Is there really a God?

Post Reply New Topic

If god didn't make evil the world would be boring confusing and bland, and why would god design a piece of crap(metaphorically).

because humans are flawed, and since we are made in his image, he is just as flawed as us

Satan is the evil we live in this world with. Not God.

god made satan, therefore, by his nature, god is an evil malicious person

He would have to get rid of all humanity, though I don't know why he hesitates, I would have done it long ago and start all over again, without "free-will" of course.

The issue is if wether The Enlightment could have been possible without the period of Dark Ages or not, if that being somehow related to a chain of events in human history that leads to the western world as it is today.

The issue is that the image is utter poppycock. There have been many dark ages in the history of humanity; the Greeks forgot how to freakin' read and write in theirs. The idea of pinning the whole thing on Christianity is nonsense, not to mention the possible degree to which scientific advancement did continue (or, arguable, even first began) outside of Europe. And how the hell does one even measure scientific advancement? Are we measuring engineering, or perhaps actual theoretical advancements (in which case the Romans contributed practically nothing)?

But he apparently created humanity with that attribute (The desire to commit sinful behavior). And I know this is a new subject, but how is free will possible when both this God knows everything and there happens to be just about always a cause to every effect, as in every single action you take is of effect of either some function of your brain, your environment, or something else.

Charming reduction but what in the absolute sense constitutes a flaw?

Why would god have to be perfect.

Is there really a God? That is just about the stupidest question anyone could ask. If God really does exist he is so good at hiding that it seems that He does not exist. And if He really does not exist we won't find Him either. In short the question cannot be answer either yes or no.

ruveyn

Our driving thirst to find the divine in our existence though is another thing that's very weird and impractical evolutionarily speaking. People who have tried to attack that urge as 1) weakness/cowardice 2) gullibility/stupidity 3) both of the above 4) no other option - pick 1, 2, or 3; seem to have done a great job of painting everyone under the sun who has a different opinion than their own the same color which I'm sure helps them rationalize dismissal of that and many other things but doesn't seem to mean much more in the broader scheme of things.

Completely agree that we're all really agnostic, though I do think its more of an elegant argument from both sides than just obstinance vs. obstinance.

No, we aren't all agnostic at best.

You can't prove a negative. Saying that we must be able to prove the non-existence of god(s) in order to be intellectually pure/correct/honest (ie in order to avoid "admitting" to the rational supremacy of agnosticism) is like saying that our likewise inability to prove that unicorns do not exist therefore sufficiently proves that they do--or could--exist.

Not buying it.

And any god that isn't omnipotent/omniscient falls into the pantheistic pantheon...which means that we may be subject to a particular god, but we are absolutely not bound to that particular god in the Judeo-Christian and/or Islamic tradition(s).

Again...not buying it. I have absolutely nothing against people believing in god(s), so long as they don't (a) subsequently insist that others must live by whatever god-driven-codes derive from their chosen belief(s), and (b) they don't try selling us the "My belief in god is totally rational and logical and super-scientific!" baloney that they always seem to eventually come around to.

Whatever floats your boat, whatever gives you peace of mind and makes you wanna behave is cool with me....so long as you can keep it to yourself. I don't need cosmic promises and threats to tell me how to live and/or how to treat others with decency, respect, and compassion. Don't try and sell it as rational when it is in fact excruciatingly irrational.

Crap. I gotta tell Popper so we can get a new theory of science brb

Well, proving a negative and disproving something are different things, aren't they? Popper's philosophy of science was based upon the idea that scientific theories had to make positive predictions about the world, and that failing to make these predictions would make the theory false on the basis of it's predictions. Proving a negative in this sense, however, is trying to argue that something does not exist, which is utterly different than Popper, is it not?

The highlighted is a leap - no one's saying that the lack of disproof makes it true, I never said that nor would I. It only makes us agnostics. If there are unicorns on some far away planet and likely something that would only minimally resemble a horse with a horn to us - much different substance than one might be thinking of when they throw the concept out there but you likely get my point; a lot of things are possible, they seem completely ludicrous if we dash into it with a very bold, stereotyped, and personalized mental image.



That's assuming that we know what is or isn't a flaw from an outside perspective. While I do agree that literal interpretation of current monotheism comes up short, the notion that we for our own use determine flaws in ourselves and our environments doesn't really rule out much in the broader scheme of things - it makes the idea look sloppy on the micro, on the macro a lot of our rules and ideas don't seem to have the same scope or salience. No desire to prove that its true by lack of proof that it isn't, just suggesting that it can still be arrived at.



Lol, that's not me and people can believe whatever they want. Though, completely independent of religion, people will always have differences on opinion that can lead them in all kinds of directions on reality and can even lead them to opposite sides of the political spectrum just on experience and how their minds filter or put it together. That's just the frailty of the human condition.



If there's no hereafter - I'm fine with that. If 'God' sends me to hell for coming up short of a certain ideal image, as long as I can look in the mirror and feel that I did my best with what I had - I'm fine with that and in that case he isn't my kind of guy.

As for irrationality though; perspective is 100% of it. My own opinion, I'm fine with people being materialists, whatever floats their boats, but I still can't pin down the difference between materialism and tunnel-vision as even science itself is agnostic and even shows that we're only scratching the surface of an iceberg worth of reality once one pours into quantum physics and the like. That's my opinion though, you don't need to buy it, you don't need to convert to seeing things my way, I might be inclined to prefer that you at least believe that I believe what I say that I do but even that I can't force you on and I'm not all that worried about it.

Last edited by techstepgenr8tion on 02 Jun 2009, 10:02 pm, edited 2 times in total.