Why bother with all these barely productive arguments about whether or not god exists?

If we're all honest with ourselves we'll admit that we don't really know, but isn't it better to at least explore spirituality instead of just disregarding it without really knowing what it's all about? I've read so many posts on here where people post arguments against god that have been answered well so many times in various literature, and that goes to show how much most of you don't even know what you're arguing against. The things I know about God and spirituality so far have no holes apart from "Proof". Within itself it's a perfect system, but due to the nature of god it's impossible to prove gods existence to anyone else. You can only prove Gods existence to yourself by searching within, although this is only in theory since I haven't yet proven it to myself. But the thoery, when understood, is pretty much flawless.

I've done quite a lot of research into the whole subject and I still don't know for sure if god is real, but I've learnt so much about life and people along the way. Whether god exists or not, it's something that should be explored.

[This message has been edited by ---Beany--- (edited 02-24-2004).]

Without evidence, there is no reason to believe. It's as simple as that.

Until somebody can point to valid evidence or tell me how to find it for myself, I see no reason to waste my time searching for something that likely doesn't exist.

quote: If we're all honest with ourselves we'll admit that we don't really know

good luck on getting religious people to agree with u on that...

anyways how can u assume that deep down all ppl do not know whether god exists or not? just because YOU feel that way does not make it so. in fact, im very confident in not believing in a god. the way the concept of god is structured, and the same mystical all powerful aspects of ALL gods in ALL religions seems to me a very clear indicator that god is a coping mechanism. so u can say that i KNOW whether or not he exists.

and as craftian said, no evidence, no reason to believe. for all u know i could have broken into ur house using my super walking thru walls power, and typed this response on ur computer. but would u believe it?

I definitly agree that i don't *know* if god exists. But i think that god has intervened at times in my life. Sure, if could be luck or coincidence, but i choose to believe that it was god. I *think* god exists and it's a hunch I'll probably take to the grave....AND BEYOND!!!! :-p

Craftian its called faith. No one knows if God does exsit and we cant. We can point to a spot in the sky and say thats where God lives. Its your choice and at least your making your own choices but religion doesn't aim to prove that God exists because all the followers have faith. Faith means you believe something even though you dont have 100% proof

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

Without evidence, there is no reason to believe.

Is it not also true that with evidence, there is no reason to believe?

quote:If we're all honest with ourselves we'll admit that we don't really know, but isn't it better to at least explore spirituality instead of just disregarding it



If we're all honest with ourselves we'll admit that we don't really know Santa Claus doesnt exist. So isnt it better to at least explore the idea of Santa Claus existing and him giving presents to all of the happy children instead of just disregarding it?

[This message has been edited by NewDude (edited 02-25-2004).]

Poor example NewDude...heavily documented evidence of the real St. Nicholas, so we have 100% solid proof that Santa Claus is exaggerated, and done so to the current extremes in the early 1900s as an advertisement campaign. Slightly different than a set of characters like Mohammed, Jesus, Moses, Abraham, and those fellows who have no solid evidence on any happening or events in their life.

quote:Originally posted by The_Rabbi:

Is it not also true that with evidence, there is no reason to believe?

why wouldn't u believe something is true if there is conclusive evidence that it is?

Incorrect Hexadecimal. At least "Almost Certainly Incorrect Hexadecimal". Lots of documents besides the bible mention "Jeshua" and his miraculous works.

http://www.otweb.com/bible/atpcem/Jesus2.html

Saying Jesus didn't live isn't very different from saying Caesar didn't live.

quote:Originally posted by Lucky:

Craftian its called faith. No one knows if God does exsit and we cant.

Let's break it down to three options:

1. God exists, affects the universe.

2. God exists, does not affect the universe.

3. God does not exist.

You've rejected #1 by saying that it is impossible to know if It exists. If It affected the universe, evidence would be left behind and it would be possible to know.

If #3 is true, then it obviously makes no sense to believe in God.

But what about #2? How do you tell the difference between a universe without God and a universe that God doesn't affect?

Accepting that you cannot know the difference between the two, it would be utterly illogical to believe a God exists when you know you have no evidence one way or the other.

quote:Originally posted by The_Rabbi:

Is it not also true that with evidence, there is no reason to believe?

You're equivocating. I was using the word "believe" in the sense "to accept something as true".

quote:Originally posted by theBishop:

Lots of documents besides the bible mention "Jeshua" and his miraculous works.

Accepting for the sake of argument that Jesus existed, what other documents mention his miraculous works?

[This message has been edited by Craftian (edited 02-25-2004).]

Beany,

Instead of posting a topic advising what other should not post to better the forum, why not post something that contributes to informational content of the forum and thereby bettering it yourself?

Cheers,

Lost

Craftian, if you follow the link i left, it tells you what documents.

Also, you can't claim to know how god affects the universe (assuming there is a god). Right now, trillions of cells in your body are dying and regrowing. Someday, it's likely a cell will grow in an unexpected way, causing cancer. We don't know what exactly causes some cells to fuck up, but it happens. Now, I'm not saying God controls this, but if (s)he did, it would be an example of god affecting the universe without leaving a calling card behind. There's lots of seemingly random things on earth that have no explaination and most likely no pattern. God doesn't have to point a lightning bolt finger to change things.

quote:Originally posted by LostCause:

Instead of posting a topic advising what other should not post to better the forum, why not post something that contributes to informational content of the forum and thereby bettering it yourself?





I have many times in the past, but 9 times outta 10 it turns into yet another same old same old argument of "There's no proof god exists" rather than discussing what the post is about.

quote:Originally posted by NewDude:



If we're all honest with ourselves we'll admit that we don't really know Santa Claus doesnt exist. So isnt it better to at least explore the idea of Santa Claus existing and him giving presents to all of the happy children instead of just disregarding it?



Sure you could, but

1: This forum isn't about santa claus

2: That wouldn't exactly give many theories and explanations about life would it?

This forums about god and there are loads of interesting topics to discuss than just arguing that it's all bollocks and not discussing anything else.

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

Without evidence, there is no reason to believe.

I didn't say believe I said explore.

The desire to know who you really are and where you came from is surely enough to spur an interest in spirituality. If you simply presume that your an animal and you came from your mums ass then you're just gonna turn a potentially good forum into a dull repetitive pile of shit. Which is what's happening.

quote:Originally posted by chen:

anyways how can u assume that deep down all ppl do not know whether god exists or not? just because YOU feel that way does not make it so.

It's pretty much a philosophiocal cliche that you can't claim to know anything. Exept a few things such as the fact that you exist as a consciousness that experiences, but not much aside from that anything else could be your imagination. This is why the search for god is ultimately directed inwards. You look for god in the one thing you know for a fact exists, your consciousness. Hence meditation.

For those of you who dont believe and say that "there is no proof", There is no proof that there is evolution, there are only theories. And before you say "there is proof of that", there are fossils, but you have NOT seen a transition of an organism from one species to another, you have seen similarities in species. Both sharks and fish breathe with gills, does that mean that sharks evolved from fish, Not necessarily. ( and yes i know sharks are a type of fish, but not generally thought of as such.)

For those of you who believe, There is no proof that God exists. There are only theories. Just because *YOU* have an "experience" does not prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that God exists.

I am not trying to change anyones beliefs, because people are going to believe what they are going to believe. HOWEVER, with both beliefs, there are MAJOR inconsistancies. Neither is right or wrong. GET OVER IT.

quote:Originally posted by theBishop:

Craftian, if you follow the link i left, it tells you what documents.

All the link had was evidence as to the existence of Jesus, not his works.

quote:I'm not saying God controls this, but if (s)he did, it would be an example of god affecting the universe without leaving a calling card behind. There's lots of seemingly random things on earth that have no explaination and most likely no pattern.

500 years ago people didn't know how the Earth hung in space; it was assumed that the power of God kept it, the moon, sun and stars in motion.

Today we know this is not the case. As our knowledge of the universe increases, we find fewer and fewer places for God to have an effect upon things.

But even more fundamentally, you're saying that we should assume there is evidence for God that we simply haven't found yet. The problem with this is that we can insert any entity in the place of God and the argument will be as valid. I believe that cancer is caused by tiny leprechauns.

quote:Originally posted by ---Beany---:

The desire to know who you really are and where you came from is surely enough to spur an interest in spirituality.

As I said before, I am not going to waste my time searching for something when I have no reason to think it exists.

quote:If you simply presume that your an animal and you came from your mums ass then you're just gonna turn a potentially good forum into a dull repetitive pile of shit. Which is what's happening.

I'd rather have a boring forum that debates truth than a well-rounded one that's based on a myth.



Proofs are for math, not science. What we have is enough evidence for evolution to be the most reasonable explanation.

[quote]quote:Both sharks and fish breathe with gills, does that mean that sharks evolved from fish

There are far more similarities than that. Bone structure, internal organs and their placement, body shape, and a fossil record documenting the stages between "large fish" and "shark".

We know, beyond a doubt, that populations of animals can change over time. Look at the hundreds of breeds of dogs.

What is unreasonable about saying that animals with favourable changes are more likely to survive than those without?

What is unreasonable about saying that many small changes add up to make big ones?

quote:Originally posted by dead_people_killer:

For those of you who dont believe and say that "there is no proof", There is no proof that there is evolution, there are only theories. And before you say "there is proof of that", there are fossils, but you have NOT seen a transition of an organism from one species to another, you have seen similarities in species. Both sharks and fish breathe with gills, does that mean that sharks evolved from fish, Not necessarily. ( and yes i know sharks are a type of fish, but not generally thought of as such.)

For those of you who believe, There is no proof that God exists. There are only theories. Just because *YOU* have an "experience" does not prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that God exists.

I am not trying to change anyones beliefs, because people are going to believe what they are going to believe. HOWEVER, with both beliefs, there are MAJOR inconsistancies. Neither is right or wrong. GET OVER IT.

u must understand that a THEORY in science is not just some conjecture some random scientist came up with. theories in science do not become theories until they have withstood the test of time and data collection/observation. ppl always say "evolution is only a theory" when discussing it's validity. but they fail to understand that theory is about as good as it gets.

the THEORY of relativity, atomic THEORY, the THEORY of plate tectonics, i could go on and on.

so theories may not be backed by absolute truths, but are backed by copious amounts of EVIDENCE. again the word evidence in the scientific sense is a lot more conservative than it's general use. to the layman, if given all the EVIDENCE behind atomic theory, he might be able to say that it is in fact atmoic LAW. but, scientists are a lot more prudent and responsible than that.

now compare that to religions: their sole evidence is usually based on some old collection of fantastic accounts. they use this "evidence" (this can hardly be considered evidence even in layman's terms) to "prove" that their religion is the right.

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

As I said before, I am not going to waste my time searching for something when I have no reason to think it exists.



You don't have to, but if you aint gonna put in the time to at least understand what it is you don't believe in then your arguments will never have any foundation.

quote:Originally posted by ---Beany---:

You don't have to, but if you aint gonna put in the time to at least understand what it is you don't believe in then your arguments will never have any foundation.

what are you even saying? if you think scientifically, the reason you don't believe something is because it has been proven false, or has much evidence against it. if it is something you have no knowledge of, then u are indifferent to it. u dont believe or disbelieve.

im sure craftian understands the nature of god and how and why a god is worshipped by so many ppl thru history. and for these reasons exactly is why he does not believe. his disbelief is not caused by ignorance of god. it is caused by his own understanding of this figure you call god.

Whatever I don't care anymore. These discussions go nowhere.

"Never argue with an idiot. They'll pull you down to their level and beat you at their game."

- BarRoomHero

Just because the majority of posts are lame and the majority of responses are lame, doesn't mean you have to be lame.

All you can do is ignore the idiots and strive to post threads that are meaningfull and contribute to the content of the forum.

Cheers,

Lost

Beany, we argue this constantly because it is the most burning question posed to the human species. ;p

quote:Originally posted by ---Beany---:

Why bother with all these barely productive arguments about whether or not god exists?

If we're all honest with ourselves we'll admit that we don't really know, but isn't it better to at least explore spirituality instead of just disregarding it without really knowing what it's all about?

......

....

Whether god exists or not, it's something that should be explored.

[This message has been edited by ---Beany--- (edited 02-24-2004).]



Could not agree more Beany, this forum is descending into chaos, the few good threads get buried by the multiple ones that are all pretty much the same thing. Dead end arguments over whether or not god exists, negative and non-productive, all they demonstrate is ignorance.

What level of proof is needed to prove or disprove God? Balance of probabilities? Beyond a reasonable doubt?

Here’s one attributed to Buddha

"Who is it that shapes our lives?

Is it Isvara, a personal creator?

If Isvara be the maker,

all living things should have silently to submit to their maker's power.

They would be like vessels formed by the potter's hand;

and if it were so, how would it be possible to practise virtue?

If the world had been made by Isvara

there should be no such thing as sorrow, or calamity, or evil;

for both pure and impure deeds must come from him.

If not, there would be another cause beside him,

and he would not be self-existent.

Thus, thou seest, the thought of Isvara is overthrown. [5]

This appears at first that Buddha has contradicted himself. He claimed to know the path to Brahma, yet discounts the existence of the Supreme Lord Isvara, the creator.

In the context of his day. Lord Isvara corresponds roughly to the western misconception of God as the white haired, long bearded almighty dispensing justice from his throne in heaven. The Lord Isvara is a personal, understandable God Being sitting on a throne that must be worshiped and appeased. Common practice of the day was making animal sacrifice to Lord Isvara."

Although not a Buddhist, I see much value in Buddha’s thoughts. Obviously the concept of God that many people have, and vigorously defend, is flawed and nonsensical.

Does this mean God does not exist, or is god something altogether different?

Whatever, IMHO the question of God is vital to the success of humanity and the individual. So much of life is driven by the various interpretations of God that it seems impossible for humanity and the individual to progress without some resolution. Would 9-11 have occurred if not for this difference? What of all the wars/conflicts/suffering in the names of various gods? How can there ever be resolution of the Palestinian/Kashmir/Tebetan/Irish/Balkan/etc conflicts whilst the combatants believe ‘god’ is on their side and the ‘others’ are the spawn of the devil?

Let’s agree on a standard of proof first. Chen said “so theories may not be backed by absolute truths, but are backed by copious amounts of EVIDENCE.” Circumstantial evidence is accepted in our courts when there is believed to be sufficient to make a rational judgement. Is circumstantial evidence acceptable in this debate?

Using a defined standard of proof - what evidence is there for your theory? Is there sufficient evidence for any theory for or against the concept of God?

santa does exist, why else whould everyone suddenly start buying other people presents at christmas??

quote:u must understand that a THEORY in science is not just some conjecture some random scientist came up with. theories in science do not become theories until they have withstood the test of time and data collection/observation. ppl always say "evolution is only a theory" when discussing it's validity. but they fail to understand that theory is about as good as it gets.

the THEORY of relativity, atomic THEORY, the THEORY of plate tectonics, i could go on and on.

so theories may not be backed by absolute truths, but are backed by copious amounts of EVIDENCE. again the word evidence in the scientific sense is a lot more conservative than it's general use. to the layman, if given all the EVIDENCE behind atomic theory, he might be able to say that it is in fact atmoic LAW. but, scientists are a lot more prudent and responsible than that.

now compare that to religions: their sole evidence is usually based on some old collection of fantastic accounts. they use this "evidence" (this can hardly be considered evidence even in layman's terms) to "prove" that their religion is the right.

Yes I do understand that theories are backed up by evidence. But according to those who believe, there is plenty of personal evidence to convince them.

Also, with the sheer DIVERSITY of breeds of dogs, it is hard to believe that they all "evolved" from one species. Its not feasable or possible.

Also, regarding the anatomy of sharks and fish, the bone structure is COMPLETELY different. Sharks have a skeleton comprised of mainly cartilage(sp?), whereas fish skeletons are made of bone similar to human bone.

I understand that there are many people who believe they have the one and only "right" religion. I think those people are completely stupid. There is no right religion, regardless of whether or not God exists. Faith, on the other hand, is what is being argued. Faith in God's existance, actually. I do not think those people are stupid for having faith in something that they believe in. There is a big difference in faith and religion.

quote:Originally posted by dead_people_killer:

Also, with the sheer DIVERSITY of breeds of dogs, it is hard to believe that they all "evolved" from one species. Its not feasable or possible.

You say it's impossible without knowing the slightest thing about it.

Take Jack Russel Terriers, for example.

http://animal.discovery.com/guides/dogs/selector/profile.jsp?id=1950

They're a fairly distinctive breed of dog, and 300 years ago they didn't exist.

They "evolved" from a different breed of terriers.

quote:Also, regarding the anatomy of sharks and fish, the bone structure is COMPLETELY different. Sharks have a skeleton comprised of mainly cartilage(sp?), whereas fish skeletons are made of bone similar to human bone.

Hmm, you're right actually (but your argument still sucks). Sharks are more closely related to rays than fish; in fact, they're a completely different Class than fish.

quote:There is no right religion, regardless of whether or not God exists.[quote]

And you know this how? If the god outlined in the Christian bible exists, then how can you say there isn't a right religion?

[quote]I do not think those people are stupid for having faith in something that they believe in.

You don't think they're stupid for believing in something that they believe in? How... charitable of you.

edit: why can't I use the url tag properly?

[This message has been edited by Craftian (edited 02-26-2004).]

Why try to prove and disprove god to people using arguments? God is about faith, not thinking, and you can't prove or disprove God through logical arguments, that's why the belief in any kind of god has lasted so long. Just let people believe what they want to, but if they force their beliefs on you or anyone else smack 'em down, smite them with your mighty wrath. God is personal, and is meant to be. Everyone has thier own convictions as to why there must be a god, and that's their own business, it's not up to you to prove them wrong.

its just like Bonethugz say "if reefer really makes ya happy nigga blaze it, helllll yeah nigga hell yeah!"

If god really makes you happy nigga worship, aaaamen, nigga amen.

Craftian- i genuinely like your three options, it makes the discussion a whole lot simpler.

Personally i do see 1)That God exists and has affected the universe. I see this in many ways. However, for me, it all comes from the presupposition that he already does exists as revealed in Judaism and Christianity. As such i can "see" God in many things but it all comes back to that presupposition, so im not much help to you there.

Question: Im assuming you accept that the biblical records of Christ are legit (i.e. that they were all written by Jews by AD70 and what we have today is essentially whatwas originally written). What are your reasons for rejecting their accounts?

I can understand your position of wanting other evidence to coberate their claims about Yeshua's life, particular the accounts of the supernatural, and it would seem logical that there would be some other record or something.

Oh also, as a seperate thing re:some previous thread around Josephus. I dont know if it has been proven to be a later insertion in the "Antiquities of the Jews" text, however it is "widely considered to be an interpolation" and i'll pay that.

There is also a similar fourth century arabic text that possibly reflects the original intent-

"At ths time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and [he] was known to be virtuous. Many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciple did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."

quote:Originally posted by inquisitor_11:

Question: Im assuming you accept that the biblical records of Christ are legit (i.e. that they were all written by Jews by AD70 and what we have today is essentially whatwas originally written). What are your reasons for rejecting their accounts?

I don't know enough about that field to say for certain how much of the New Testament is true. What I do know is that a collection of 2000 year old books (ie. the Bible) making fantastically supernatural claims not corroborated by any other text of the time is not enough to convince me of those claims.

If the Bible is enough evidence for the existence of God, then Dianetics is enough evidence for the existence of Xenu and the Upanishads are enough evidence for the existence of the Hindu pantheon.

quote:I dont know if it has been proven to be a later insertion in the "Antiquities of the Jews" text, however it is "widely considered to be an interpolation" and i'll pay that.

I don't think it has been definitively proven either way, but I don't think it can be reliably used a source.

[This message has been edited by Craftian (edited 02-28-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by ---Beany---:

The desire to know who you really are and where you came from is surely enough to spur an interest in spirituality.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I said before, I am not going to waste my time searching for something when I have no reason to think it exists.



Does that mean you don't think you exist? That's interesting.

Why not call God, the creator? I think that term is more descriptive, more accurate. I think semantics have a lot to do with our interpretation of the divine. A lot of people make trends out of spirituality, and in the process it becomes some airy-fairy bullshit.

Example: You must raise your chakras, so your energy can flow through your third eye.

Anyone with sense will wonder, what the fuck is this asshole talking about.

Why? Because these concepts have been reduced to nothing but slogans, that falsly indicate someone's spirituality.

Take "chi" for example, every one thinks chi is some mythical energy that gives you great strength etc. Yet, the truth about it is that "chi" should be a concept for efficient body mechanics. Yes if you put your entire body into a punch, it's gonna have a hell of a lot more force than a jab thrown from the shoulder alone. No one in this planet can throw a haduken.

The same can be said about the creator. It is just a concept of the power of creation inside of us. Same with faith, I think a better word than faith should be imagination. Our feelings fuel our imagination, which give us thoughts, which eventualy lead us to creative actions. This is what I believe to be god or the creator, within us, and yes every one has this and one must look inside to find it. This is so obvious that it isn't even a matter of proving or disproving, and to sound cliched it just is.

^ Yeah, God is like the collective minds that create this universe. A mind creates consciously and unconsciously. Life is a creation of how the collective consciousness sees itself.

Or sommats.