Deity Existence

[lamchopz]

I actually stop doing my tute questions and break my sleeping pattern for this thread. Omg. xD

Since I've already stated my opinon, I won't labour much on it.

Here are what I saw:

Jikanu:
Lots of your arguments are the usual responses that the religious people I talked to gave. Mostly it's circular reasoning. The key here is that you should stay away from the language of the church, and start posting using your own thoughts. The people here who are on the other side of the argument have proposed their arguments rather objectively, which gains force in a debate.

And to respond to the claim that science and creationism can co-exist: no, they can't. History has shown it more clearly than one can put it in words. The effect of letting creationism gain grounds in schools is horrendous: don't forget most people are lazy thinkers and the average people would rather something as simple as creationism to explain everything than some evolution which has you stay up many nights to study. The fact that the Catholic church managed to rule for over a thousand years should have alerted you to that fact. Thanks to the victory of science over the religious ruling, people are now acquainted with the idea of persistent enquiries whereas centuries ago, it was something not remotely conceivable. Argue as much as you like, it's the state of humanity and there's no good reason to cover it.

===========

Manzcar:
I'd rather think this thread was to present a comprehensive debate about the popular beliefs that are the bases of our lives. The powerful and probably extremely beautiful feature here is that you can prove a positive but not a negative. Therefore, asking a person to prove "God doesn't exist" does not really make sense. It's like asking "When didn't you say that?" rather than "When did you say that?" (this is a reference to Joseph Heller's Catch-22, brilliant book which I'm reading at the moment lol). Thus, as the side in favour of the existence of God, you only have to show that God exists. And really, there are really lots of science-based arguments which more or less allude to the existence of God but the inherent problem is that at the core of science, at least in its current state, all theories must not assume a supernatural being, which effectively suffocates the littlest chance of potentiating the validity of creationism. It is by no means a conspiracy. No, really, it isn't. It is a way, a necessity, to ensure strict coordination between scientists to produce works which provide coherent mechanisms for the phenomena of interest. Think back to the old ages, because people were so contented with the fact that God created rain, they just happily worshipped God of Rain. Thanks to the first civilisations, particularly the Greeks, Egyptians and Chinese, enquiries started to surface but the extent was inadequate. For example, the ancient anatomists "imaged" the human body and the field of anatomy did not really evolve until the idea of dissecting became mainstream. The point is enquiries must be made with observable and testable to effect true progress. Thus, this debate can only continue with the exclusion of such scientific criteria.

========

The centre of this conflict comes from the idea that everything has a beginning, therefore the existence of a God was necessary to explain everything around us. But the idea dies as soon as the question of how/where/who this God came from/was is put forward. "You don't question God". It brings this debate into light.

As someone who is open to the idea that perhaps God created science and let us study this science, I really think it's rather inviting and indeed a wonderful thought. Then again, it could also be nothing out there, as you have mentioned. The reason why one chooses to believe in God is to me a way to find relief from the hardships of this life. There is nothing wrong with that. It's not a sign of weakness, either. It is a way of life, among the million ways possible, but at least it keeps you in line with morality. For that, it is respectable.

My point?

The dead end that we've been going into is that one side is speculating what God wants/does and the other side repeatedly rebuts the intentions of God postulated by the other side. Really, you do not truly know what God wants and claiming that you're in touch with God so you understand God's desires is not the least argumentative. Remember the topic: existence of God so I'm really eager to see evidence.

Debate is a healthy way of exchanging opinions. However, if one keeps attacking the other who purely bases their arguments on dogmatic statements, there is little room for progress. Why don't we all come down to the basics, without the luxury of modern philosophical knowledge, for once?

For example, the current debate is centred upon the fact that God is personal. What about the impersonal possibility of a God? The poll has that after all.

[Jikanu]

Hm. well, i assure you, that's not how it's supposed to be. They're supposed to back up their beliefs. Trust me, just because they're blind sheep doesnt mean all christians are.

And im saying he could forsee changing to option b in the future, but stick with option a right now, because it's the better choice till a certain time.

[Manzcar]

@ Vasu

First of all to go back to your proving a negative. I think that is what you called it, some things are coming a little quick and I am trying to do my job at the same time, so if I am wrong or am using the wrong reference I am sorry. You stated that you saying that you had fairies in your backyard was the same as the Bible. Your first hand account was the same as the one I brought up Moses leading the Jewish people out of Egypt. But your logic is most flawed. I did not say that it was one first hand account for Moses but an entire race of people who saw and agreed to what was written by Moses. So once you get a million people to confirm and swear that they also saw these fairies your statement is logically weak in comparison and in scientific words would be thrown out.

Besides, the Bible has first hand accounts of many people at the same time over thousands of years. It isn’t a one time thing for one person but Thousands of years and millions of people. Some would say scientifically proves it right there. It wasn’t just a one time event. So once again if after thousands of years and millions of first hand accounts to the fairies in your backyard then I will believe with out a shadow of a doubt.

Or is proving a negative saying that you can’t prove God doesn’t exist or it is impossible to prove He doesn’t exist so therefore you don’t have to prove it. Seems like a cop out to me. Because once they thought the world was flat, no proof for or against it. They proved it was round so didn’t they prove the negative. Or am I missing your point all together. Cause it looks like they proved the negative.

To your omnipotent and omniscient argument, I tried to look up your example but was unable to find it. I think it had something to do with creating a rock so heavy it couldn’t be lifted. Which is a cute use of words but in and of itself is illogical with the definitions of the words. The words mean all knowing and all powerful, and have nothing to do with physical strength when describing God. God is spiritual and is all knowing and all powerful spiritual being. It doesn’t mean he can lift the universe with one hand tied behind his back. It means he has all knowledge and all power. Therefore once again your question is illogical with respect to the discussion of God. And scientifically should be thrown out. As far as all knowing goes he makes his decisions and knows the outcome of those decisions so you are wondering why would he had made man knowing that they would sin and be thrown out of the Garden of Eden. But what you miss is he knew that would happen and made sure that there was a way to Him through Jesus Christ. Therefore he knew what actions man would make and He knew He had to do something to save them, which He did.

To your epic rant on beliefs, once again you have taken something out of its context and moved it to another realm. The discussion has been on beliefs on whether a God exists or not. The beliefs stated were for this topic and this topic only on whether God exists. You have once again shown that you are not interested in hearing but only in spouting your beliefs. No one has ever stated that Hitler’s beliefs should be okay or allowed. Personal beliefs of Hitler and whether You agree with them or not was not the discussion. Why do you bring them up.

Is this thread really about people sharing their reasons why they believe in God. Well it looks like every time someone gives a reason you show how their reason is flawed and wrong. Doesn’t look like a discussion to me looks like a debate between believers in God and those who do not believe.

Why do I believe in God? I have a personal relationship with God. I have felt his presence, seen Him work, and viewed His answering my prayers. I have a Bible that shows proof of His existence. The Bible also gives me instructions on how to live, gives me comfort in my trials and tribulations, and give me hope for the future. These are my reasons for believing. And they don’t have to convince you of anything. You have to decide for yourself. I believe your decision is most evident.


@Ralath
The parenting thing is that if man chooses to act against Gods will it is not his fault. People want God to be a Genie that grants wishes and intervenes when we do the wrong thing to save us from ourselves. Just because God doesn’t do that doesn’t mean He doesn’t love us or want us to come to Him. As in the Parents thing my parents taught me how I should be. When I got older I made my own choices to do what I wanted to do even though it went against their wishes. God wants us to have a personal relationship with Him but he isn’t going to force it on you. He let’s us make our own decisions. He has given us a way to Him, but we have to actually choose us. And our reward is not on this earth. But I digress on the topic.


HMMM people who believe in the big bang ran the tests compiled the information and then said it supports their theory. HMMM using your logic they shouldn’t be believed either and therefore no one should believe in the big bang. That is what your saying right. Since the ones who believe in the theory wrote the papers and did the gathering of information are one in the same they can not be trusted and therefore their findings should be labeled as worthless.

[Jikanu]

Manzacar has a point. How could Moses free all the isrealites by himself unless some of the things that happened in the Bible were true?

[Ralath]

Lam has some really good points. Sounds like you guys haven't read them.

Or is proving a negative saying that you can’t prove God doesn’t exist or it is impossible to prove He doesn’t exist so therefore you don’t have to prove it. Seems like a cop out to me. Because once they thought the world was flat, no proof for or against it. They proved it was round so didn’t they prove the negative. Or am I missing your point all together. Cause it looks like they proved the negative.

I don't think this is correct.

This is basically statistical hypothesis testing. Statistics themselves are complete bull but the method of thinking in statistics is highly valuable.

For my musings on hypotheses tests, see the ninja text below. Or, just skip to Lam's simpler explanation.

Let's assume the null hypothesis is denoted by H0 and alternative hypothesis by Ha.

H0: The world is flat.
Ha: The world is not flat.

Contrary to what you believe, this isn't what they proved. Here's what they proved.

H0: The world is flat.
Ha: The world is round.

Unlike the God debate, it's not a Yes-No question in the same sense. Using the first set of hypotheses, if we had proved the world is NOT flat, then we still wouldn't have known what shape the world is.

H0: God does exist.
Ha: God doesn't exist

vs.

H0: God does exist.
Ha: Zeus does exist.
(in which case God doesn't exist since no where in Greek mythology is there a mention of the Christian god).

The two scenarios between the world is flat and whether God exists or not are postulated differently.

(hmm... yeah. Sorry for that long digression. Hope I've thought through that clearly. Feel free to correct me.)


Or more simply put, Lam's explanation:

Therefore, asking a person to prove "God doesn't exist" does not really make sense. It's like asking "When didn't you say that?" rather than "When did you say that?"

HMMM people who believe in the big bang ran the tests compiled the information and then said it supports their theory. HMMM using your logic they shouldn’t be believed either and therefore no one should believe in the big bang. That is what your saying right. Since the ones who believe in the theory wrote the papers and did the gathering of information are one in the same they can not be trusted and therefore their findings should be labeled as worthless.

Yep, can't argue that there is human error in experiments or tests. But unlike God and the Bible, people aren't using the Big Bang to prove the Big Bang or using the Big Bang to prove physics. Rather, the Big Bang came about as the result of physics, other sciences, etc. Can you say that God came about because of the Bible?

Manzacar has a point. How could Moses free all the isrealites by himself unless some of the things that happened in the Bible were true?

I meet your story about Moses and raise you the story of Lot's wife.

If we take every story in the Bible to be literal, there's plenty of stories for both sides.

I do think the Bible makes a good historical and literary text in the same way that the Iliad might.

[Manzcar]

But in proving that the world was round, was a byproduct of not the proving that the world was not flat. So saying that the world is round is the outcome not proving a negative. The thought was not that the world was round but that it wasn’t flat. For all they knew it could have been egg shaped. So, didn’t they prove the negative by finding the true shape of the World.

For instance if Zeus is the true God. In that thinking God does exist and Zeus does exist, which then would prove that God doesn’t exist is false. Or couldn’t you prove that God doesn’t exist and Zeus doesn’t exist and therefore prove that God doesn’t exist.

I am sure that I am confusing myself and everyone else. It has been a while since setting up hypothesis so I am rusty. And I am probably missunderstanding it.

But if a person can not prove their statement does that mean they are not supposed to back it up. For instance, if you say Ralath fell asleep at 9pm. I could say no Ralath didn’t fall asleep at 9pm. So now the responsibility is yours to prove you did fall asleep at 9pm. Because you can’t prove a negative I can not be challenged. It doesn’t matter whether or not it is true you have to prove it and you can’t say that it is true just because you said so.

No what I said is the Bible is a compilation of peoples observances and dealings with God. Just like the Big Bang Theory is the compilation of people’s observances and tests. Bible = Big Bang Theory God = Big Bang itself. I think you may have missed my correlation. Or I am not understanding what you have said.

I am not sure how God telling Lot and his family to leave and not look back or you will be turned into a pillar of salt, and then Lots wife turning back and looking and the city and being turned into a pillar of salt is a raise. Once again it is a first hand account of the direct hand of God. I am not sure of any stories in the Bible that show that God does not exist.

Edit: I have spent most of my work day on here and on this thread that being said I have let my beliefs be know and I also understand that those opposed to my beliefs will not be changed therefor I will not be posting again.

[Jikanu]

What about it being 50% metaphore, 50% literal? it's possible that some is to be taken literally and some figuratively, correct?

[Ralath]

But in proving that the world was round, was a byproduct of not the proving that the world was not flat. So saying that the world is round is the outcome not proving a negative. The thought was not that the world was round but that it wasn’t flat. For all they knew it could have been egg shaped. So, didn’t they prove the negative by finding the true shape of the World.

You just made my point.

They proved that the world was round. If they had proved that the world wasn't flat, then for all they knew, it very well could have been egg-shaped. How did they not know it was egg-shaped? Because they proved it was round. In that case, they rejected the null hypothesis (the world is flat). As these things are mutually exclusive, that means the world isn't flat.

But like I said above, this scenario and the God scenario aren't quite the same.

For instance if Zeus is the true God. In that thinking God does exist and Zeus does exist, which then would prove that God doesn’t exist is false. Or couldn’t you prove that God doesn’t exist and Zeus doesn’t exist and therefore prove that God doesn’t exist.

I defined Zeus and God as two separate entities. I should have said Christian God and then it would have been two mutually exclusive properties to be analogous to the "world is flat" scenario above. But this is not what we're trying to prove or disprove.

But if a person can not prove their statement does that mean they are not supposed to back it up. For instance, if you say Ralath fell asleep at 9pm. I could say no Ralath didn’t fall asleep at 9pm. So now the responsibility is yours to prove you did fall asleep at 9pm. Because you can’t prove a negative I can not be challenged. It doesn’t matter whether or not it is true you have to prove it and you can’t say that it is true just because you said so.

Hrm. I can't tell if you're arguing for me or against me. Lol. If I understand you correctly, then yes, you are right. That's why you don't try to prove I didn't fall asleep at 9pm. So instead of this set of hypotheses:

H0: Ralath fell asleep at 9pm
Ha: Ralath didn't fall asleep at 9pm

It's this set:

H0: Ralath didn't fall asleep at 9pm
Ha: Ralath fell asleep at 9pm.

If you can prove or disprove the alternative, which is a lot easier than proving the null, then can you accept or not accept the null.

I'm pretty sure that's how it works. This one confused me for a long time because the null and the alternative were switched around.

Again, anyone should feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. :3

No what I said is the Bible is a compilation of peoples observances and dealings with God. Just like the Big Bang Theory is the compilation of people’s observances and tests. Bible = Big Bang Theory God = Big Bang itself. I think you may have missed my correlation. Or I am not understanding what you have said.

The Big Bang Theory is a theory, developed WITHOUT knowledge of the actual Big Bang, using the laws of science that were derived independently of the Big Bang, and applied in order to explain the Big Bang.

The Bible is the word and actions of God as written by humans, used to explain God. The Bible was written with knowledge that God already exists and was written in a way so it wouldn't clash with God.

If the Big Bang Theory had been developed this way, then the laws of physics or science would have been written in a way that suited the Big Bang.

There's a cause and effect relationship here. Pretty different, imo.

I am not sure how God telling Lot and his family to leave and not look back or you will be turned into a pillar of salt, and then Lots wife turning back and looking and the city and being turned into a pillar of salt is a raise. Once again it is a first hand account of the direct hand of God. I am not sure of any stories in the Bible that show that God does not exist.

My main point being, I highly doubt Lot's wife actually turned into a pillar of salt. You used one story of the Bible to show how the Bible can represent truth. I used another story of the Bible to show how the Bible is less than literal.

Unless you really believe Lot's wife turned into a pillar of salt, in which case, I don't really have a response for that.

At any rate, I think Jikanu understands what I mean.

What about it being 50% metaphore, 50% literal? it's possible that some is to be taken literally and some figuratively, correct?

Sure. It's possible. In fact, that's probably true--that some parts of the Bible are more truer than others. But who's to say which is literal and which is metaphorical? It's a pretty slippery slope for the Bible when you say that part of the Bible should be interpreted literally and part of it should be interpreted metaphorically.

[Jikanu]

it's gotta be 50-50... Perhaps lot's wife simply got a massive disease that turned her pale, i.e. "a pillar of salt"?

And evolution could theoretically co-exist with creationism assuming that a week for God is like, a few thousand millenia... that's what i choose to believe at least.

Also, you have to take into account the minds of the time. would anyone really consider that we were once apes? or that giant lizards walked the earth? its a possibility that God left that out to make it more believeable.

[Hraesvelg]

I think we've really started going off on about a zillion different tangents, myself included. I don't really think this at any point was meant to get off into the various side discussions about the verity of any particular religion, but was meant in more of the general vein of "Is there a deity?" I'm glad Ralath brought up the terms null hypothesis and statistical language. That's really the easiest way to phrase/structure the question.

In fact, doing a little looking around, I stumbled upon this little site: A Null Hypothesis for Religion. It's a nice little read. The only thing that I can point to that doesn't jive is that OBJECTIVE: Ministries is a satire site, but I'm not surprised he didn't get it at first. It doesn't give a nod and a wink to the reader like a lot of satire.

Also, having something like this on hand is handy:

http://books.google.com/books?id=0Gu...snum=5#PPA2,M1