoh of Egypt and tell the Pharaoh to let His people go. Now at the time Egypt was the most powerful society on earth. The Egyptians had bigger and stronger armies than any other people of that time that was known. Moses walks in and says let my people go and Egypt just says OKIE DOKIE. No, I don’t think so. The Jewish people were their slaves and did all their hard manual work. There is no way they would just let them go. So then God sent plagues on Egypt to the point where the Pharaoh told them to go. The left but Pharaoh decided to pursue them in order to kill or recapture them. Then God parted the Red Sea and the Jewish people were saved. All documented first had accounts written by Moses himself in the Bible. Not only did Moses himself live through this but all the Jewish people he brought out of Egypt. And then God gave them Manna from heaven to eat. Again first hand accounts. Again proof that Moses talked with God and was led by Him.

I am not responding to your point and I never stated that I couldn’t counter them. You still haven’t given me proof that there is not a God.

Okay, for the moment, I will concede and drop the point of whether the Bible constitutes proof. But let me now give you a first hand account that there are fairies in my garden which are only visible to me. Do you believe me? No? Prove me wrong. Okay, I'll say there are invisible fairies in your garden. This is my first hand account. I saw them from way over here. Prove me wrong.

I have already told you it is impossible to prove a negative, so why are you insisting that I prove god does not exist?

And on the topic of original sin: Life is passed down from our forefathers, and so is the first sin. it's simply it's nature. it's not a sin in the regular sense of the word, just a lack of holiness.

Original sin[1] is, according to a doctrine proposed in Christian theology, humanity's state of sin resulting from the Fall of Man.[2] This condition has been characterized in many ways, ranging from something as insignificant as a slight deficiency, or a tendency toward sin yet without collective guilt, referred to as a "sin nature", to something as drastic as total depravity or automatic guilt by all humans through collective guilt.[3]

This is from the wiki. Seems like not everybody agrees with your definition.

And as for the omnipotent vs. omnicient view, how do you know he IS going to change anything? who's to say he didnt plan this out at the beginning of time and is just going to stick to his plan?

The point is not whether he is. The point is whether he can.

[Jikanu]

Also from wikipedia; you failed to mention this:

"Roman Catholic teaching regards original sin as the general condition of sinfulness (lack of holiness) into which human beings are born, distinct from the actual sins that a person commits. It explicitly states that original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants.[7]"

And perhaps he can and knows if/when it will happen. it's strange, but possible. Animals dont understand us; whos to say our feeble minds are ment to understand him?

[Manzcar]

LAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMMMMMMMMM MMMM!!!!!

I would have quoted you but man it was a WoT.

Okay, I love the story first of all.

I too believe that established religions can and do become corrupted. Man can use any power to obtain advantage over others and will use that if left unchecked. Religion is not immune to this corruption. But belief in God should not be a religion in my view, it should be a personal experience.

I believe in the supernatural force of God. I like how you are searching.

There is absolute truth. I have put my faith in my God. If I die and nothing happens to me then I have lost nothing. But if I die and go to heaven, I have gained everything.

I do not hold to the belief that if you have a belief in God you can not strive to answer the questions that surround us as people. Science is in simple terms the observation of things. This observation can happen whether or not I believe in a God. And if I truly want to know and understand I will push until I have the answer. I have heard many people say that creationists just say God did it. That is not true. Yes, a creationists starting point is God did it but that is not the ending point. I would love to figure out how God did it, to understand how a sun can burn like it does. But alas, I have been blessed with a financial and economic mind though I have had my share of chemistry, biology, and my favorite physics. So I can state that belief in God does not cause people to stop striving for answers. Do you think that someone wanting to find the cure for cancer who is a believer in God would simply go God will do it.

I do agree with everyone is entitled to their beliefs.

[Vasu]

Also from wikipedia; you failed to mention this:

"Roman Catholic teaching regards original sin as the general condition of sinfulness (lack of holiness) into which human beings are born, distinct from the actual sins that a person commits. It explicitly states that original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants.[7]"

And perhaps he can and knows if/when it will happen. it's strange, but possible. Animals dont understand us; whos to say our feeble minds are ment to understand him?

It boils down to the same thing. Why am I not given the chance to be born holy, for the mistake which someone I had not an iota of control over did?

How do you know animals don't understand us? Perhaps he can? If he can, he isn't omniscient. If he can't, he isn't omnipotent. Pick one.

Please, I ask you again, reply to all the points I have listed.

[Jikanu]

To a certain degree, i agree with Manzacar; Is it not possible that Science is the hand of God? seeing as he created everything, you would think he would've written the laws of science along with them.

It boils down to the same thing. Why am I not given the chance to be born holy, for the mistake which someone I had not an iota of control over did?

How do you know animals don't understand us? Perhaps he can? If he can, he isn't omniscient. If he can't, he isn't omnipotent. Pick one.

Please, I ask you again, reply to all the points I have listed.

Why must you choose one or the other? Who's to say that they cant coexist in an imensely strange way? who's to say that he cant know all the possible tracks, and know what he's going to choose, but all at the same time have the power to pull the lever to switch the tracks at the exact same time? If you were given a gun and asked if you would kill your best friend, you would have the power to kill him, but you would know you wouldnt.

And, just as life is passed from ancestor to descendant, so is the original sin that stained mankind.

and i was simply saying that they dont really have the capacity to understand electronics and stuff like that, just as we might have the capacity to understand him.

[Senyx The Soulless one]

To a certain degree, i agree with Manzacar; Is it not possible that Science is the hand of God? seeing as he created everything, you would think he would've written the laws of science along with them.

Science and religion could be one side of the same coin, Cliche'd i know, But a very old book once said that "Without science and Religion, A soldier would never get paid"
God created everything that was, is, and will be, So it's possible that Science was his doing as well.