Arguments for and against the belief in God

@Alan McDougall,

Alan,
"But on the contrary God says, "I am who I am" (Ex. 3:14). But on the contrary God says, "I am who I am" (Ex. 3:14).

Nonsense, God did not say anything at all, rather somebody else wrote that God said it. Do you really believe that because somebody claims that 'God told me such and such' that you believe it ???

Only crazy people talk to an imaginary god.

1 Reply

@Owen phil,

Zetherin;121081 wrote:

"God" certainly cannot be compared to a word like "cat". I'm telling you the word is what is ambiguous. If someone asks, "Do cats exists?", there is a general understanding. There is not such an understanding, culture to culture, religion to religion, if you ask "Does God exist?".

There is sometimes this mutual understanding, it really depends on who we are talking about - here is a quote from Catholic monk Thomas Merton:

"Thich Nhat Hahn is more my brother than many who are nearer to me in race and nationality, because he and I see things the exact same way."

Thich Nhat Hahn being a Zen monk from Vietnam.

You're absolutely right about this immense difference between "cat" and "God". But what exactly is this difference? I think I have an answer, but I'll wait for your explanation.

If you wish for a meaningful discussion, you should note which God you're referring to. For instance, the Abrahamic God, or a Hindu God. It just helps communication is all.[/QUOTE]

xris;121170 wrote:

He cant just be..he has to be logical, visible. If he is not visible then your attention is from desire not knowledge.

Why is that?

Have you ever seen beauty? Not something beautiful, but beauty itself? Obviously not. Yet, my guess is that you agree: beauty is real.

xris;121170 wrote:

Try imagining life and heaven without a supreme god, then everything may be so much clearer. It gives credence to jesus the man of love and the Buddha who helps our education. The spirit of goodness is balanced with that of evil and the kingdom of heaven on earth will only be attained by man.

Of course Heaven will only be attained by humans - Christians also know this, it's in their Bibles. They also remember that Jesus calls this Heaven the Kingdom of God. Now, why would Jesus, that man of love, be so concerned with the concept of God?

Maybe, just maybe, it actually has meaning, usefulness?

Owen;123431 wrote:

Alan,
But on the contrary God says, "I am who I am" (Ex. 3:14).

Nonsense, God did not say anything at all, rather somebody else wrote that God said it. Do you really believe that because somebody claims that 'God told me such and such' that you believe it ???

Only crazy people talk to an imaginary god.

God, that character in Exodus, said, "I am who I am." You can go read the text if you have any doubt.

Whether or not you believe in God or not has absolutely no bearing upon what is written in that particular book.

2 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Jesus for me is a man of great wisdom, who inherited his god like appearance from men who wanted to give his teachings authority.

I have no problem with people considering the concept of god, its the certainty of his description that always worries me. I think there can be given a good reason to suspect an engineer but nothing more.

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;123483 wrote:

God, that character in Exodus, said, "I am who I am." You can go read the text if you have any doubt.

Whether or not you believe in God or not has absolutely no bearing upon what is written in that particular book.

I thought it was "I am THAT I am."
I Am that I Am - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Seems to me there is a shift in meaning between "who" and "that".

1 Reply

@TickTockMan,

xris;123487 wrote:

Jesus for me is a man of great wisdom, who inherited his god like appearance from men who wanted to give his teachings authority.

I think you're pretty damn close to the truth, Xris.

The trick is to remember time and place. We're talking about two thousand years ago. This is a time when an "atheist" was not a person who did not believe in God, but a person who believed in some God apart from the one popular among a given community.

To call Jesus the "Son of God" or of God in any way is not to put him into a special category of people who cannot be doubted, but to tell the reader (or listener) of the story that the protagonist, Jesus, was an important man, deeply serious about his mission, who's efforts were for the sake of other people.

xris;123487 wrote:

I have no problem with people considering the concept of god, its the certainty of his description that always worries me.

Me too. Certainty is always dangerous. When people become rigid in their belief, especially about something as difficult as a description of God - when they come to believe that their description is the one true description, they begin to believe that all other descriptions are false. And if other descriptions are false, other people are worshiping a false God. Quickly you end up with violence, with transcontinental wars.

Which is why people should read and study! Running with the example of description, if we all did a bit of research, we would discover many different ways Saints have described God. Well, obviously, if there are differences among the descriptions of God among the Saints of all people, there cannot be one proper description of God - otherwise, there must be many unholy saints!

TickTockMan;123488 wrote:

I thought it was "I am THAT I am."
I Am that I Am - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Seems to me there is a shift in meaning between "who" and "that".

It doesn't really matter.

It's God's reply when Moses asks Him who He is. The gist of God's response being, "Never you mind!" The lesson being that naming God, describing Him, defining Him, limiting Him with our language, is folly.

Remember, the Christians did not have a name for their God, He was simply God. This was wild, a real oddity, a dangerous choice in the ancient world. Whereas a Greek might say 'The God Apollo', the Christians said, 'The God'. The ancients would have expected another word for that phrase, and to neglect that extra word or, even worse, purposefully include one, was a dangerous theological decision.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Thomas if we agree on anything its the idea that Jesus is worthy of worship. I dont care if he is holy or not , I love the man. I weep that his message has been lost in the centuries of intrigue.

1 Reply

@xris,

Xris, we are so often pitched in heated conflict, and the only reason I persist is because every once in a while we have these rare moments of sharing a common ground.

Do you think that when we say 'Jesus is Holy' it is because he is worthy of worship? That to be Holy is to be worthy of worship?

You remind me of Nietzsche when you lament the warping of Jesus' message over the centuries. Even Nietzsche admired Jesus, though he despised the religion built around him. Personally, I'm sympathetic to the anti-establishment sentiment, that anrcho-spirituality. I'm not a member of any church, and, well, you've read my definition of religion, which I equate with spirituality. The only reason I defend the institutions at all is because I see shining examples emerging from them. If Jesus' message was lost beyond recall in the RCC, for example, we would not have a man like Thomas Merton to admire - even though the RCC has been and still is an institution I generally dislike.

If Jesus' example was truly completely lost over these centuries, we would not have men like Merton coming from the Catholic tradition. But we do. Why is that?

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;123569 wrote:

Xris, we are so often pitched in heated conflict, and the only reason I persist is because every once in a while we have these rare moments of sharing a common ground.

Do you think that when we say 'Jesus is Holy' it is because he is worthy of worship? That to be Holy is to be worthy of worship?

You remind me of Nietzsche when you lament the warping of Jesus' message over the centuries. Even Nietzsche admired Jesus, though he despised the religion built around him. Personally, I'm sympathetic to the anti-establishment sentiment, that anrcho-spirituality. I'm not a member of any church, and, well, you've read my definition of religion, which I equate with spirituality. The only reason I defend the institutions at all is because I see shining examples emerging from them. If Jesus' message was lost beyond recall in the RCC, for example, we would not have a man like Thomas Merton to admire - even though the RCC has been and still is an institution I generally dislike.

If Jesus' example was truly completely lost over these centuries, we would not have men like Merton coming from the Catholic tradition. But we do. Why is that?

I don't condemn a man because he is of a certain faith, that would be worthy of contempt. I hope I never gave that impression. If that certain man was led by the message rather than the dogma that controls him then I have no trouble admiring him . Many priests now are begging or at least requesting the dogma on contraception be relaxed, I admire those individuals. Even if I cant see god I wont desert Jesus.

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;123628 wrote:

I don't condemn a man because he is of a certain faith, that would be worthy of contempt. I hope I never gave that impression. If that certain man was led by the message rather than the dogma that controls him then I have no trouble admiring him . Many priests now are begging or at least requesting the dogma on contraception be relaxed, I admire those individuals. Even if I cant see god I wont desert Jesus.

What if the message is to kill all infidels? Do you find that admirable too?

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;123640 wrote:

What if the message is to kill all infidels? Do you find that admirable too?

You got me there, no I must say if the message is good and I must judge that, then from where it came, is of no consequence. Sometimes its the song and the singer and on other occasions it might just be the singer not the song.

0 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

New research claims JWH didn't create but merely parted Heaven and Earth
Matter of translating

2 Replies

@Pepijn Sweep,

Lets look at the following as a reason for believing in God!!

Wikipedia

In physics and cosmology, the anthropic principle is the collective name for several ways of asserting that the observations of the physical Universe must be compatible with the life observed in it.

The principle was formulated as a response to a series of observations that the laws of nature and its fundamental physical constants remarkably take on values that are consistent with conditions for life as we know it rather than a set of values that would not be consistent with life as observed on Earth. The anthropic principle states that this apparent coincidence is actually a necessity because living observers wouldn't be able to exist, and hence, observe the universe, were these laws and constants not constituted in this way.

The anthropic principle is based on the implicit assumption that life must operate on similar chemistry to our own, which has been criticized for being overly restrictive (sometimes called carbon chauvinism). If the weakest precondition for generic life is simply a sufficiently complex environment to allow reproduction and evolution, then any universe which could provide such complexity (in one form or another) could bring forth life.

The term anthropic in "anthropic principle" has been argued to be a misnomer. While singling out our kind of carbon-based life, none of the coincidences require human life or demand that carbon-based life develop intelligence.[1][2]

The anthropic principle has given rise to some confusion and controversy, partly because the phrase has been applied to several distinct ideas. All versions of the principle have been accused of discouraging the search for a deeper physical understanding of the universe. Those attempting to explain the anthropic principle often invoke ideas of multiple universes or an intelligent designer,[3] both controversial and criticized for being untestable and therefore critics of the anthropic principle may point out that the anthropic principle is more of a philosophical concept, not a scientific one.

One way to bypass the controversy is to emphasize the weak anthropic principle: "...conditions that are observed in the universe must allow the observer to exist.".[4]

In mathematics and philosophy, the weak form of a statement is one which is "easier" to support, e.g. it makes fewer claims of substance. Even critics of the weak anthropic principle recognize that it is a tautology or truism, - which means a true statement, albeit a "vacuously true" statement.[5] However, building up other substantive arguments based on a tautological foundation is problematic. Stronger variants of the anthropic principle are not tautologies and make substantive claims which may be considered

1 Reply

@Alan McDougall,

Alan you have every right to believe the universe was engineered but not to describe a god who has no visible image. One does not conclude the other.

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;124857 wrote:

Alan you have every right to believe the universe was engineered but not to describe a god who has no visible image. One does not conclude the other.

XRIS we observe the essence of the Creator God in his visible creation, you and me and all the rest of the universe!

0 Replies

@Pepijn Sweep,

[QUOTE=Pepijn Sweep;123674]New research claims JWH didn't create but merely parted Heaven and Earth Matter of translating[/QUOTE] There have always been conceptions of god which did not involve an omnipotent deity who created the world ex nihilo (from nothing). See Plato and the demiurge or Plato's to god we attribute that which is good.

The problem of the ex nihilo hypothesis of creation is that if the world was created by an omnipotent god from nothing; then everything in the world (and by implication everything that happens in the world) must be either part of gods will or part of gods plan or in some sense permitted by god. The notion of creation ex nihilo plus the notion of divine omnipotence makes the problem of evil, destruction and suffering in the world intractable. In the modern worldview with the immense time scale of cosmic and biological evolution and with cosmic disasters and mass extinctions the notion of divine omnipotence and supernatural divine omnipotence creates cognitive dissonance when the traditional notions of god are invoked. Is there a way out of this theological morass? Yes, but it involves modification of the concept of god and how god acts in the world.

Abandoning creation ex nihilo for a concept where god imposes order on the formless void or the primordial chaos is a start. In such views god is the ordering, rational and creative principle of the universe but creation did not take place from nothing (ex nihilo) but by imposing order on the "formless and empty darkness". God is limited like all craftsman by the available materials and the available tools. The advantage of these views is that death, destruction, evil, pain and suffering can be attributed to the breaking through of chaos (void, emptiness, darkness and destruction) which are not part of the divine will or the divine plan but are privations of the good.

In the end there is not and never will be any scientific proof of god. It could be argued that modern science and physics at least do not entirely exclude all conceptions of the divine. Neither will there be any philosophical or rational argument (cosmological, ontological, teleological or moral) that will suffice to convince the skeptic. Belief in god is a matter of faith (fidelis, trust) and a matter of hope (for transcendent value and the true, the beautiful and the good).

What keeps me firmly in the theist camp is the rational ordering of the universe, our ability to discern natural law with reason and to express it in symbolic mathematical language. In addition, as I view it there is a striving for order, complexity, creativity, life, mind and experience which can not be explained entirely by the notion of blind, indifferent purposeless forces. I do not see man as the purpose of creation, the world is the stage for a human cosmic drama to determine the fate of souls, or that human notions of morality play large in nature as a whole. Such anthropomorphic conceptions of god and such anthropocentric notions of value are not central to my notion of divine purpose or presence. Non the less the universe seems anything but without purpose or striving or the result of random chance and blind indifference. Endless forms marvelous and beautiful, the result of a superior rational intelligence with its own purposes, methods and values which transcend human concerns.

2 Replies

@prothero,

[CENTER][CENTER][/CENTER][/CENTER]
Let's take a look at arguments against a belief in God

Wikipedia

Examples of "poor design" cited include:

The existence of the blind spot in the human eye [3]
In the African locust, nerve cells start in the abdomen but connect to the wing. This leads to unnecessary use of materials. [2]

The human reproductive system includes the following:

In the human female, a fertilized egg can implant into the fallopian tube, cervix or ovary rather than the uterus causing an entopic pregnancy. The existence of a cavity between the ovary and the fallopian tube could indicate a flawed design in the female reproductive system. Prior to modern surgery, entopic pregnancy invariably caused the deaths of both mother and baby. Even in modern times, in almost all cases, the pregnancy must be aborted to save the life of the mother.
In the human female, the birth canal passes through the pelvis. The prenatal skull will deform to a surprising extent. However, if the baby's head is significantly larger than the pelvic opening, the baby cannot be born naturally. Prior to the development of modern surgery (caesarean section), such a complication would lead to the death of the mother, the baby or both. Other birthing complications such as breech birth are worsened by this position of the birth canal.
In the human male, testes develop initially within the abdomen. Later during gestation, they migrate through the abdominal wall into the scrotum. This causes two weak points in the abdominal wall where hernias can later form. Prior to modern surgical techniques, complications from hernias including intestinal blockage, gangrene, etc., usually resulted in death.[3]

Other arguments:

Barely used nerves and muscles, such as the plantaris muscle of the foot [4] that are missing in part of the human population and are routinely harvested as spare parts if needed during operations. Another example is the muscles that move the ears, which some people can learn to control to a degree, but serve no purpose in any case ([1], p. 328).
Intricate reproductive devices in orchids, apparently constructed from components commonly having different functions in other flowers.
The use by pandas of their enlarged radial sesamoid bones in a manner similar to how other creatures use thumbs.
The existence of unnecessary wings in flightless birds, e.g. ostriches ([1], p. 326).
The route of the recurrent laryngeal nerve is such that it travels from the brain to the larynx by looping around the aortic arch. This same configuration holds true for many animals, in the case of the giraffe these results in about twenty feet of extra nerve.
The prevalence of congenital diseases and genetic disorders such as Huntington's disease.
The common malformation of the human spinal column, leading to scoliosis, sciatica and congenital misalignment of the vertebrae.
The existence of the pharynx, a passage used for both ingestion and respiration, with the consequent drastic increase in the risk of choking.
The structure of humans' (as well as all mammals') eyes. The retina is 'inside out'. The nerves and blood vessels lie on the surface of the retina instead of behind it as is the case in many invertebrate species. This arrangement forces a number of complex adaptations and gives mammals a blind spot. (See Evolution of the eye). Six muscles move the eye when three would suffice. [4]
Crowded teeth and poor sinus drainage, as human faces are
Significantly flatter than those of other primates and humans share the same tooth set. This results in a number of problems, most notably with wisdom teeth.
Almost all animals and plants synthesize their own vitamin C, but humans cannot because the gene for this enzyme is defective (Pseudogene ΨGULO).[5] Lack of vitamin C results in scurvy and eventually death. The gene is also non-functional in other primates and guinea pigs, but is functional in most other higher animals.[6]
The enzyme rubisco has been described as a "notoriously inefficient" enzyme, [7] as it is inhibited by oxygen, has a very slow turnover and is not saturated at current levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The enzyme is inhibited as it unable to distinguish between carbon dioxide and molecular oxygen, with oxygen acting as a competitive enzyme inhibitor. However, rubisco remains the key enzyme in carbon fixation and plants overcome its poor activity by having massive amounts of it inside their cells, making it the most abundant protein on Earth.[8]>
The enzyme nitrogenase actually preferentially binds with acetylene over di-nitrogen, despite it being the key enzyme used in nitrogen fixation in many bacteria and archaea.
The breathing reflex is stimulated not directly by the absence of oxygen but rather indirectly by the presence of carbon dioxide. A result is that, at high altitudes, oxygen deprivation can occur in unadapted individuals who do not consciously increase their breathing rate. Oxygen less asphyxiation in a pure-nitrogen atmosphere has been proposed as a humane method of execution that exploits this oversight.
The unstable hollow bones built for flight in birds like penguins and ostriches, and the Sturdy bones built for non-flight in animals like bats.
Vestigial third molar (Commonly known as wisdom teeth) in humans. Some other primates with differing jaw shapes make use of the third molar.
The vestigial Femur and pelvis in whales, the ancestor of whales lived on land

1 Reply

@Alan McDougall,

Alan, Roth,I dont nit pick on the properties of a proposed god, I just never find an adequate description of God. If you require a god he has to fulfill that great gift, logic, the logic you have been granted. Every time a new one is found or the old one is revamped it eventually fails or becomes so vague in its description, it disappears. The simple case that he does not communicate in a manner that would give us a clue on the true purpose of his creation is fundamental to my disbelief. Why is he so reticent in giving us a reason for our suffering? How long must this charade continue before you realise he aint coming back ? That's if you believe in god who has promised to return, if you aint what are you waiting for ?

1 Reply

@prothero,

prothero;125011 wrote:

What keeps me firmly in the theist camp is the rational ordering of the universe, our ability to discern natural law with reason and to express it in symbolic mathematical language.

Our brains are wired to pick out patterns and utilize symmetry for memory. There have been a couple of cases where people have lost the ability to memorize faces. It is fascinating research. Something so simple as facial features are a trick of our brains to memorize them not as a whole but in chunks. If any bits of these chunks are distorted or NOT symmetrical the brain will refuse to memorize them. I should also point out that just about everything we do is based off these things. So much so, I wonder if reality truly is as ordered, patterned, balanced as we like to think it is.

[/COLOR]

prothero;125011 wrote:

In addition, as I view it there is a striving for order, complexity, creativity, life, mind and experience which can not be explained entirely by the notion of blind, indifferent purposeless forces. I do not see man as the purpose of creation, the world is the stage for a human cosmic drama to determine the fate of souls, or that human notions of morality play large in nature as a whole. Such anthropomorphic conceptions of god and such anthropocentric notions of value are not central to my notion of divine purpose or presence. Non the less the universe seems anything but without purpose or striving or the result of random chance and blind indifference. Endless forms marvelous and beautiful, the result of a superior rational intelligence with its own purposes, methods and values which transcend human concerns.

It is interesting that we live in a universe that is so perfect for the formation of black holes. Mathmatically, we live in the perfect universe that provides the most opportunity for the formation of the MOST black holes. Seems rather strange that a god would create a beings in such a harsh environment. Not to mention that the universe is pretty much 99.99% harsh towards life as we know it. So you are right, we are not the center of anything nor are we the purpose for the universe. But then again I don't see what use there is in believing something in which you can have no direct interaction with or utilize. I guess you could say god is useful, but I don't see how pure reasoning can't do the same job, if not better than a belief in a god could.

0 Replies

@xris,

xris;126700 wrote:

Alan, Roth,I dont nit pick on the properties of a proposed god, I just never find an adequate description of God. If you require a god he has to fulfill that great gift, logic, the logic you have been granted. Every time a new one is found or the old one is revamped it eventually fails or becomes so vague in its description, it disappears. The simple case that he does not communicate in a manner that would give us a clue on the true purpose of his creation is fundamental to my disbelief. Why is he so reticent in giving us a reason for our suffering? How long must this charade continue before you realise he aint coming back ? That's if you believe in god who has promised to return, if you aint what are you waiting for ?

xris I was posting an atheistic viewpoint, Namely a perfect omni all god would not mess up with the creation of the species as its seems the case,There are always two sides to a coin; thus the atheist view which must be addressed or this thread would become meaningless

1 Reply

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;126708 wrote:

xris I was posting an atheistic viewpoint, Namely a perfect omni all god would not mess up with the creation of the species as its seems the case,There are always two sides to a coin; thus the atheist view which must be addressed or this thread would become meaningless

But your approaching it from a different perspective. If you describe your god or god correctly these anomalies are answered. I cant disprove god ,no one can but we can dispute a description. My biggest problem is the idea that he can contemplate his creation, he his a conscious being. If he can, then his logic is not the same as ours, his ethics are bewildering , his beyond our comprehension.

1 Reply

Arguments for and against the belief in God

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know