Do you believe in God?

[buickgnx88]

If a tree falls in the woods, and it crushes a squirrel, does it make a sound?

 

[mindwise]

If a tree falls in the woods, and it crushes a squirrel, does it make a sound?

The squirrel ?

Nah, on a more serious note, i think the 'hear and see' was more like an allegory to 'observable / demonstrable / s'thing that manifests or even is theorized'.

Things like the Oort Cloud, quarks, dark matter etc...

 

[Sureboss]

If a tree falls in the woods, and it crushes a squirrel, does it make a sound?

Probably a squishy sound.

 

[Northstar]

I believe in god, but refuse to commit to one religion since they are all so contradicting and one of the causes for basically every war.

 

[Skynyrd1977]

Merry Christmas to belivers, non believers, and everyone!

 

[Stevisiov]

Merry Christmas to belivers, non believers, and everyone!

Merry Christmas 👍

Non believer here, but hey great time to be merry and all

 

[Talentless]

Nope. Thanks for asking.

 

[TVC]

It's not that I am totally against anyone religious or that I don't think god is 100% fake. It's just that there is no (well very little) evidence to show that he is real. I would like to be able to believe in god but there isn't enough proof.

 

[TheCracker]

I would like to be able to believe in god but there isn't enough proof.

You don't need proof, you need faith to believe in God.

 

[bergauk]

What is faith though? That sounds like something religion made up.

 

[Sureboss]

Faith is the blind belief in something.

 

[TheCracker]

What is faith though? That sounds like something religion made up.

Faith is believing in what someone has told you is truth without giving any real proof to whether it is or not. It's like someone telling you you can jump of this cliff without killing yourself, but not jumping off themselves to prove that point.

 

[Danoff]

Faith is essentially irrational thought. It is a belief that is not and cannot be justified. it is you fighting your own mental faculties.

 

[Sureboss]

It's supporting the England Cricket team.

 

[91hondawagon]

Or the Detroit Lions.

Faith is believing in what someone has told you is truth without giving any real proof to whether it is or not.

Yes, in terms of religion. There is no concrete proof that a higher power exists, and yet there is no concrete evidence that one doesn't exist. Absolute faith in any god is scientifically flawed because there is no proof; however, absolutely knowing that a god doesn't exist is equally scientifically flawed since there is no more evidence against than there is for. So, those who have no faith in higher powers actually have the same amount of faith as theists; instead of being faithful to the idea of a god, they are faithful to the idea of the total absence of one. Now that I mention it, this might be why many people (including myself) have so much trouble thinking and figuring out what their view is.

Thoughts? I apologize in advance if I'm recovering something discussed earlier.

 

[Sureboss]

I'd say that there is evidence against. Would be silly to name all, just look in the creation vs evolution thread.

 

[91hondawagon]

What kind of evidence? God is an omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent being; any real evidence, either for or against God's existence, would immediately nullify all three of those ideas.

I agree, there is plenty of evidence in favor of evolution and almost none in favor of intelligent design. There are lots of detailed discussions and points made in favor of evolution in the thread, too; I wasn't talking about creation v. evolution, though. On the subject of a higher power, I find it hard to accept that there can be valid evidence against it when by its very nature, that power is unknowable to humans.

If you have evidence against, would you please list it in this thread? I'd like to hear it. It would certainly be productive in terms of this thread's topic.

 

[Joey D]

I think the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy sums it up pretty well despite being a work of fiction.

Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.

The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

Replace Babel Fish with Duck Billed Platypus (or any other bizarre creature) and you pretty much have the same exact argument.

I agree there is no way to know one way or another whether there is a higher power or not, anyone who says differently is ignoring logic. Even the non-belief in god can be a bit iffy, although I will admit there is more evidence going for the case of no supernatural being.

 

[Sureboss]

What kind of evidence? God is an omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent being; any real evidence, either for or against God's existence, would immediately nullify all three of those ideas.

I agree, there is plenty of evidence in favor of evolution and almost none in favor of intelligent design. There are lots of detailed discussions and points made in favor of evolution in the thread, too; I wasn't talking about creation v. evolution, though. On the subject of a higher power, I find it hard to accept that there can be valid evidence against it when by its very nature, that power is unknowable to humans.

If you have evidence against, would you please list it in this thread? I'd like to hear it. It would certainly be productive in terms of this thread's topic.

The several members of the Homo family for a start. Habilis, Erectus, Neanderthalis, etc. About 12 or so members of the Homo family. I'd state this as solid evidence against. Mind you, I suppose people would just argue that the bible says "Man" and not modern man. There was a website I linked to in the big thread, iirc, which mapped out the time line of the homo species and it made for interesting showing on how, so often you'd have two species, one would die out, another would take over, then the other one would take over, etc, cycle repeated. Other evidence? Just look around, it's all around you in these a like topics.

Depends what you want as evidence. For me, God is just an unfathomable concept that is as outdated as religion itself. Man has progressed so much in the 3,000 or so years since it's creation that I'd like to think we have found many ways to say, "No, you don't need that to have that happen". For many years did religion believe that the sun orbited around us? Human arrogance is huge, that's why religion exists.

Edit: Of course Evolution is taught as a theory, whereas creation is taught as fact. The theory itself has evolved, and will constantly evolve, being a theory it can. Whereas Creation is taught as fact, but has changed over the years because it's been forced to through change of our own knowledge, that knowledge is often being gained by Science.

I'm not here to tell people what is right and what is wrong. Only that what I've researched/ing is forming my opinion, that opinion being that God wasn't our creator, nor the creator of the everything.

 

[Touring Mars]

What kind of evidence? God is an omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent being; any real evidence, either for or against God's existence, would immediately nullify all three of those ideas.

I agree, there is plenty of evidence in favor of evolution and almost none in favor of intelligent design. There are lots of detailed discussions and points made in favor of evolution in the thread, too; I wasn't talking about creation v. evolution, though. On the subject of a higher power, I find it hard to accept that there can be valid evidence against it when by its very nature, that power is unknowable to humans.

If you have evidence against, would you please list it in this thread? I'd like to hear it. It would certainly be productive in terms of this thread's topic.

I don't think it is possible to prove that God doesn't exist, and no amount of evidence (however compelling) will convince some people. It is enough for me, however, to be able to say that supernatural occurrences and by extension, miracles or "Acts of God" can and usually do have alternate explanations based entirely on rational/natural phenomena. However, while alternate "natural explanations" exist, it doesn't discount the possibility that a higher level of supernatural causation might also be acting - but in terms of the way we understand our surroundings and how we can use the knowledge to our benefit, this "higher level of explanation" is at best superfluous (and at worst completely fraudulent).

For example, I'd argue that the 2004 tsunami was not an Act of God, although many people believe it must have been. For me, the explanation that a giant undersea earthquake caused it is enough, and this knowledge could be used to warn coast-dwelling people that a tsunami was on it's way. Speculating "who" caused it or indeed "why" is superfluous. Nobody can successfully argue that an undetectable all-powerful deity didn't have a hand in it, but I can't for the life of me find any usefulness behind this line of thought (other than maybe to demonstrate that appealing to God on a daily basis is no protection from His behaviour!)

This is where I think the issue is - what purpose is achieved by either subscription to the scientific method or by the belief that everything is ultimately controlled by a higher power... I'd argue that one has considerably more purpose/use than the other, and hence why one is more helpful to learn/preach/practice than the other...

 

[TheCracker]

Yes, in terms of religion. There is no concrete proof that a higher power exists, and yet there is no concrete evidence that one doesn't exist. Absolute faith in any god is scientifically flawed because there is no proof; however, absolutely knowing that a god doesn't exist is equally scientifically flawed since there is no more evidence against than there is for.

Surely you don't need to prove that something doesn't exist?

 

[Bram Turismo]

What kind of evidence? God is an omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent being; any real evidence, either for or against God's existence, would immediately nullify all three of those ideas.

I agree, there is plenty of evidence in favor of evolution and almost none in favor of intelligent design. There are lots of detailed discussions and points made in favor of evolution in the thread, too; I wasn't talking about creation v. evolution, though. On the subject of a higher power, I find it hard to accept that there can be valid evidence against it when by its very nature, that power is unknowable to humans.

If you have evidence against, would you please list it in this thread? I'd like to hear it. It would certainly be productive in terms of this thread's topic.

So then, according to you, tsunamis and earthquakes happen because of God? Funny, because last time I checked, God loved his creation and all life. So, you believe that God punishes us by a catastrophy, killing thousands of people?

I agree with Touring Mars to a certain degree. It is difficult to proove that there is no God. I for one, cannot explain that there is no God. However, it is also impossible to proove that there is a God. If I asked you right now for some points to proove God's existence, with facts that can be observed, sensed, and explained rationally, I think you'll be having a hard time.

For example;

If there is a God, why do we suffer so much? Why are people in so much pain everyday, and why do so much people die? If you believe in God, it is far more difficult to answer this question using sensible, and observational facts. For the non believers, this would be less difficult by saying for example that that's just how mankind has developed. Some were earlier, others are behind. Why so much war? That's just how mankind is; selfish and greedy. When we don't get things our way, we get angry and aggressive. This as just example though...

Also, I don't believe in certain humans being born with a higher purpose than others. This is just a fact within religion, as in "He was born to guide us to a better life, a life in line with Christ". But this is as far as I'll go, why I'm not Prime-Minister is purely based upon my eduction and leadership, and not because I was chosen by God for this task.

 

[91hondawagon]

Surely you don't need to prove that something doesn't exist?

Not really; I was simply trying to point out the impossibility of either proving or disproving something certainly exists, not saying that I need to prove one way or the other.

So then, according to you, tsunamis and earthquakes happen because of God?

No.

Funny, because last time I checked, God loved his creation and all life. So, you believe that God punishes us by a catastrophy, killing thousands of people?

Again, no. Do not put words in my mouth. You do not know what I truly think, and it is insulting to (a) assume what I believe and (b) attack me for your false perceptions.

I agree with Touring Mars to a certain degree. It is difficult to proove that there is no God. I for one, cannot explain that there is no God. However, it is also impossible to proove that there is a God. If I asked you right now for some points to proove God's existence, with facts that can be observed, sensed, and explained rationally, I think you'll be having a hard time.

Yes, in terms of religion. There is no concrete proof that a higher power exists, and yet there is no concrete evidence that one doesn't exist. Absolute faith in any god is scientifically flawed because there is no proof; however, absolutely knowing that a god doesn't exist is equally scientifically flawed since there is no more evidence against than there is for.

You see?

Shame on me for trying to make a good counterpoint.

 

[Bram Turismo]

I must apologize for my post, I indeed attacked you without any reason for back-up. However, I do disagree with you on this matter:

however, absolutely knowing that a god doesn't exist is equally scientifically flawed since there is no more evidence against than there is for.

Exactly how would you proove this point then? How much more is there to back up the creation of humans than the evolution of humans? What does back-up religion more than what backs up science when talking about the creation of the universe? Granted, the idea that the universe exploded from an object the size of a tennisball, expanding to the size it is today, is a little suspicious (or so it seems to me) but the thought that God suddenly decided "Y'know, I feel like snapping my fingers and create a universe with my own created people on those things I shall call planets" does not appeal to me at all.

 

[Danoff]

You see?

Shame on me for trying to make a good counterpoint.

Also, absolute knowledge that the flying spaghetti monster does not exist is equally scientifically flawed. The same thing for the giant sea turtle god myth, or the giant kangaroo god myth. All of them suffer from a lack of evidence for belief. And none of them can be absolutely proven wrong.

Bottom line - I require evidence for "belief".

 

[Zrow]

Bottom line - I require evidence for "belief".

And you know, so does everyone about most things. Christians just make one exception. It's kind of absurd.

 

[Duke]

Christians Religious people just make one exception. It's kind of absurd.

Nothing Christian-specific about it.

 

[91hondawagon]

I must apologize for my post, I indeed attacked you without any reason for back-up.

Thank you for the apology 👍.

Exactly how would you proove this point then? How much more is there to back up the creation of humans than the evolution of humans? What does back-up religion more than what backs up science when talking about the creation of the universe? Granted, the idea that the universe exploded from an object the size of a tennisball, expanding to the size it is today, is a little suspicious (or so it seems to me) but the thought that God suddenly decided "Y'know, I feel like snapping my fingers and create a universe with my own created people on those things I shall call planets" does not appeal to me at all.

To answer your first question about humans, I agree that there isn't. Evolution is so thoroughly scientifically supported that flat-out rejecting it in favor of intelligent design is ridiculous. Of course, the argument can still be made that evolution is just a part of God's master plan for the universe and mankind (not my view). However, the point has been made here many times that there isn't any real scientific proof that supports intelligent design.

The point of my statement is that absolutely believing one way or the other is flawed. If there was any real proof that God existed or not, then there would be no basis for belief or faith, just knowledge. One can't believe God exists when he knows that God doesn't exist, and vice versa. It would be like me believing that the Sun is shining while I stand outside in a thunderstorm. When the truth is staring us in the face, we can't rationally ignore it. When the truth isn't readily apparent, like creation v. evolution, many (including myself) choose the side that has the most concrete, scientific evidence backing it up.

However, there is no scientific evidence that God exists or not, which is the main problem. However:

I don't think it is possible to prove that God doesn't exist, and no amount of evidence (however compelling) will convince some people. It is enough for me, however, to be able to say that supernatural occurrences and by extension, miracles or "Acts of God" can and usually do have alternate explanations based entirely on rational/natural phenomena. However, while alternate "natural explanations" exist, it doesn't discount the possibility that a higher level of supernatural causation might also be acting - but in terms of the way we understand our surroundings and how we can use the knowledge to our benefit, this "higher level of explanation" is at best superfluous (and at worst completely fraudulent).

and

Also, absolute knowledge that the flying spaghetti monster does not exist is equally scientifically flawed. The same thing for the giant sea turtle god myth, or the giant kangaroo god myth. All of them suffer from a lack of evidence for belief. And none of them can be absolutely proven wrong.

To sum up what they've said, natural occurrences like hurricanes, supernovas, tsunamis, etc., that are thought of as "Acts of God" have plausible scientific causes, and while supernatural forces may still be at work, using these occurrences as evidence of God's existence becomes a shaky form of proof at best. Since no evidence exists, no basis for actual knowledge exists, and only belief and faith, which do not rely on actual proof, can exist.

I feel like I'm going in circles, but I hope I've made my point clearer.

 

[mindwise]

As of coming friday, i'm thinking of becoming a last thursday-ist.

As a last thursday-ist, obviously, starting coming friday, i'll believe that the universe and all that's in it (and that includes our memories) were actually created last thursday.

Try and prove me wrong, and like tomorrow never comes, there'll always be a next Thursday to call last Thursday...

Pfffff, okay a little more on topic.

I agree that it's hard to prove something does not exist if that 'something' we'd be disproving does not manifest.

It's not like 'oxygen not 'existing' in a balloon filled with nitrogen' which is something that can be shown to be true. (no oxygen present that is
Now i'd argue that if something does not manifest 'i.e. 'exists in an undetectable realm' it's not even worth contemplating. If the believers are not (even) able to provide how their god hypothesis is falsifiable and neither able to prove, then the proposition god is a concept grows ever stronger.

That said, when pressed, some believers will come up with properties of 'god', (to the unbelievers surprise quite different ones, we'd expect a little more consistency)

Then, based on the properties brought forward, evidence that god cannot exist can be made (though by total lack of manifestation, it usually remains to be 'shooting at a concept').

I.e.
If someone proposes that:
God is omniscient.
God has free will.
Man has free will.

that can be taken down logically since omniscience and free will don't blend well.
If god knows the future, then god also knows every future choice He will make, as well as Man will make. This negates free will as neither god nor man would be able to make a choice in the future that differs from the foreseen future.
Something has got to give, either god is not omniscient or man does not actually have free will (and nor does god in that case).

Funny fact wrt to the bible is of course that god killed much (millions) more people then satan (in scripture that is).
And the ones satan did kill as recorded in Job, were killed with gods explicit permission.

Satan being called the 'master of deceit', it's hard to resist the notion that -should god exist- the bible could well be the work of satan

I mean, if i were christian, sure some passages i would accept with some difficulty, but i'd accept them believing my god is all knowing and loving etc.

But, before i'd believe passages like 2Kings2 (to pick just one 'bad' cherry), then in gods defense, i'd demand actual evidence.
(Obviously, most christians just casually read past such passages and conveniently forget them).

23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. "Get out of here, baldy!" they said. "Get out of here, baldy!" 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys. 25 And he went on to Mount Carmel and from there returned to Samaria.

Claiming certainty god does not exist goes too far for me, let me say i think any described god cannot be -to put it mildly- a correct 'portrait'
(with the exception of god's like Spinoza's god, i simply don't believe in such gods).

 

[Sureboss]

i'll believe that the universe and all that's in it (and that includes our memories) were actually created last thursday.

Try and prove me wrong

I can send you some bills with dates from before last Thursday. Though I wouldn't mind if they didn't exist and were only a figment of my imagination!