Do You Believe In God?

[Lacius]

What do you mean he can't be all mighty?

My assumption would be that he's arguing omnipotence cannot exist because it's self-contradictory. Can, for example, an omnipotent being create a rock so heavy that he himself cannot lift it? If so, he can't be omnipotent because now there's something he does not have the power to do. If he can't create the rock, then he's still not omnipotent.

It's an old argument dating back to the 12th century. There's no real answer to the paradox except to say that true omnipotence is impossible, but God is instead maximally omnipotent (i.e. as powerful as logic will allow).

To me, the argument is pointless and doesn't really demonstrate anything. Regardless of how powerful we decide a god is, the problem is that the god has not been demonstrated in any way to exist. However, an argument like the problem of evil is a good one that demonstrates a god who is specifically omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omni-benevolent cannot exist so long as evil acts are allowed to occur.

 

[Saiyan Lusitano]

I guess some kind of a God exist 'cause David Camoron resigned from being the British MP and UK's ditching the EU.

 

[Lacius]

The universe as we know it had a beginning. It is constantly expanding and because of entropy, losing usable energy. Scientists have done math and came up with the big bang theory.

Given this, something must have already existed, that is unless you believe something can come from nothing, which is contradictory to the universe as we know it, and all of science. You think it's funny that God can be eternal, having always existed, or have come from nothing, but find it perfectly reasonable that the universe, having been proven to have a beginning, always existed or came from nothing.

The universe as we know it had a beginning roughly 13.799 billion years ago, but that doesn't mean the universe hasn't always existed in some form. For all we know, the big bang was a change in state rather than a beginning; we just don't know. You can see my previous post on this and other possibilities, such as the universe having a natural cause or not requiring a cause whatsoever. You say the idea of something coming from nothing is contradictory to the universe as we know it, but the laws of causality you say would be contradicted are a part of the universe and don't necessarily apply to the formation of the universe and those laws.

 

[AnonDragon]

A few very quick notes. First, we can agree that whether something is called a scientific law or a scientific theory has no bearing on its truthfulness; both can be considered facts. Second, the term macroevolution is used in scientific circles nearly synonymously with speciation, and microevolution is used to refer to evolutionary change that isn't related to speciation. When referring to the idea that we're all descended from a common ancestor, you'll want to use the term common descent, not macroevolution. It should also be noted that, in addition to the direct observational evidence for microevolution and macroevolution, there is substantial evidence for common descent. Third, I agree it would be absurd to expect modern DNA to form suddenly on its own from natural processes. DNA, like complicated life, likely evolved from more primitive molecules. While we don't know the exact process by which DNA and its precursors formed, we do know numerous ways in which precursors to DNA could have formed, and once we have self-replicating precursors to DNA, evolution can run its course to today. I can talk more about ways in which DNA precursors might have formed, but it's pretty dry for a gaming forum. Lastly, even if we disproved evolution and/or had no explanation for how DNA came into being, absence of an explanation is never evidence for another explanation.


Might the universe have had a cause? Sure. Is there any reason to think the universe is required to have had a cause? Not really. If causality is a property of the universe, it's a bit silly to talk about causality requiring a cause. It's also possible the universe in some form has always existed. In essence, there's no excuse for a hypothetical god not requiring a cause that couldn't also be applied to the universe. In fact, it might be fair to say the universe has always existed when time as we know it exists a finite amount backwards, but that's a matter of semantics.

If the universe did have a cause, there's no reason to think it wasn't a natural cause. Perhaps the natural cause to the universe has always existed in some form. Perhaps the cause is atemporal. Perhaps it's a causal loop of the universe in a future state causing the universe in a past state (e.g. something natural, or Stewie Griffin's time pad exploding and causing the Big Bang). We just don't know, and absence of an explanation is never a reason to believe another explanation.

Two things:

1- Is there really a zero point? I think moving towards past pretty much works in an asymptotic/infinitesimal way, or think about in "minus infinity".
2- Causes and consequences. One of the most committed mistake in reasoning is having a unique cause (or set of causes) for a set of consequences, that come to be associated through inductive reasonning, so leaving thousands of other possibilities outside (even the not so "logical" ones that won't go according to the general induced idea, and systems of causes working together). The "principle of cause" is a matter that drives a big debate in both sides of this discussion, but still both sides need more perspectives than the common obvious ones. In fact, it also includes the understanding of the "God phenomenon".... what is it exactly? Because, you know, it really depends on how you understand "what is God".

 

[Lacius]

Causes and consequences. One of the most committed mistake in reasoning is having a unique cause (or set of causes) for a set of consequences, that come to be associated through inductive reasonning, so leaving thousands of other possibilities outside (even the not so "logical" ones that won't go according to the general induced idea, and systems of causes working together). The "principle of cause" is a matter that drives a big debate in both sides of this discussion, but still both sides need more perspectives than the common obvious ones. In fact, it also includes the understanding of the "God phenomenon".... what is it exactly? Because, you know, it really depends on how you understand "what is God".

I don't see the point in asking, "What is God?" when there's currently no sound reason to think a god exists and no sound reason to think a god has done anything to affect the natural world.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

I've honestly just kind of started to believe we all live on a server somewhere

 

[Jack Daniels]

i don't believe in a god, cause none of them showes real love like they say, they hurt people attracted to thier own sex, they hurt people who think different... relegion is making the world a little less nice each day...
each god contradicts itself by the rule: thy shall not kill... the number one reason people kill is still religion! (the second is love)...
if there was a god it's a real crual one that let poeple suffer, some people get born without parts of thier body, people keill and torture each other... there's this slow death called cancer... if there is a god he is creating all these things too...
well thank god for those around me died of cancer, of leukemia, those who were molested as a child by a damn priest (i at least know one person close to me)... i really don't understand how someone even would want a god around them (cause he or she) would be watching your every move, every tiny misstake you made... looking for a reason to keep you from heaven.
god is a fairytale made for those afraid of the dark, afraid of death, afraid of... but in the end, he/she keeps you afraid... like a dictator controlling you all your life, with god you'll never be a real free person...

 

[AnonDragon]

i don't believe in a god, cause none of them showes real love like they say, they hurt people attracted to thier own sex, they hurt people who think different... relegion is making the world a little less nice each day...
each god contradicts itself by the rule: thy shall not kill... the number one reason people kill is still religion! (the second is love)...
if there was a god it's a real crual one that let poeple suffer, some people get born without parts of thier body, people keill and torture each other... there's this slow death called cancer... if there is a god he is creating all these things too...
well thank god for those around me died of cancer, of leukemia, those who were molested as a child by a damn priest (i at least know one person close to me)... i really don't understand how someone even would want a god around them (cause he or she) would be watching your every move, every tiny misstake you made... looking for a reason to keep you from heaven.
god is a fairytale made for those afraid of the dark, afraid of death, afraid of... but in the end, he/she keeps you afraid... like a dictator controlling you all your life, with god you'll never be a real free person...

It depends, you are talking about religious "God", and that us supposed to be an alien with an empire of control/authority/order and power humans then took advantage of.

Religion is just a huge meat of distortions/misrepresentations in a very specific methodology/doctrine to try to follow what they "believe" is right (and set "what is right" for control purposes, e.g. orthodox church). What you must really focus and seek is the convergence point, the thing that all (most) different religions try to achieve... "the right thing", what is it? (and then the golden rule of "do as you will but do not harm others", and "love" and all that stuff.

Spirit, however, is a bigger phenomenon, and has many explanations for what you are complaining about, and has way different perspectives on how does the "God phenomenon" works. Spirit can only be understood by experience (because normal rationalism would be short and could not conceive the whole thing), or if you are into some badass high level alien science that can explain it into detail, because science and spirit aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

The most usual complaint of atheists is the injustice/impunity/apathy of the "god", but the thing is, as far as I know, a higher level matter. One of the rules that are to give universe stability are about one's will, then talk about the contracts of the soul, the decisions made by your spirit before being conceived, and other stuff, so you have your own and unique challenges and experiences in life (or something like that). And that there is actually action, talk about angels, and probability enhancing for better outcomes, help getting perspective/ information for better decision making, all without going against the rule of will.

Also... most people only focus in the obvious evil distorted stuff of church... WHY THE HELL DON'T YOU GO STUDY WHAT DO OTHER RELIGIONS THINK ABOUT THINGS!? It can give more general ideas of how these phenomena can be really grasped and understood! (Not talking about the "believing in a god thing", but in the convergence point I am refering above, so it can expand to higher perspectives. (Like, like, when in mathematics you understand 2D, and then 3D... and how about 4D? ... ND? )

I don't see the point in asking, "What is God?" when there's currently no sound reason to think a god exists and no sound reason to think a god has done anything to affect the natural world.

Well it actually makes sense if you are going to stablish theories of how the cosmos does work logically (talk about computer-science-like theories, like the "computer simulation", information/intelligence/consciousness, systems and recursion, and many others).

 

[Jack Daniels]

It depends, you are talking about religious "God", and that us supposed to be an alien with an empire of control/authority/order and power humans then took advantage of.

Religion is just a huge meat of distortions/misrepresentations in a very specific methodology/doctrine to try to follow what they "believe" is right (and set "what is right" for control purposes, e.g. orthodox church). What you must really focus and seek is the convergence point, the thing that all (most) different religions try to achieve... "the right thing", what is it? (and then the golden rule of "do as you will but do not harm others", and "love" and all that stuff.

Spirit, however, is a bigger phenomenon, and has many explanations for what you are complaining about, and has way different perspectives on how does the "God phenomenon" works. Spirit can only be understood by experience (because normal rationalism would be short and could not conceive the whole thing), or if you are into some badass high level alien science that can explain it into detail, because science and spirit aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

The most usual complaint of atheists is the injustice/impunity/apathy of the "god", but the thing is, as far as I know, a higher level matter. One of the rules that are to give universe stability are about one's will, then talk about the contracts of the soul, the decisions made by your spirit before being conceived, and other stuff, so you have your own and unique challenges and experiences in life (or something like that). And that there is actually action, talk about angels, and probability enhancing for better outcomes, help getting perspective/ information for better decision making, all without going against the rule of will.

Also... most people only focus in the obvious evil distorted stuff of church... WHY THE HELL DON'T YOU GO STUDY WHAT DO OTHER RELIGIONS THINK ABOUT THINGS!? It can give more general ideas of how these phenomena can be really grasped and understood! (Not talking about the "believing in a god thing", but in the convergence point I am refering above, so it can expand to higher perspectives. (Like, like, when in mathematics you understand 2D, and then 3D... and how about 4D? ... ND? )



Well it actually makes sense if you are going to stablish theories of how the cosmos does work logically (talk about computer-science-like theories, like the "computer simulation", information/intelligence/consciousness, systems and recursion, and many others).

i see no answer of how soever in this, it's the same as my religion teacher would say based on the bible, aliens or anithing els won't change a thing for me, if there's a god, he's not answering anyone, he's not responding to anything he doesn't care about who's his followers cause they all suffer just the same.. not injustice is not the word... it's not being there at all, not hearing, no seeing, no past no future, no nothing there's absolutely nothing it to the here, now past nor future... if alliens excist witch is likely, then who cares? really we will have our lives they thiers, they're not aware of us, and far too far to come here... most likely different, but i don't even think they're equal....
short answer there is no god...
long answer there is no god and there are alliens but most likely just like animals to us.

 

[Touko White]

Of course not religion just cause more problems in society like all this shit we had over the last several months with terror threats and arguments.

 

[invaderyoyo]

It depends, you are talking about religious "God", and that us supposed to be an alien with an empire of control/authority/order and power humans then took advantage of.

Religion is just a huge meat of distortions/misrepresentations in a very specific methodology/doctrine to try to follow what they "believe" is right (and set "what is right" for control purposes, e.g. orthodox church). What you must really focus and seek is the convergence point, the thing that all (most) different religions try to achieve... "the right thing", what is it? (and then the golden rule of "do as you will but do not harm others", and "love" and all that stuff.

Spirit, however, is a bigger phenomenon, and has many explanations for what you are complaining about, and has way different perspectives on how does the "God phenomenon" works. Spirit can only be understood by experience (because normal rationalism would be short and could not conceive the whole thing), or if you are into some badass high level alien science that can explain it into detail, because science and spirit aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

The most usual complaint of atheists is the injustice/impunity/apathy of the "god", but the thing is, as far as I know, a higher level matter. One of the rules that are to give universe stability are about one's will, then talk about the contracts of the soul, the decisions made by your spirit before being conceived, and other stuff, so you have your own and unique challenges and experiences in life (or something like that). And that there is actually action, talk about angels, and probability enhancing for better outcomes, help getting perspective/ information for better decision making, all without going against the rule of will.

Also... most people only focus in the obvious evil distorted stuff of church... WHY THE HELL DON'T YOU GO STUDY WHAT DO OTHER RELIGIONS THINK ABOUT THINGS!? It can give more general ideas of how these phenomena can be really grasped and understood! (Not talking about the "believing in a god thing", but in the convergence point I am refering above, so it can expand to higher perspectives. (Like, like, when in mathematics you understand 2D, and then 3D... and how about 4D? ... ND? )



Well it actually makes sense if you are going to stablish theories of how the cosmos does work logically (talk about computer-science-like theories, like the "computer simulation", information/intelligence/consciousness, systems and recursion, and many others).

I don't think apathy, injustice or impunity are the most usual "complaints" from atheists. I think it's that there's just no reason to believe in a God. There's zero evidence. It's true that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, but it definitely isn't evidence of presence either.

 

[Lacius]

It's true that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, but it definitely isn't evidence of presence either.

While absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, it can be. For example, if I claim to have a cat, but there's nothing at my house that a cat-owner would have, that is evidence of absence. If one were to claim that a god exists who is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then the absence of divine intervention against heinous acts is evidence of absence. If one were to claim that a god answers prayers, then we would expect prayers to come true at a rate greater than chance, and the fact that prayers don't come true at a rate greater than chance is evidence of absence. These things don't disprove the existence of a god, but for these two specific god claims, they're evidence of absence.

 

[invaderyoyo]

While absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, it can be. For example, if I claim to have a cat, but there's nothing at my house that a cat-owner would have, that is evidence of absence. If one were to claim that a god exists who is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then the absence of divine intervention against heinous acts is evidence of absence. If one were to claim that a god answers prayers, then we would expect prayers to come true at a rate greater than chance, and the fact that prayers don't come true at a rate greater than chance is evidence of absence. These things don't disprove the existence of a god, but for these two specific god claims, they're evidence of absence.

Yeah, but by God I just mean a being of "higher power", not necessarily a benevolent God that cares about people. For example, the Judeo-Christian God is a big jerk, going by the Bible. I don't think him letting bad stuff happen, or even causing it, is out of character at all.

 

[Lacius]

Yeah, but by God I just mean a being of "higher power", not necessarily a benevolent God that cares about people. For example, the Judeo-Christian God is a big jerk, going by the Bible. I don't think him letting bad stuff happen, or even causing it, is out of character at all.

Then you're right. When the definition of "god" is vague and isn't one that necessarily interacts with the natural world, then absence of evidence is not evidence of absence because the universe with this god is indistinguishable from one without it.

 

[Jack Daniels]

Then you're right. When the definition of "god" is vague and isn't one that necessarily interacts with the natural world, then absence of evidence is not evidence of absence because the universe with this god is indistinguishable from one without it.

that'd be true than why should i care about this so called god?

 

[invaderyoyo]

that'd be true than why should i care about this so called god?

You shouldn't. There'd just be no reason to care about him or even believe he exists. That's kinda the point.

 

[Jack Daniels]

You shouldn't. There'd just be no reason to care about him or even believe he exists. That's kinda the point.

nice to know that i made the right choice then

 

[AnonDragon]

nice to know that i made the right choice then

Yeah, you aren't going to hell for not caring. God existing or not is absolutely relative, so there's no 100% way to tell how God is, or is not, unless it is from experience, as I told before.

I don't think apathy, injustice or impunity are the most usual "complaints" from atheists. I think it's that there's just no reason to believe in a God. There's zero evidence. It's true that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, but it definitely isn't evidence of presence either.

I do believe there is proof/evidence, but little concrete detail on it and on how to understand it.

I want to base on the phenomena of spirit, information (in every area, phenomenon and meaning), intelligence, consciousness, paranormal stuff and people who have had experience with spirit/paranormal or other... not trying to base much on philosophy itself, because it is highly relative and could get into an infinite inconclusive loop of yay-nay-yay-...

 

[Lacius]

Yeah, you aren't going to hell for not caring. God existing or not is absolutely relative

Whether or not a god exists is objective, not relative.

I do believe there is proof/evidence, but little concrete detail on it and on how to understand it.

If you cannot articulate evidence for the existence of a god, then how can you claim there is evidence?

 

[AnonDragon]

Whether or not a god exists is objective, not relative.


If you cannot articulate evidence for the existence of a god, then how can you claim there is evidence?

The cat is dead or is alive? (What I mean with relative was the subjective perspective, but it is still objectively relative... can both statements be true at the same time? According to mathematics, quantum physics and philosophy they can)

Evidence depends on the definition of God. The whole universe's matter/energy can be god's body, and their spirit is in a purely logical/mental environment (analogy to computer stuff, the software architecture with the graphical layer and the logical layer).

Evidence can be found in those I mentioned, such as information phenomena. Communication, semantics, programmatic phenomena, intelligence, systems of information, systems of systems of information, and so on. [EDIT ... hmm, yes, I should give a more concrete relationship to the point... well, that's a task to do]. Also, for example, testimonials and experiences of thousands along the ages; many experiences that I know are not illusions of mere psychological/psychiatric factors, because there is an independent relationship between things (for example, when people can gather information about events, people, etc., while being absolutely isolated from being able to gather that information from common senses by themselves). Of course there are many other experiences of people who relate it to god and that, but that has nothing to do at all with it (now, really psychological/psychiatric factors and others, for example inference from information obtained in a so subtle and discrete way that your subconscious layer was the only part of your mind aware of it and who processed it to your conscious layer)