Do you believe in God?

[homeforsummer]

Absolutely true, but I bet many people don't consider the possibility of the existence of a creator for personal reasons. I'm sure that you are not like that though (as you have shown).

That's little different from those people who do believe in the existence of a creator for no other reason than because they've not taken more time to find out how the world and universe actually work. I don't doubt that there are some atheists who have personal reasons for not believing in God, but likewise there are some theists who believe in God because it offers an easy explanation for some difficult concepts.

 

[dylansan]

Tankass, I've thought about your argument about science not being able to answer questions, and I want to put an end to it right now, in the hopes that it won't come up again.

Imagine the following question: What is good art?
Can science answer this question? That depends. If you ask it like that, no it can't. How do you define good art? Without a precise, specific definition, science can't do anything to answer it.

So maybe we define good art as something visually appealing. Okay, better, but appealing to who? The general population, we'll say. Does that mean everyone? That would require good art to be appealing to every single person, which would mean very little good art. So we'll define it as most people. How many is most? What percentage?

You can see that the question is very hard to define, and many people will disagree on the specifics of the question, which inevitably means many different answers to the same question. But they're not answering the same question, they're answering their interpretations of the question. The original question is unanswerable, unless each term is very clearly and specifically defined from the start. At that point, science could indeed find an answer. What things are visually appealing to 80% or more of the human population? We can test that (though we may need a definition of visually appealing).

The point is, the questions you like to bring up, like "What is our purpose in life" or "what is the meaning of life," or even just questions of culture or philosophy, are not even really questions. They can not be answered without further description, and as such no method can answer them, including religion. This is further evidenced by the fact that different religions give different answers to the same questions. They are all using different definitions, especially when it comes to interpreting texts and choosing which one to refer to. This means, when all religions come up with different answers, at most one of them can be the correct answer to a particular question, and you only know which one if you pick the right definitions for the question, and the only way to verify if their answer is logically consistent with reality is... Bingo. Science.

You might want to say that science cannot be used to verify that because that assumes science is correct. But the scientific process literally involves using current knowledge to make a prediction, and observing if that prediction is consistent with reality. If rejecting things that aren't consistent with reality is not a process to verify answers to questions about reality, I don't know what is.

Sorry to bring this whole discussion back up again, but I wanted to write this stuff down while it was still in my mind. I'd hate for the argument to come up again after I had forgotten this entire discussion.

 

[iRevelationz]

I don't really lean either way, but if there is a God...

“Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." - Matthew 10:37

Basically, love someone you've never seen or had any kind of contact with more than your family. Oh, and if you don't, you just burn in Hell for eternity. Sounds like a nice guy to me.

 

[huskeR32]

Perhaps we all know deep down that God exists - this is what I believe. We know in our hearts that he is there, but reject him because of our own wishes.

For me, it's the opposite. I really wanted to believe in god for a long time, but I increasingly discovered that I knew in my heart that he/she wasn't there.

I've never been an atheist myself - an agnostic at best, but I remember one night I looked into the sky and saw the array of stars placed in the sky. It seemed so obvious that God was responsible for this.

This is actually one of the things that always made me feel that there most likely was not a god. Looking up into that incomprehensibly vast sea of stars made me feel very insignificant in the universe, and made god seem very unlikely. And in a way that I can't quite explain, I like that feeling. It makes me more appreciative of how fleeting and precious our existence is.

There is evidence for God in some sense, not particularly the scientific (testable) kind, but philosophical arguments and historical evidence for the accuracy of the New Testament.

No, there's not. Philosophical arguments do not constitute proof. The bible does not constitute proof. There is at least as much evidence that the bible is wrong as there is evidence that it is accurate.

 

[TankAss95]

I've heard the philosophical arguments in religion class. They're all pretty bad, and don't stand up to scrutiny.

I will challenge that, just give me some time.

That's little different from those people who do believe in the existence of a creator for no other reason than because they've not taken more time to find out how the world and universe actually work. I don't doubt that there are some atheists who have personal reasons for not believing in God, but likewise there are some theists who believe in God because it offers an easy explanation for some difficult concepts.

There's definitely truth to be found here, but not all Christians are guilty of the 'God of the gaps' fallacy. In the past for example the Catholic church did horrible things to suppress scientific advancement, but this was definitely not the attitude which the actual scripture of Christianity teaches (plus, it could be said that the Aristotle views plus politics was entirely responsible). When Isaac Newton discovered the laws of gravity for example he didn't say that "now I know what the laws of motion are, my belief in God is diminished", he actually praised God even further because he discovered the way in which the laws of nature worked that God had made.

So the God presented in Christianity and Judaism is different from most earlier pagan God(s), because the monotheistic God presented is the author and sustainer of the universe. Imagine you had an ancient document written in a ancient language. After deciphering the text you wouldn't rule out the role of the author.

 

[Sach]

“Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." - Matthew 10:37

He's pointing to the fact that first there was God, then came your father and mother. It's about acknowledging God as the creator of all things, family included, and recognizing where they came from. I do not find this verse so threatening as you would.


For example:

Oh, and if you don't, you just burn in Hell for eternity. Sounds like a nice guy to me.

He never implies this, and frankly none of us are actually worthy of God's mercy, that's why it is merciful of Him to have sent His son, and why Jesus's statement is readily a matter of fact.


Secondly, the idea of burning in hell is a subject of much debate. Many theologians contrarily suggest that hell is purely a separation with God, and not a particular place where a guy sits on top of a volcanic throne with a pitchfork.

 

[DK]

When Isaac Newton discovered the laws of gravity for example he didn't say that "now I know what the laws of motion are, my belief in God is diminished", he actually praised God even further because he discovered the way in which the laws of nature worked that God had made.

There's two things I have to call you out on here:

1. Newton was also a philosopher.
2. Back in the 17th/18th centuries, there was still a load of gaps in scientific knowledge, which people filled with God.

 

[Sach]

Back in the 17th/18th centuries, there was still a load of gaps in scientific knowledge, which people filled with God.

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense though. Just because more gaps are filled in today, can you not still thank God for the fact that they exist?

 

[huskeR32]

When Isaac Newton discovered the laws of gravity for example he didn't say that "now I know what the laws of motion are, my belief in God is diminished", he actually praised God even further because he discovered the way in which the laws of nature worked that God had made.

What is the point you're trying to make whenever you tell these stories? Isaac Newton believing in god doesn't prove anything.

So the God presented in Christianity and Judaism is different from most earlier pagan God(s), because the monotheistic God presented is the author and sustainer of the universe. Imagine you had an ancient document written in a ancient language. After deciphering the text you wouldn't rule out the role of the author.

I'm pretty sure a lot of polytheistic belief systems held that their gods also "authored" the universe. What makes those wrong and yours right?

He never implies this, and frankly none of us are actually worthy of God's mercy, that's why it is merciful of Him to have sent His son, and why Jesus's statement is readily a matter of fact.

He may be merciful, but he also strikes me as an egomaniac. We wouldn't even be in a position to need his mercy if it wasn't for his demand that we blindly believe he exists.

 

[Sach]

He may be merciful, but he also strikes me as an egomaniac.

We wouldn't even be in a position to need his mercy if it wasn't for his demand that we blindly believe he exists.

I would argue that the requirement is not of a blind faith. Additionally, I've questioned that God may be tyrannical, however this is contradicted by free will, as well as His intercession at our plight which resulted from our own devices. Additionally, as the result of our desire for independence, we are offended by the fact that we are ultimately dependent on Him for anything to exist, and of our inadequacy in setting forth what is and is not pertaining to existence, right and wrong, morality, etc.

 

[Liquid]

Additionally, as the result of our desire for independence, we are offended by the fact that we are ultimately dependent on Him for anything to exist

Only if you believe in him.

Which I don't. To me, we're just a collection of molecules. Highly advanced molecules, but molecules none the less. There's no definitive definition as to the why and such, and I can deal with that.

Not that I'm suggesting you can't, but I'm just stressing the point that I don't see anything greater out there. No reason why there should be.

 

[Sach]

Only if you believe in him.

Which I don't. To me, we're just a collection of molecules. Highly advanced molecules, but molecules none the less. There's no definitive definition as to the why and such, and I can deal with that.

Not that I'm suggesting you can't, but I'm just stressing the point that I don't see anything greater out there. No reason why there should be.

I understand that position. It's one that I shared for a number of years. The only thing I disagree with is your assertion that there is no reason why there should be anything greater out there.

I feel like what I'm seeing here is a trend of people who disbelieve in the supernatural, whether it pertains to God or not. There seems to be an attempt to rationalize everything into a nice tidy box of logic and objective truth and ignore all of the anomalies and outliers that have existed for as long as human beings have documented our experiences.

That's why I posted the video on telepathy resulting from an LSD experience. Many people claim to have essentially experienced an encounter with the supernatural, or to have transcended the limitations of the normal conscious state of understanding reality (in a way they perceive as accurate) through the use of drugs, as one example. But in this thread apparently anything that is not objectively true is absolute hogwash, the opposite of which is basically what has been my argument here from the start.

 

[Liquid]

I feel like what I'm seeing here is a trend of people who disbelieve in the supernatural, whether it pertains to God or not. There seems to be an attempt to rationalize everything into a nice tidy box of logic and objective truth and ignore all of the anomalies and outliers that have existed for as long as human beings have documented our experiences.

I personally don't try and rationalise things in neat boxes. That was my point in not believing that there should or has to be an answer to the deep philosophical questions of our mortality. I don't believe we can answer everything, because I don't see any assurance or guarantee that there is the answer to things such as the meaning of life, or what was before the universe. Or what will come after it.

 

[Sach]

I personally don't try and rationalise things in neat boxes. That was my point in not believing that there should or has to be an answer to the deep philosophical questions of our mortality. I don't believe we can answer everything, because I don't see any assurance or guarantee that there is the answer to things such as the meaning of life, or what was before the universe. Or what will come after it.

Fair, but I didn't mean to say these things in a specific way about you personally. This has simply described the general overtone of the arguments against the existence of God in this thread, specifically by those who argue from a scientific point of view.

 

[huskeR32]

But in this thread apparently anything that is not objectively true is absolute hogwash, the opposite of which is basically what has been my argument here from the start.

There is a misunderstanding here that I think drives a lot of the cyclical debate in this thread.

You're saying that atheists have a problem with ideas that can't be objectively proven. I think for many of us though, the ideas aren't the problem. The fact that theists think it's perfectly OK to pass these ideas off as fact is the real problem.

It's not so much the ideas as the way they're presented in other words.

 

[Exorcet]

I feel like what I'm seeing here is a trend of people who disbelieve in the supernatural, whether it pertains to God or not. There seems to be an attempt to rationalize everything into a nice tidy box of logic and objective truth and ignore all of the anomalies and outliers that have existed for as long as human beings have documented our experiences.

For the supernatural to even exist, it needs to be supernatural. In other words, there must be no possible way to rationally explain it. This is of course different from the case where no one knows how to explain it, and unless we've literally tried everything to explain something, there's always the possibility that an explanation still exists. This basically means that it's pretty hard to classify something as outside of logic and be correct. Outliers and anomalies are simply the unexplained for now. There are literally too many examples of "time leading to the answer" to count in human history.

I'm very hesitant to label anything as super natural. If I saw a ghost, I wouldn't right away assume that all the stuff I've seen on TV about ghosts was true. I would conduct research and try to find out how ghosts operate, or how the mind creates a ghost through false perception (ie a white bed sheet). Out of all the ghost sightings in the world, a large number are probably people misinterpreting something, and the rest are unexplained. I don't think there has ever been an accepted case of a genuine ghost sighting where said ghost was a spirit that used to be a person. That's pretty convincing evidence against ghosts.

I don't think that the people who reject God and the supernatural are close minded. They're simply not gullible or easily convinced. God pretty much has no choice except to operate objectively and within logic or else he would be indistinguishable from chance. He can be everywhere at once, he can see everything, he can create Suns by snapping his fingers; that's completely fine. However, if a city prays for protection from earthquakes, and only 1 in every 10 earthquakes causes major damage, that does nothing to justify the power of prayer. They just happen to be in a region where 1 in 10 earthquakes is devastating. It could be true that God stops every earthquake up to the 9th, but there is no way to verify it. People feeling an overwhelming sense of relief, or some kind of great presence isn't proof. That's most likely the people rejoicing over not having been crushed by falling buildings.

That is why prayer doesn't prove anything. There is no object measure of the benefits. Some prayers come true, and this is only because probability says they must. It's the same thing when someone reads a line from the Bible and it has immediate relevance in their life.

You can claim that God operates beyond logic, but when you do, you simply make it pointless to even discuss him. Without logic or reasoning, not even religion can reach God.

 

[Akira AC]

I feel like what I'm seeing here is a trend of people who disbelieve in the supernatural, whether it pertains to God or not. There seems to be an attempt to rationalize everything into a nice tidy box of logic and objective truth and ignore all of the anomalies and outliers that have existed for as long as human beings have documented our experiences.

Well the only truth is the one that can be prove, otherwise it could not be proven and so it wouldn't be true, is not about leaving everything on a tidy logic box but rather prove what is truth and what is not, since god is presented as a truth for believer, but actually is false as it cant be proven.

Different supernatural phenomena can be attributed to different things and conditions (something that you showcased with the vid), however using the supernatural "existence" as a sign that there might be a god is actually very flawed, supernatural phenomena that cant be explained usually involves alteration on one individual perception(the people who saw Jesus revive might have experience hallucination, which is as valid as saying he actually came back to life) and so it doesn't present an actual basis to prove the existence of a god, just proves how flawed the whole concept is.

 

[Sach]

Well the only truth is the one that can be prove, otherwise it could not be proven and so it wouldn't be true

I disagree. Something doesn't have to be collectively proven true to actually be true.



- Hypothetical example: If I were alone at the edge of the universe, or somewhere beyond the observation of anyone else, I could witness any particular event within this setting of isolation and report it to an audience at a later time.

Now, keep this in a purely theoretical box... and say the event DID happen, but I have no means to explain it to anyone other than through my own experience. Well, in this case it happened, but 'you' can neither test this nor confirm it for yourself.

Is it really any less true? Absolutely not! You simply lack the means to objectively verify it, but that is completely irrelevant and bears no influence on the course of events that did in fact transpire. It's true regardless of whether I report back to you with data you can test to verify it or not.


I fail to see how so many intelligent people here fail to grasp this concept, or choose to ignore it. It really isn't complicated.

 

[huskeR32]

I disagree. Something doesn't have to be collectively proven true to actually be true.



- Hypothetical example: If I were at the edge of the universe, or somewhere beyond the observation of anyone else, I could witness any particular event within this setting of isolation and report it to an audience at a later time.

Now, keep this in a purely theoretical box... and say the event DID happen, but I have no means to explain it to anyone other than through my own experience. Well, in this case it happened, but 'you' can neither test this nor confirm it for yourself.

Is it really any less true? Absolutely not. You simply lack the means to objectively verify it, but that is completely irrelevant and bears no influence on the course of events that did in fact transpire. It's also true regardless of whether I report back to you with data you can test to verify it or not.


I fail to see how so many intelligent people here fail to grasp this concept, or choose to ignore it. It really isn't complicated.

Your attempted analogy falls flat. Your event at the edge of the universe is something that could be objectively verified if there were others around to do so.

God can't be objectively verified no matter how many people are around.

 

[Sach]

Your attempted analogy falls flat. Your event at the edge of the universe is something that could be objectively verified if there were others around to do so.

*Facepalm* You missed the point... again.



Forget "edge of the universe" then. Insert.... (anywhere beyond the observation of anyone else)... and retry.



Edit: Nevermind... instead, how about rereading the part that clearly said what I just repeated... and also maybe include the part that says specifically that there are no other witnesses present.

"or somewhere beyond the observation of anyone else"

 

[Akira AC]

Now, keep this in a purely theoretical box... and say the event DID happen, but I have no means to explain it to anyone other than through my own experience. Well, in this case it happened, but 'you' can neither test this nor confirm it for yourself.

Is it really any less true? Absolutely not. You simply lack the means to objectively verify it, but that is completely irrelevant and bears no influence on the course of events that did in fact transpire. It's true regardless of whether I report back to you with data you can test to verify it or not.


I fail to see how so many intelligent people here fail to grasp this concept, or choose to ignore it. It really isn't complicated.

Wrong, what you're basically say is that a truth seen by one individual is not valid because is not corroborated by other individual. That's not the case here since is not a matter of credibility, is a mater of fact which is very different from what you say.

One or more individual can affirm to have seen god, however they cant showcase such thing as fact because they cant explain such a thing, but unexplainable things do have explanation, their problem is that people who often give faith of this sort do not know what they are talking about, like the ancient Greek and Roman gods which were based under the basis that the sun(for example) cannot be explained and thus had to be a god because it was inexplicable, then we learned how the universe works and so we learn how to explain such a thing.

God is just a simple bypass to explain stuff, for people who doesn't have the required knowledge to explain what is showcased as "inexplicable", personally I believe that god is a psychological/social concept created to reinforce some of the established rules created by society, giving a greater thing to be afraid is actually an excellent method of control, so effective in fact that several empires/leaders/governments use it to manipulate people.

And that is why I believe the theist's views are actually very flawed, regardless of the explanation given to "inexplicable" phenomena.

 

[Exorcet]

I disagree. Something doesn't have to be collectively proven true to actually be true.



- Hypothetical example: If I were alone at the edge of the universe, or somewhere beyond the observation of anyone else, I could witness any particular event within this setting of isolation and report it to an audience at a later time.

Now, keep this in a purely theoretical box... and say the event DID happen, but I have no means to explain it to anyone other than through my own experience. Well, in this case it happened, but 'you' can neither test this nor confirm it for yourself.

Is it really any less true? Absolutely not! You simply lack the means to objectively verify it, but that is completely irrelevant and bears no influence on the course of events that did in fact transpire. It's true regardless of whether I report back to you with data you can test to verify it or not.


I fail to see how so many intelligent people here fail to grasp this concept, or choose to ignore it. It really isn't complicated.

The event did happen, but what was the event? Let's say that you measured a particle going faster than the speed of light, you even had a device that told you so. You come back and report it, but people say that you're mistaken. They are correct.

How can this be? You didn't notice that the device's sensor was covered in a thin layer of water. The sensor detected this and calibrated its speed of light reading relative of the speed of light in water. So the particle exceeded the speed of light without exceeding the speed of light. Physics would tell you that the former is possible and the latter isn't. So without even being there, the people back on earth could come up with an explanation to your subjective experience that otherwise would have broke the laws of physics.

This applies to religious experiences. Someone may wake up and think that they heard God speaking while asleep. In reality, it was the wind causing some loose tiles on the roof to vibrate, which the sleeping person's brain interpreted as a voice. The bottom line is what you see/hear/etc may not actually be what happened. Being able to repeat events under controlled conditions and studying them in detail is far more reliable.

 

[Sach]

The event did happen, but what was the event? Let's say that you measured a particle going faster than the speed of light, you even had a device that told you so. You come back and report it, but people say that you're mistaken. They are correct.

Why is this so difficult? The point is not to describe any particular event, as you have chosen to assign to this scenario. The point is to show that an event can exist beyond what can be objectively be proven. All you did was to name examples that can be objectively proven.

 

[Exorcet]

The point is not to describe any particular event.

Yes, I know.

All you did was to name examples that can be objectively proven.

No, I showed that you could have an experience and completely misinterpret it. This is why claims with no evidence must not be accepted easily. You can believe anything you want, that doesn't make it true.

Now, keep this in a purely theoretical box... and say the event DID happen, but I have no means to explain it to anyone other than through my own experience. Well, in this case it happened, but 'you' can neither test this nor confirm it for yourself.

Is it really any less true? Absolutely not! You simply lack the means to objectively verify it, but that is completely irrelevant and bears no influence on the course of events that did in fact transpire. It's true regardless of whether I report back to you with data you can test to verify it or not.

This is all true, but you left something out. You, the one who observed the event, might not actually know what happened. The event is not any less true. What you perceived could be true or false.

 

[huskeR32]

*Facepalm* You missed the point... again.



Forget "edge of the universe" then. Insert.... (anywhere beyond the observation of anyone else)... and retry.



Edit: Nevermind... instead, how about rereading the part that clearly said what I just repeated... and also maybe include the part that says specifically that there are no other witnesses present.

And you missed my point.

In your original scenario, you were at the edge of the universe alone and "witnessed" something. Witnessed is the key word here: you saw something. And because you saw it, if somebody else was around, they would see it too. The only thing in this scenario that prevents verification of the event is that nobody else is around.

With god, it doesn't matter if you're alone or not. Evidence of god can't be seen. You could be around 1 million other people or by yourself. Either way, there's nothing to witness. In this scenario, it's not being alone that would prevent verification, it's the fact that there's nothing to witness. By anybody.

So again, your analogy falls flat. The two scenarios are very different.

 

[Sach]

With god, it doesn't matter if you're alone or not. Evidence of god can't be seen. You could be around 1 million other people or by yourself. Either way, there's nothing to witness. In this scenario, it's not being alone that would prevent verification, it's the fact that there's nothing to witness. By anybody.

I have seen things, right alongside other people, namely my wife. It was certainly something to witness, and it changed both of us forever. I even told this story way back in this thread. I also just recently presented you all with another story of divinely inspired events involving my friend that were witnessed by many people, in a crowded street. These are non-objective events that occurred, and were witnessed by many. The source may be questioned, but they happened, and the source cannot be proven objectively.


Another observation about skeptics in this thread is that the trend of thinking is to suggest that nothing can exist that humans can know to be true, subjectively. I already know what you are going to do, which is to try and assign these phenomena to other sources. But if you asked me, "how did I know that God was doing this?" Well, there are in fact certain things you just know, not by any methods of testing. And if I was indeed having a spiritual connection with the creator of all of existence to just know wouldn't be out of the question whatsoever.

 

[huskeR32]

I have seen things, right alongside other people, namely my wife. It was certainly something to witness, and it changed both of us forever. I even told this story way back in this thread. I also just recently presented you all with another story of divinely inspired events involving my friend that were witnessed by many people, in a crowded street. These are non-objective events that occurred, and were witnessed.


Another observation about skeptics in this thread is that the trend of thinking is to suggest that nothing can exist that humans can know to be true, subjectively. I already know what you are going to do, which is to try and assign these phenomena to other sources. But if you asked me, "how did I know that God was doing this?" Well, there are in fact certain things you just know, not by any methods of testing.

What you saw were everyday occurrences. You personally, and internally, may have attributed these events to god. To any other bystander though, nothing that they were able to see would be extraordinary.

 

[Sach]

What you saw were everyday occurrences.


You personally, and internally, may have attributed these events to god. To any other bystander though, nothing that they were able to see would be extraordinary.

Were you there?! I can assure you that neither my wife or I have ever since seen anything remotely like that.

And it is not an every day occurrence that I suddenly encounter a presence that causes the warmest tears of joy to suddenly pour from my eyes. In fact, while I have cried tears of joy many times in spiritual settings out of thankfulness to God, I have never since had that kind of feeling or experience.

You are flat wrong. "Any other bystander?" This happened to my wife simultaneously with no prior discussion leading to, or suggestive of these events.

 

[Jubby]

Wait, are we on a "If a tree falls and no one hears it, does it make a sound" shtick?

Whereas I don't agree with Sach's point, removing the observer from the situation doesn't change what could be observed.
If no one is able to observe something doesn't mean it's true, just unverifiable- up to this point. It's a lack of understanding or presence.

Granted, everything can be explained. Sorry Sach, but a personal one time testimony by a biased witness doesn't prove anything. Can it be repeated?

 

[dylansan]

Were you there?! I can assure you that neither my wife or I have ever since seen anything remotely like that.

And it is not an every day occurrence that I suddenly encounter a presence that causes the warmest tears of joy to suddenly pour from my eyes. In fact, while I have cried tears of joy many times in spiritual settings out of thankfulness to God, I have never since had that kind of feeling or experience.

You are flat wrong. "Any other bystander?" This happened to my wife simultaneously with no prior discussion leading to, or suggestive of these events.

Psychology is complicated. Coincidences happen. There's a million ways you could have misinterpreted what happened, and without being able to test it, there's no way to know.