God's existence

Post Reply New Topic

Ok, here are a few questions on the matter. The title is just to be eye candy.

1) Why do you think that God exists, or that God doesn't exist? Would you consider your reason to be proof, relatively good evidence, or what?

2) Let us say that God exists and everyone knows it, and that God is the creator of the universe, the source of moral values, and so on. If such a being existed in such a manner, then would basing our legal system around this religion be justified? If only you knew it, but you were confident in your knowledge, would basing your votes around this religion be justified? If it isn't justified, then is the claim that people must make secular laws even if these laws are evil and how would you justify an obligation to promote/tolerate evil laws?

3) If you do not believe in God, then what kind of evidence would it take for you to believe in God? What kind of historical evidence? What kind of philosophical evidence? What kind of evidence in the world around you? What kind of miracle? Can you think of any evidence, or do you feel as if you would have to be wrong on too much to change your mind? Is your level of required evidence intellectually dishonest or why do you think it is honest?

If you do believe in God, then what kind of evidence would it take for you not to believe in God? What kind of historical evidence? What kind of philosophical evidence? What kind of evidence found in the world around you? What kind of tragedy? Can you think of any evidence, or do you feel as if you would have to be wrong on too much to change your mind? Is your level of required evidence intellectually dishonest or why do you think it is honest?

Further thoughts?

1)

I see no more evidence for the existence of God than evidence supporting any other religious beliefs people have had throughout the ages. I think that if God existed, he would provide us with some evidence of this - and no, I don't buy into the "he's testing your faith" stuff. It is phrases like that (in the same league as "it will happen if you believe" or "it's all part of God's plan") that lead me to believe that organised religion is a bit of a scam. There are other reasons I suspect this, however. Take miracles, for example: there were (allegedly) a whole load of them back in biblical times when Jesus and his disciples were around, but what about now? I don't see miracles happening in the world today. It's like if a magician does some tricks in a magic show, and then after the show you try to imitate the same tricks (without looking up how it's done on the internet, I mean) just by waving a plastic wand from a toy store. Nothing will happen. It's because real magic does not exist. Neither do miracles.

2)

If there were such absolute evidence that God exists, then that belief would no longer be "religious", IMO.

3)

I would trust material evidence that doesn't rely on blind faith.

Note: this post can apply to my disbelief in any organised religion (and some unorganised religion, too). Before anyone says I'm insulting Christianity by comparing it to kids' magic tricks, etc, I will state for the record that this does not apply specifically to one belief system or another. No insult intended to anyone.

This thread is just stirring muddy water.

I would think that that probably would and should be justified, if God really eixsts and everyone knows this, then the issue of God's eixstence wouldn't be an issue anymore and basing the legal system on it would be assumed to be the prefered one rather than a system that excludes God, as few christians claim about secularism. On the other hand, I think the problem could be more than that, as the problem of the interpretation of what God wants, unless that isn't an issue in this case.


well, I suppose empirical and physical evidence, even so, I'm not sure if that's justification enough for either acceptance or rejection.


Philosophical evidence, hmmm, not quite sure if there is an ontological argument that can be regarded as a justified proof, unless I'm mistaken and there are some good considerable ones? I wouldn't count on any proposed evidence from History, probably the kind of evidence more convincing would be the empirical one, an entity which is claimed and believed to exist and gained the known title as "God" would be regarded by many as something factual if that can be experienced, observed and verified by physical means, even so, I don't think that to be a justification enough from my part.


well, I'd like to think that I may be intellectually honest, rather than that dishonest, but there would be the issue that not everyone would see their positions as dishonest even if others consider it as such.


Being a former believer I would have to say that the first conflict for me was between science and religion regarding the starlight problem and the age of the universe, evolution vs creationism, considering that I belonged to the latter, begining to doubt the Bible since then and also philosophical issues, and that was a problem for me, I have to admit I was so naive and still am insecure and the first glance of it, it tore my faith a part , perhaps if I was raised a Catholic or a liberal Christian that wouldn't have been much of a problem.

Heck yes! If the waters were clear, then what is the point of stirring them? We see all of the goodies there. The question is if we can see something interesting through the murk.

I don't have proof. I have my reasons, and they are sufficient to convince me. I don't have much to convince anyone else that God exists.


If there was little or no disagreement as to God's wishes, as greenblue said. Otherwise we're entering dangerous territory and the potential for religious violence. For over a millennium in Europe God existed and was the creator of the universe, source of moral values, etc and everyone knew it. But people disagreed on what God wanted and killed each other over it.


Probably not. I have to consider the possibility that I'm just plain wrong (which seems relatively likely if I'm the only one who "knows" something) and there is also the issue of compulsion in forcing my beliefs on others, even if those beliefs are true.


Because I can not compel others to follow a religion, and so I should not try to force them to obey the mandates of my religion. For purposes of law, evil to me is not defined in terms of religion because I see religion as a more personal thing. In other words, it can guide an individual's behavior and decisions, but it should not be forced on society as a whole. Making someone observe religious practices that are meaningless to them is just futile. I mean, a Muslim-dominated state could ban pork, but that doesn't make Christians there any more Muslim.


Nothing comes immediately to mind. If an alternate worldview came to my attention that was more compelling, that might do it. Theism has some fairly intractable problems, but so does everything else.


I obviously think my level of required evidence is honest. As it why I believe it to be honest, cognitive dissonance would compel me to believe so, even if it were not the case.

I have never encountered any plausible account/description of such an entity. The accounts/descriptions I have encountered are not plausible to me, so I lack any belief that such an entity exists, and further my opinion is that such entities are unlikely.

I consider my reasoning is reasonable.

Perhaps.
Probably depends to a large extent on the content of this religion.



Depending on the qualities of any extant God, plausibly none of these things would be necessary if such a God could simply make it (my belief) so.
I have no specific idea as to what would cause me to consider an extant God entity plausible, or to believe one existed.


Neither of these things; I simply lack imagination.
Seems honest enough to me.

1) Probabilistic Atheist: God(s) have explained nothing and are generally muddled or "placeholder" explanations. No explanatory progress has been made by assuming that God(s) exist, therefore I rule it out in a manner akin to physicists ruling out luminous ether.

2) If I had pretty good evidence that God existed, available to only me, I'd try to make sure I wasn't a megalomaniac, delusional, or theomaniac first. I would only advocate laws based on principles intersubjectively verifiable, as if God wanted his will legally enforced he'd make it very plain to everyone.

3)• Mass reanimation of corpses, all saying “God(s) exists” and crawling directly out of their graves all across the globe simultaneously. Also, an inhibition of fear among all peoples of the world at the time of this event so that, while surprised, nobody gets terrified.
• A thorough description of the methodology of God(s) which succinctly explained phenomena and made innovative, testable, predictions otherwise unexplained.
• The disappearance of every lampshade at the same time in the interval of one billionth of a microsecond with an accompanying and ubiquitous voice saying “God(s) did it.

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/SAQ/saq-2.html

No Khan......this thread's a trap...

The sadistic goodies you salivate for are meaningless contention of people who are deeply emotionally in need of a beneficent father of the universe and the rationalists who see fairly clearly that the universe is a cruel arena to wash away whatever cannot survive current environment. It is one thing to try to bring clarity to the terrible mess formal religion has imposed on the world another to raise up useless arguments over points impossible to settle.

There's the bible, it gives a pretty accurate description of human relations and points to a God. For all the talk, the God has never actually proven his existence to me, seeing how I have trust issues and don't believe books on matters like this, I'd say there is no God. So where did the universe come from? I'll listen to the scientists until he feels like explaining it to me.



If God came up to me and told me that I had to do some f'ed up sh^*, I'd be really uncomfortable with it. I'd either do it grudgingly, or just call BS, I guess I'll know when it happens.



Give me exactly what I want, when I want it, and I'll just throw in the towel. I mean I want to have the girl of my dreams and fewer setbacks. Then I'll let God take the credit and we can all be winners.



Finding absolutely no evidence in my concious state can do the trick. If I get really pissed off I have my doubts as well. But I'll usually need a scapegoat for my negative emotions and God fits the bill, I mean if he wants to act so smug for vreating the universe, he can definately take some criticism from a guy who's not enjoying it at the moment. Never mind the fact that I'm talking to myself at this point, I have anger issues and I'd rather blame someone who doesn't argue back.

Umm.... so far no contention has occurred. Each person is just stating what they personally believe. I am still happy with this thread.

Additionally, I don't take sides so strongly as you do, and put forward this thread to see some self-analysis.

Prove that the points are impossible to settle. After all, if one can continue to make valid arguments, then a point generally does not seem to be settled, but if the arguments are worthless and about nothing than the settledness of a debate seems clear.

Interesting, partially because some religious people do think that absolute evidence exists. We see a pursuit of it with the proofs of Aquinas, and Anselm, and even today we see people out there promoting the idea that evidence exists, with examples such as the ID movement, and the varied apologists. Now, one can say that those ideas are BS, but I see no reason to attribute to malice something that can be attributed to folly, and as such I think all of these people believe the power of their arguments and consider them "absolute evidence". So, how absolute would absolute evidence have to be? Is it matter of societal agreement, a believed empirical proof that God is necessary for something to have emerged, or even could a logical argument be accepted?


So forcing your beliefs on others is inherently wrong? After all, if you have a true belief about what is moral, how could you not force it on others? To me, it does not seem as if our legal structure and society are neutral, but rather they have to take stances in regards to the proper sources of knowledge and proper beliefs of individual people in society, do you disagree though and think our society is actually truly neutral? Additionally, even if you do not like forcing your will on others, would allowing something considered as evil as murder take place be tolerable, even if all individuals consented to this?

Finally, the question said you were "confident in your knowledge", this means that the probability of being flat wrong is excluded. It can be anything, so long as it is not sufficient to prove this to most other people. Let's say that God visited you and you got some golden tablets, such a thing would likely be hard to prove as divine to everyone, but certainly the reasons you would have golden tablets outside of a deity giving them to you would be unlikely. The evidence can be retooled so long as other people wouldn't believe it, but you had to believe it. (own a talking animal that only miraculously talks in your presence and knows information that you don't know but that isn't valuable or consequential, fell in a bike accident broke your arm but it was miraculously healed but the bike is still damaged, etc)


God tells you otherwise, and says that some things are wrong to accept no matter the beliefs of the people who do it, or even that some things are mandated despite the beliefs of those who wouldn't otherwise do it. This can be something like drinking. This can be something like abortion. This can be something like gay marriage. This can be something like teaching the Bible in schools. This can even be a high minimum wage law. So long as it is possible to partially fulfill the problem and currently disagrees with your current position on things.

Additional question: Do you believe that a liberal/libertarian view of the freedom of other people is moral even if God told you otherwise? Because if something is necessarily moral, then even God's word cannot refute it, but if it isn't then how far can the moral problem be taken?

If God came and told you that all blonds have to be killed by your hand, and he gave you solid proof of his existence in some form or fashion(anything as material as you want just so long as you couldn't use it as evidence in a court of law when you could get tried for murder), would you go around killing blonds? Why or why not? Let's assume God is vague about the specific reasoning behind this and tells you to kill blonds on faith?


Is it necessary that God would make the principles intersubjectively verifiable? Additionally, how broad with the intersubjective verification have to be? Would current theistic arguments against abortion, such as SLED be sufficient? http://greensboring.com/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=7522

Finally, what if the purpose was just to create a counter-cultural political voice to warn some away, but not even to pass these laws? (at least not pass them in your lifetime)

I'm grateful no mindless mayhem has broken loose. So I'll keep my fingers crossed. (whether that's rational or not) The old proofs of God have been around a long time and I do not doubt the intellects that struggled mightily to make them firm. Nevertheless a great many bright people have not bought it so it must have some flaws. This is not an entrance ploy to the discussion since an all powerful being cannot be limited or discovered in a universe that has proved amenable to producing rational non-supernatural causes for all effects on exhibition at this point in time.

I think that if there is a creator or if there is anything out there residing in some non-material realm then we must first learn about our own minds so that we can perceive such entities. There is not enough information to go on as of yet and although many people feel/sense a God presence, nobody has proof of it yet. But, if there was proof then we can talk. Until then I think it's a waste of time searching for things when we don't have the proper mind expansion tools to go exploring.