Regarding the Existence or Absence of God

[I Missed Boat]

Originally posted by marketsurfer
dan,

stating that species that existed no longer do means nothing. species go extinct all the time, does not mean they evolved into something else.

There are plenty of species that are clearly connected by the discoveries (and analysis of genes) of the intermediate species. I believe Bears and pigs are closely related, for example. For that matter, we have found plenty to connect people and apes (even outside of analyzing our genetic make-up), and yet evolutionary anthropologists have barely scratched the surface. Evolutionary archaeology only picked up not even 100 years ago and has barely begun. There is also evidence (not proof) for the theories, such as the similar process by which we develop as fetuses (we have gills, and you can't even tell the difference at certain stages of fetal development between a human and many other species).

 

[I Missed Boat]

Originally posted by axeman

I have not denied that logic can or has been used
to describe things "outside" our logic systems.

My request was for surf to describe what "outside" meant.
He has not given me enough information to
understand what "outside" means in this context.

Maybe you could post an example of one of these
"outside" systems, so we can see exactly
what the meaning of "outside" is, and see if surf would
agree that is in fact what he meant by "outside".



For starters? For starters of what???
This has been one big debate consisting of atheists shooting
down weak theist arguments.

Atheists do NOT generally argue that god CANT exist.
Proving negatives is a silly excercise.

Sometimes... atheists WILL say that certain defined gods
CANT exist due to logical contradictions (NOT word games).

You seem to be branching off into an entirely new debate
concerning knowledge, what is real, what isnt, can we
trust human perception, etc ,etc

Start a new thread for that one.
I will not go into an epistemological debate here.

But I will agree the world is not black and white.
It is a grey scale. Nothing is 100% certain.

HOWEVER, we have a system of obtaining knowledge with
one HELL of a track record called science.
Sure, our perceptions are not perfect, BUT, they can be
enhanced by science and double checked and rechecked
by large groups of people. This gets us closer to "truth"
everyday.

In the end, it all comes down to probabilities.

I can say with certainty, that theists have not put forth
ANY arguments which shows that the probability of a
god to exist is anywhere near likely.

The atheist position remains the same.
There STILL is no rational reason to believe
god exists.

peace

axeman

First of all, the very point I made was that our logic system is finite and limited, and therefore I clearly cannot describe what I can't comprehend. What I know is that I can't comprehend all that there is (including the attributes of an infinite God, if there is one). But the concept of God, or an omnipotent being, is not invalidated by petty use of semantic games that utilize (and not even very well) a system of logic that is itself flawed. Hell, using word games is not even as objective a tool as math, the best tool we have for measuring the absolute universe, and even that is, at some fundamental point, inherently flawed (Russel's Paradox is but one example among many).

With regard to probability, I never suggested that there is a probability that a God (however defined) does or does not exist. Only that an infinite being CAN exist.

 

[rs7]

Seems like MissedTheBoat has not missed a beat in this thread.

It is certainly unwise to claim with certainty that one can know absolutely whether or not God exists.

It seems to me personally that there is not much compelling evidence that the Biblical god exists, but again, who really knows?


As we move down the timeline towards the present, it seems there is less compelling evidence that even if there were a God, that he would have a son in such a manner as described in the New Testament. Virgin mother? Brothers? Stepfathers? Why didn't he just appear (like the burning bush deal earlier)? God could do anything. Why burden his own son with those awkward teenage years? And schooling, and getting blisters from those crude carpenter tools. Hey, he could have at least given him some good stuff like Tim Allen had. (Not the coke...the power tools).

Then we continue to move forward in time, and it seems that there was this great schism in the church, and at this point we had essentially two versions of the same faith. But each tried to discredit the other.

And time marches on, and after the schism, the Protestants continued to subdivide until there are so many sects that I wouldn't venture a guess as to the number. Where do the Quakers and the Shakers stand? It's cool they rhyme, but do they harmonize?

Now I am not well versed enough to know the background, but apparently even the Catholic church had some spin offs too that stopped short of being actual protestants. Greek and Russian Orthodox. Maybe others. Not my field of expertise.

Oh, of course I skipped the whole Jews becoming Christians, and Abrahams sons going in two completely different directions. Why muddy the waters with Islam? Only another billion damned to eternal hell. And of course all the other major and minor religions that actually had non biblical origins. But those heathens already have one foot in the fire if TDolt is even partially correct.

I saw IMUS holding up a new book. "Religion for Dummies". I am going to get it so I can try and understand all this. I will never get this knowledge from Thunderbolt, but I find it fascinating that even if you believe in Jesus, if you don't go to Tbolts brand of church, you are screwed. So this deserves my attention to the extent I will actually spend my money on "Religion for Dummies". I wish I had thought up the concept.

So all in all, I personally do not believe in organized religion. I don't know if there is a God or not. I find it virtually impossible to believe that Jesus was the son of God, and so I guess if TDolt (copyright 2002 IMissedtheboat) has a clue, I am doomed. Beyond salvation.

Evolution: Obviously a big fraud perpetrated by that con man Darwin who was only trying to sell books. I went down looking for those Galapagos Islands. They weren't even there!!!! I sailed from Ecuador west and didn't see a thing until I got to Atlantis. So the whole thing was a hoax! Penguins in the tropics...give me a break!!!

Now if Thunderbolt actually answered a question instead of just quoting a passage from his bible, I might change my mind about everything. Because I have never witnessed a miracle before. After 200+ pages of this, by now I am convinced that any reasonable statement or explanation from Thunderdolt (copyright 2002 IMissedTheBoat) would truly be a miracle. And by definition, a miracle would be an act of God, and that would prove everything...finally.

But I have FAITH that this will not occur.

Peace,
rs7

PS: I have a feeling that Goldenarm is just putting everyone on. He is an atheist that just wants to argue for the underdog. Just a theory.

 

[sub7slak]

Originally posted by thunderbolt
One who says there's no god is a blind fool and not very bright....

Originally posted by Lobster
I completely agree. But the fact remains that most people choose the way of evil, i.e. don't stand up to the drives their genes impose on them (what a priest would call temptation).....

I think that because human beings have free will, then they are free to believe whatever they want. I am not religious, but I respect those that are christians, catholics, buddhists, muslims, etc...and if there is a God, then great because then there's something to look forward to after life on earth, but if there's not, then oh well because once you are dead you are dead and you wouldn't know it. As long as people carry their lives in a respectable way, meaning you don't kill people and hurt people, then they are not a blind fool nor stupid, they are just human.

 

[goldenarm]

Originally posted by rs7

PS: I have a feeling that Goldenarm is just putting everyone on. He is an atheist that just wants to argue for the underdog. Just a theory.

True, but I'm trying to convince myself that there is a God. My spirit has been feeling very empty and down lately given my break with trading and career crossroads. I take some solace in believing that there is a greater purpose to life than this brief time on earth chasing materialistic possessions. I was raised a Catholic and still go to church every Sunday (mostly because of my wife) and I'm trying desperately to reconcile the Catholic dogma to my scientific reasoning.

 

[stu]

Thunderbolt along with his ilk are unable to define their god and continue with repeated unwillingness to discuss it. If he could define his god, then we could test or search for its existence.
But I can do that for him seeing how he is unable to face God's Word.
The attributes of God are said to be passed to man by the Bible (include here other main faith scriptures such as Islam etc), which Christians believe to be the true and perfect Word of God. Christians believe God is a perfect God.The Christian God's creation was originally perfect, but as the Christians will have it, humans disobeyed god and brought imperfection to the world.
God gives humans the chance to be forgiven for their sins and he says he will reward them in heaven. However, whilst on earth, they must suffer for his sake. All those who choose not to accept this word and his forgiveness must go to hell for eternity.

God is said by his followers to be perfect. It is impossible to support such a statement. A perfect God who purposely created a world where imperfection will be present from day one cannot be perfect. If he built imperfection in to test humans, a perfect god would give the perfect rule in order that humans would be able to choose and distinguish between evil (imperfect) and good (perfect) and thereby would be equiped to follow their perfect god or deny it. But this perfect god set up an imperfect test. The so called perfect rule (the Bible etc) said to be sent by god is imperfect. The perfect god supplied an imperfect rule. But it gets worse, if you were never able to see this imperfect set of rules then how would you ever know if god existed (rs7's very salient point). Now how - not to mention why - would a perfect god do that? . We can't use the Bible (including other main faith's so
called holy words) unless we want to blindly accept conspicuously obvious contradictions, for example the opposing statements of Jesus' antecedence through Solomon or his brother Nathan. What should be a straightforward and undistputable fundemental - falls over. A matter which refers so directly and importantly to the "Son of God" is confoundingly contradicory and makes the Bible unmistakably and totally unreliable.

Perfection causing imperfection. Why? If one were to think of religion in it's own context then it makes more sense to suggest that religion is the work of Satan and its just as feasible that the perfect omnipotent God caused the imperfections to alert humans to the falseness of it all. Thunderbolt's only course is to go deaf and blind to any meaningful discussion.
Devout Christian and other main faith believers have favorite phrases and tricks of the trade spoon fed to them, which they regurgitate when confronted in order that they are instinctively able dismiss the need to argue. For example saying that those who do not believe are Fools. It negates the need to explain.Their advertising message is simply Just Believe What You Are Told. That is as deep as it gets.
They are also keen on sidestepping discussion, by changing the subject, argue evolution theory - post continuous denial without substance - retort that their scriptures have substance when any cursory inspection reveals that they do not - do anything but take the challenge head on. Get circular and don't focus is their motto.

The initial event which created the existence of the universe requires additional explanation, but to all religious bigots (bigots exist in ALL faiths) their God does not. They are content to add unnecessary complexity without giving any further information toward an answer.

We observe and aquire definate knowledge of more and more, day by day. We are here to get definitive knowledge. We cannot observe god. We cannot have definitive knowledge of a god.

The wonders and the problems of existence lay at the feet of humanity and cannot be excused by the infantile creation of an unknowable god. It can be more fulfilling to learn to believe and have faith in ones' self.

 

[rs7]

Stu,

Perfectly stated. Thanks.

rs7

 

[stu]

Thanks to you rs7.

I beleive it's no longer necessary to hold superstitious beliefs which cannot be substantiated, or to necessarily leave go of them even though they can't.
But to call such things TRUTH when they patently are not, is an insult to intelligence and to restrict and supress inquiry, the very innate condition mankind thrives on is wrong. Not to be able to question, discuss,inquire, or test is most definately not why we are here, for otherwise we would not have evolved past the Flintstones.
It is possible that evolution requires this route to mankinds' progress due to the limitations it finds itself within the universe. I am sick of religious zealots condemming mankind to hell because of a lame excuse that we choose to be evil. I believe the overview of humanity is to survive AND care. We couldn't move from cruelty, slavery, attrocity to law ,order ,welfare ,democracy unless humanity wanted and intended to. That's where man's truth is. It's not god's truth, it's the reality of truth according to mankind. A few years ago no airplanes, today schoolchildren take it for granted that we can travel in space and visit other planets. Tomorrow mankind finds the process to defeat the disease known as death?

Looks to me creator god is handing over the reigns.

 

[goldenarm]

Originally posted by stu
Thunderbolt along with his ilk are unable to define their god and continue with repeated unwillingness to discuss it. If he could define his god, then we could test or search for its existence.

But I can do that for him seeing how he is unable to face God's Word.
The attributes of God are said to be passed to man by the Bible (include here other main faith scriptures such as Islam etc), which Christians believe to be the true and perfect Word of God. Christians believe God is a perfect God.The Christian God's creation was originally perfect, but as the Christians will have it, humans disobeyed god and brought imperfection to the world.
God gives humans the chance to be forgiven for their sins and he says he will reward them in heaven. However, whilst on earth, they must suffer for his sake. All those who choose not to accept this word and his forgiveness must go to hell for eternity.

Why do aethiests require a definition for God? God cannot be defined in finite terms. Can you give me a definition of 1 divided by 0? Does this lack of a definition debunk mathematics? No way!

For religious believers, the wonders and beauty experienced by the five senses and man's capacity for love and charity are ample evidence of God's existence. I cannot be dissuaded from this belief and no amount of scientific reasoning can sway me. You know why? Because this debate of God vs. science is as old as time immemorial and there is no possible way to prove or disprove it! Don't even bother wasting any more bandwith on the subject. As George Michael says,"You gotta have faith!"

The second paragraph quoted above is Christianity in a nutshell. Again, no one ever said that everlasting life was an easy goal to achieve. You can take it or leave it, but don't try to force feed your athiestic beliefs on religious followers by engaging in tit for tat philosophical wordplay. You have your beliefs and I have mine.

You say to-ma-to and I say to-may-to. Can't we all just git along? When I'm in heaven I'll be sure to give you a glass of water if I see you. It does get pretty hot where you'll be! And I don't mean Cancun...

 

[stu]

Originally posted by goldenarm


Why do aethiests require a definition for God? God cannot be defined in finite terms. Can you give me a definition of 1 divided by 0? Does this lack of a definition debunk mathematics? No way!

Why do aethiests require a definition for God? God cannot be defined in finite terms???? God simply cannot be defined.
You can define mathematics and get a construct as to why you cant divide by 0

You need a definition to test. You dont wan't to test fine. Then don't call it the truth. Because you can't prove doesn't mean therefor it is. You don't need definition?, just be happy to be carried along fine. But can't say you have the truth.

Its not a battle between science and faith. Science doesnt need faith, its supported by observable reality.

You've missed the point goldenarm