God, Existence and the Human Condition

stuh505 wrote:

Quote:
There may be no gods...and everything may simply have always existed.

There may be a God...and that God may be the cause of everything.

Frank, I wasn't trying to disprove God. Nobody was.

I never said you were...and I honestly don't think JL was trying "to disprove" god either.

I was merely mentioning that you did not include the agnostic perspective in your poll...which is that there does not seem to be enough evidence to guess in either direction.

Quote:

I will say it for a third time. Maybe this time somebody will udnerstand me...

We do understand you. At least I do...and I suspect most others. I'm not sure of why you are arguing.

I suspect you are simply not paying enough attention to the responses you are getting.

Some people guess there is a God at the core of everything. Some guess there are no gods. Some simply acknowledge that they do not know either way...and acknowledge that there does not seem to be enough evidence to guess either way.

What is the big deal?

If your point is that there are a lot of unanswered questions....(and I think that is one of your points)...YEAH...there are a lot of unanswered questions.

I agree with you...anyone who guesses the only answer is that there is a God...simply is not using his/her imagination to the limit.

Fact is, anyone who guesses there cannot be any gods...isn't either.

Quote:

So I was not trying to prove that God doesn't exist, I was proving that there is no reason whatsoever to believe in a God (which is entirely different).

Don't bother. It is perfectly obvious to anyone with a brain that "there is no reason whatsoever to believe in a God."

Some people feel more comfortable guessing there is a God...so let 'em. And some people feel more comfortable guessing there are no gods...so let 'em.

And for those demented individuals...theistic and atheistic...who want to impose their guesses on the rest of us...f**k 'em. Fight them with everything you've got in your arsenel.

0 Replies

stuh505 wrote:

The right to agree or disagree with me is your own....but I would like you to at least understand my point...and since Scoates and Etruscas have both failed to grasp my point...I shall try to reitterate it in the simplest terms possible.

1) It is easy to imagine how planets and intelligent life would come about once there is some form of energy in the universe...and easy to see how matter could be converted from any form...therefore, the only question that remins is....where did matter come from?

2) The ONLY reason for believing in a God is to explain where the origin of matter may have come from.

3) If God is considered to be the source of matter, then we still don't know where the God came from...so instead of providing an answer, we are left with the SAME question (how did God/matter come to be?) AND an additional question -- how can something as irrational as a God exist?

4) Since there is zero evidence for believing in a God, and since the belief in a God would not resolve any questions about the universe but would only make additional much more difficult to answer questions, it is completely ridiculous to even entertain the possibility!

How demeaning. Anyway...

1- True

2- Not so, I believe in God, and I in no way relate him to the origin of matter. My impression is that matter existed first, therefor the two concepts or problems as it seems, are unrelated.

3 & 4- I agree that the very existence of matter is an enigma, but the existence of god is logical. He could simply be the epitome of evolution. With our current technology we can do things that seem illogical to me, like cell phones and computers and tvs. Those who understand their usage understand why they are all logcial (based on physics and obviously possible), but for someone like me sending your voice across the nation is just about as impossible as God putting thoughts into my mind. I assume me merely has a better understanding of physics than I do.

Since we do indeed have thoughts, which can't be disputed, it is only rational to assume those thoughts may be tampered with, just as everything else in this universe.

Lastly, on your fourth point, I would like to point out that science has never been about ignoring the difficult questions.

0 Replies

Thanks for reminding me about these points, SCoates.

Stuh wrote:

Quote:

1) It is easy to imagine how planets and intelligent life would come about once there is some form of energy in the universe...and easy to see how matter could be converted from any form...therefore, the only question that remins is....where did matter come from?

Well...it is not the only questions that remains...but it certainly is one to consider.

Quote:

2) The ONLY reason for believing in a God is to explain where the origin of matter may have come from.

That is absurd...and illogical.

One can easily "believe" in a God just to gain comfort from the notion...and not even consider the question of where matter originated. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that MOST people who "believe in God" do so for reasons completely unrelated to that question.

Quote:

3) If God is considered to be the source of matter, then we still don't know where the God came from...so instead of providing an answer, we are left with the SAME question (how did God/matter come to be?) AND an additional question -- how can something as irrational as a God exist?

What is so "irrational" about the notion of a god?

In fact, your question begs another question: How can something so irrational as "supposing the notion of a god is irrational" exist?

Quote:

4) Since there is zero evidence for believing in a God, and since the belief in a God would not resolve any questions about the universe but would only make additional much more difficult to answer questions, it is completely ridiculous to even entertain the possibility!

One does not need "evidence" to "believe" in anything. Essentially, a "belief" is a guess about the unknown...and "beliefs" are often pulled out of thin air.

It is no more ridiculous to entertain the possibility of the existence of gods than it is to entertain the possibility that there are no gods.

One of those notions is probably correct. (The answer to REALITY may be so different from what we suppose it COULD BE...that neither may be correct.) But one of those notions is probably correct...and we don't know which it is. It is ridiculous to entertain the notion that it is completely ridiculous to entertain the notion that one should not be considered.

0 Replies

In addition, Stuh, I think you're confusing God with organized religion. Organized religion may say that God created humans as they are now, which contradicts the Theory of Evolution. Organized religion may say that God created the Earth, which contradicts scientific evidence. But it is entirely possible to believe in a God which does or did nothing that contradicts science.

To add to Frank's refutation of your second point, I believe in a "God" of sorts, if you want to call it that, which I have already explained, and my belief has nothing to do with the origin of matter.

0 Replies

Quote:

We do understand you. At least I do...and I suspect most others. I'm not sure of why you are arguing.

If your point is that there are a lot of unanswered questions....(and I think that is one of your points)...YEAH...there are a lot of unanswered questions.

But that was never my point.

Both of you have mainly disagreed with my 2nd reason...I meant to say "there is no logical reason" (implied, that I can see)...you are correct that there can be other reasons I just don't see that any of them are logical yet.

so scoates, what are the reasons for why you believe in God? Were you raised that way and/or do you have any definitive reasons for your belief, emotional or factual?

Quote:

One does not need "evidence" to "believe" in anything. Essentially, a "belief" is a guess about the unknown...and "beliefs" are often pulled out of thin air.

Well, I need evidence to believe in something..I assumed everyone was the same way. But beliefs can never be pulled out of thin air. There are definitive reasons behind every belief (not always logical ones), even if one cannot pinpoint them.

Quote:

In addition, Stuh, I think you're confusing God with organized religion. Organized religion may say that God created humans as they are now, which contradicts the Theory of Evolution. Organized religion may say that God created the Earth, which contradicts scientific evidence. But it is entirely possible to believe in a God which does or did nothing that contradicts science. .

Yes, I was pretty much talking about organized religions...but I think those who believe in God but don't consider themselves part of any organized religion are among the minority, are they not?

And I apologize for taking my lack of patience out on you scoates

0 Replies

stuh505 wrote:

Quote:
We do understand you. At least I do...and I suspect most others. I'm not sure of why you are arguing.

If your point is that there are a lot of unanswered questions....(and I think that is one of your points)...YEAH...there are a lot of unanswered questions.

But that was never my point.

Really!

Well from your posts...it sure seems that is one of your points.

Read what you have written again.

If you cannot independently come to the conclusion that one of your points is that indeed there are unanswered questions...I'll got through the bother of pointing out why I say that is so.

Quote:

Both of you have mainly disagreed with my 2nd reason...I meant to say "there is no logical reason" (implied, that I can see)...you are correct that there can be other reasons I just don't see that any of them are logical yet.

Well, I don't even see the reason you are offering as "logical"...and apparently you don't either, since you offered a critique for why it wasn't logical.

You were quite specific in what you said. I quote: "The ONLY reason for believing in a God is to explain where the origin of matter may have come from."

Frankly, I think your protestation that you "meant" "the only logical reason"...considering even the reason you offered you do not consider "logical"...is simply a way to avoid acknowledging that you were dead wrong on this item.

In any case, our point is that there are various reasons people decide to "believe" certain things.

And I guess it is well to point out that nobody here in A2K will be able to argue with what you "maent to say." We've pretty much gotta stick with what you actually say.

Quote:

Quote:
One does not need "evidence" to "believe" in anything. Essentially, a "belief" is a guess about the unknown...and "beliefs" are often pulled out of thin air.

Well, I need evidence to believe in something..I assumed everyone was the same way.

To assume that because you do something...everyone else must do it the same way...is illogical.

I didn't think I would have to point this out...but the expression "...pulled out of thin air" doesn't actually mean someone reaches out into the air and pulls something out of it.

As used here, it indicates a certain lack of reasonable, logical evidence when deciding on "beliefs."

People have "beliefs" on a wide variety of things...and in order to make myself completely clear...I will withdraw the "out of thin air" comment...and you may change it to some form of: "...with evidence of very questionable probative value."

Quote:

But beliefs can never be pulled out of thin air.

At some point, if you decide you want to continue arguing issues of this sort, you really ought to get away from using the word "never" in your arguments.

And you are absolutely wrong in this instance....because many people assert "beliefs" that ARE pulled out of thin air...adjusted as mentioned above for your lack of appreciation of an idiomatic expression.

0 Replies

Why do I believe in God? I suppose that would be different than my supposed logic so far. I mean, I haven't really given much evidence in support of him, up til now in this thread I've just been toying with the idea that he can't be disproven.

Why I believe in A God is because I have felt his spirit and influence in my life in a way that I cannot deny. I have always found that my prayers have been answered as well as the prayers of all others who "ask not amiss." That's more preachy than you would probably expect me to be, and talk about faith and feelings usually doesn't get too far over the web, which is why I only say so since you directly asked.

The concept of "just have faith" has become cliche, and I presume very annoying to agnostics/atheists.

As to why I believe in a SPECIFIC God, I have found a set of beliefs in which I find no logical flaw, which makes it possible for me to trust the God of that religion and makes faith actually take on meaning, rather than blinding me.

0 Replies

All of the people I've met with what I considered to be real character OR courage had faith.

0 Replies

Yeah, unfortunately, it is. I didn't start off that way, and I was expecting something when I used to pray (that was, what, some 45 odd years ago), but in return, I received nothing, so I accepted that there was no one to guide me but myself. I can see that religion teaches morals, but to seriously believe in a creator existing when Evolution, and just about the whole branch of Biology which depends on Evolution is most likely true seems to clash.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

All of the people I've met with what I considered to be real character OR courage had faith.

Well...I have "real character" and I consider myself as courageous as the next guy...and I am an agnostic.

I have known MANY agnostics and atheists whom I consider to be of exemplary character...and who display traits of courage as great as any I've ever seen.

Perhaps, Snood, you are not approaching this question with an open mind.

In fact, perhaps some of the people whom you've met who display both character and courage...would resent you supposing them to be "people of faith."

0 Replies

If you don't mind my being a bit cheap, saying "I don't know" is a higher level of faith than saying "No." You admit/believe that there may in fact be answers you are totally unaware of. Whether you come to that conclusion by experience or for comfort.

0 Replies

"I don't know", would sound open minded because you are accepting the fact that your knowledge is limited--as knowledge is infinite. It's not that we believe there are answers we are unaware of, we do know there's something we're not aware of--there has to be something we don't know, otherwise we would know everything. It's more like an inconclusive answer to be completed, but I wouldn't call it faith. Saying "no" could be from faith or it could be from observed evidence.

0 Replies

Quote:

Really!

Well from your posts...it sure seems that [that there are many unanswered questions] is one of your points.

Read what you have written again.

Are you trying to convince me that I don't have a point? Yes, Frank, I have a point. And yes I know what I have said 4 times over. And no, "that there are many unanswered questions" is not one of my points.

The term many is relative, and depending on the context which determines how much many is, I may either agree or disagree with that statement. However, in the context of this argument, I was more using the opposite of that as evidence for my real thesis.

See below:

Quote:

We start with a question: where did we come from? Based on the current laws of physics, if there were a large blob of matter somewhere in an endless sea of nothingness (space), then it woudl eventually form galaxies, planets, elements, evolution, life. there are a few small details we're missing, but as a whole, we understand this. So the only question remaining is: where did matter come from?

But as you can see, I was actually using the opposite of what you have called "my point" as a basis for my actual point.

In my very first post on this thread, I said:

Quote:

In order for this chain of events to get started, there must have been a God that has existed for all time that started everything.

So....in order to explain how matter came to be in the universe...your explanation requires that something had to exist for all time which is a God...

Remember, the only reason for believing for a God in the first place is to explain how our universe came to be because we don't know how it could have existed for all time.

You see how this contradicts itself right?

In this post, I thought my point was quite obvious:

1) a God is used to answer life's questions
2) believing in a God would not answer any of life's questions
3) therefore that is not a good reason to believe in a God

Several forum members at this point said something to the effect of, "yeah but we can't say for sure a God doesn't exist, perhaps God is the answer to life's questions"...indicating that they had no idea that what they were saying was precisely what I was trying to disprove.

So, I tried to clarify with this post, by putting the train of thought into a more procedural form:

Quote:

1) It is easy to imagine how planets and intelligent life would come about once there is some form of energy in the universe...and easy to see how matter could be converted from any form...therefore, the only question that remins is....where did matter come from?

2) The ONLY reason for believing in a God is to explain where the origin of matter may have come from.

3) If God is considered to be the source of matter, then we still don't know where the God came from...so instead of providing an answer, we are left with the SAME question (how did God/matter come to be?) AND an additional question -- how can something as irrational as a God exist?

4) Since there is zero evidence for believing in a God, and since the belief in a God would not resolve any questions about the universe but would only make additional much more difficult to answer questions, it is completely ridiculous to even entertain the possibility!

Then, Frank, you repeated the same point that SCoates and Etruscias had made!!

Quote:

There may be no gods...and everything may simply have always existed.

There may be a God...and that God may be the cause of everything.

Here, you are stating the opposite of my conclusion as if it were fact. If you had understood that this point was contradicting my point, I think that you would have explained why you thought the opposite...rather than simply stating the opposite...so it is natural to assume that you really did not understand my point.

Now, I am not infinitely patient. It is not that I am trying to force everyone to agree with me, it is simply that I cannot stand to have someone think that I am saying an entirely different thing and disagree with me for that reason. So, you can imagine that I am getting somewhat annoyed with everyone completely misinterpreting me...and being forced to reiterate myself.

So, I said the SAME thing again....trying to make it even more clear:

Quote:

And if an all powerful God existed for all time...then we have come back to the same question we were trying
to answer: how did something exist for all time?

In addition, we also have introduced a new and more difficult question: how can this magical being which
defies all the laws of the universe exist?

So really, even if there were a God, it would not answer any of our questions...it would only make
things more confusing...

Now some people have contested my usage of, "no reason to believe." When I read this sentence, or hear it spoken, I know that the speaker/writer is implying that there is "no good reason", or "no logical reason"...even though technically that implication is not in the grammar. But I am trying to communicate here, and I thought that would be understood...

Then Frank you said this:

Quote:

We do understand you. At least I do...and I suspect most others. I'm not sure of why you are arguing.

I suspect you are simply not paying enough attention to the responses you are getting.

Some people guess there is a God at the core of everything. Some guess there are no gods. Some simply acknowledge that they do not know either way...and acknowledge that there does not seem to be enough evidence to guess either way.

What is the big deal?

If your point is that there are a lot of unanswered questions....(and I think that is one of your points)...YEAH...there are a lot of unanswered questions.

I agree with you...anyone who guesses the only answer is that there is a God...simply is not using his/her imagination to the limit.

Fact is, anyone who guesses there cannot be any gods...isn't either.

So I find it quite frustrating that you keep saying "yes yes I see what you're saying, but...[opposite of your thesis] could be true"...and here you do just that again...and with an insulting attitude no-less!

My point has been made, and I won't say it again.

0 Replies

stuh505 wrote:

Quote:
Really!

Well from your posts...it sure seems that [that there are many unanswered questions] is one of your points.

Read what you have written again.

Are you trying to convince me that I don't have a point? Yes, Frank, I have a point. And yes I know what I have said 4 times over. And no, "that there are many unanswered questions" is not one of my points.

The term many is relative, and depending on the context which determines how much many is, I may either agree or disagree with that statement. However, in the context of this argument, I was more using the opposite of that as evidence for my real thesis.

See below:

Quote:
We start with a question: where did we come from? Based on the current laws of physics, if there were a large blob of matter somewhere in an endless sea of nothingness (space), then it woudl eventually form galaxies, planets, elements, evolution, life. there are a few small details we're missing, but as a whole, we understand this. So the only question remaining is: where did matter come from?

But as you can see, I was actually using the opposite of what you have called "my point" as a basis for my actual point.

In my very first post on this thread, I said:

Quote:
In order for this chain of events to get started, there must have been a God that has existed for all time that started everything.

So....in order to explain how matter came to be in the universe...your explanation requires that something had to exist for all time which is a God...

Remember, the only reason for believing for a God in the first place is to explain how our universe came to be because we don't know how it could have existed for all time.

You see how this contradicts itself right?

In this post, I thought my point was quite obvious:

1) a God is used to answer life's questions
2) believing in a God would not answer any of life's questions
3) therefore that is not a good reason to believe in a God

Several forum members at this point said something to the effect of, "yeah but we can't say for sure a God doesn't exist, perhaps God is the answer to life's questions"...indicating that they had no idea that what they were saying was precisely what I was trying to disprove.

So, I tried to clarify with this post, by putting the train of thought into a more procedural form:

Quote:
1) It is easy to imagine how planets and intelligent life would come about once there is some form of energy in the universe...and easy to see how matter could be converted from any form...therefore, the only question that remins is....where did matter come from?

2) The ONLY reason for believing in a God is to explain where the origin of matter may have come from.

3) If God is considered to be the source of matter, then we still don't know where the God came from...so instead of providing an answer, we are left with the SAME question (how did God/matter come to be?) AND an additional question -- how can something as irrational as a God exist?

4) Since there is zero evidence for believing in a God, and since the belief in a God would not resolve any questions about the universe but would only make additional much more difficult to answer questions, it is completely ridiculous to even entertain the possibility!

Then, Frank, you repeated the same point that SCoates and Etruscias had made!!

Quote:
There may be no gods...and everything may simply have always existed.

There may be a God...and that God may be the cause of everything.

Here, you are stating the opposite of my conclusion as if it were fact. If you had understood that this point was contradicting my point, I think that you would have explained why you thought the opposite...rather than simply stating the opposite...so it is natural to assume that you really did not understand my point.

Now, I am not infinitely patient. It is not that I am trying to force everyone to agree with me, it is simply that I cannot stand to have someone think that I am saying an entirely different thing and disagree with me for that reason. So, you can imagine that I am getting somewhat annoyed with everyone completely misinterpreting me...and being forced to reiterate myself.

So, I said the SAME thing again....trying to make it even more clear:

Quote:
And if an all powerful God existed for all time...then we have come back to the same question we were trying
to answer: how did something exist for all time?

In addition, we also have introduced a new and more difficult question: how can this magical being which
defies all the laws of the universe exist?

So really, even if there were a God, it would not answer any of our questions...it would only make
things more confusing...

Now some people have contested my usage of, "no reason to believe." When I read this sentence, or hear it spoken, I know that the speaker/writer is implying that there is "no good reason", or "no logical reason"...even though technically that implication is not in the grammar. But I am trying to communicate here, and I thought that would be understood...

Then Frank you said this:

Quote:
We do understand you. At least I do...and I suspect most others. I'm not sure of why you are arguing.

I suspect you are simply not paying enough attention to the responses you are getting.

Some people guess there is a God at the core of everything. Some guess there are no gods. Some simply acknowledge that they do not know either way...and acknowledge that there does not seem to be enough evidence to guess either way.

What is the big deal?

If your point is that there are a lot of unanswered questions....(and I think that is one of your points)...YEAH...there are a lot of unanswered questions.

I agree with you...anyone who guesses the only answer is that there is a God...simply is not using his/her imagination to the limit.

Fact is, anyone who guesses there cannot be any gods...isn't either.

So I find it quite frustrating that you keep saying "yes yes I see what you're saying, but...[opposite of your thesis] could be true"...and here you do just that again...and with an insulting attitude no-less!

My point has been made, and I won't say it again.

Good. You are boring me...and it is obvious you are kidding yourself.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Well...I have "real character" and I consider myself as courageous as the next guy...and I am an agnostic.

I have known MANY agnostics and atheists whom I consider to be of exemplary character...and who display traits of courage as great as any I've ever seen.

Perhaps, Snood, you are not approaching this question with an open mind.

In fact, perhaps some of the people whom you've met who display both character and courage...would resent you supposing them to be "people of faith."

Well, excuse me for saying so Frank, but perhaps whether or not we as individuals have these attributes is best left for others to say - others who know us, as we may not be very objective.

As to whom YOU have known and consider to have these qualities, more power to you - that has nothing to do with those I'VE known. I admit I was suggesting a correlation between faith and those qualities, but it isn't really something that can be argued to anyone's satisfaction - beyond "we disagree".

As to your suggestion about some resentment on the part of those I identify in my mind as having faith, courage and character - I assure you, those attributes aren't things I'd loosely pin to people without knowing they fit.

0 Replies

I think that to some extent Snood has a point, namely that faith can be a powerful source of moral fiber, but I think that we need to be careful about making that point. In today's world, as a person who is ambiguously religious, I am often told in my discussions with people that religion is necesary for morals. While I'm sure that's not what Snood was trying to say, I think a lot of the atheist/agnostic/secular and even the religious people on this board might just be so used to hearing it that we assume that's what you mean.

If we look around us, we can see that there are many people whose faith drives them to do wonderful things, giving them courage and a feeling of meaning to their lives. We can also people who use faith as an excuse to kill, and we can see nonreligious people who are also quite admirable.

0 Replies

Quote:

As to whom YOU have known and consider to have these qualities, more power to you - that has nothing to do with those I'VE known. I admit I was suggesting a correlation between faith and those qualities, but it isn't really something that can be argued to anyone's satisfaction - beyond "we disagree".

If you didn't mean that only those with faith have good character, then why did you make the statement that implied it?

Quote:

I think that to some extent Snood has a point, namely that faith can be a powerful source of moral fiber, but I think that we need to be careful about making that point. In today's world, as a person who is ambiguously religious, I am often told in my discussions with people that religion is necesary for morals.

I certainly see that faith is often used to imply a source of morals, but I don't in today's world see any evidence of that being the case. To the contrary, I see immoral acts being committed in the name of morality and faith. I see our president forsaking the lives of our own citizens, lying and cheating to maintain his position, attacking countries to keep his support up. Granted, these are the actions of 1 man...but when more than half of the country supports his actions, for reasons the polls state as agreeing with his morals, I think this becomes representative of more people.

Is it moral to wage war on the basis of differing beliefs? That seems to be the basis of many holy wars which have claimed countless lives.

0 Replies

Lordregent52 wrote:

I think that to some extent Snood has a point, namely that faith can be a powerful source of moral fiber, but I think that we need to be careful about making that point. In today's world, as a person who is ambiguously religious, I am often told in my discussions with people that religion is necesary for morals. While I'm sure that's not what Snood was trying to say, I think a lot of the atheist/agnostic/secular and even the religious people on this board might just be so used to hearing it that we assume that's what you mean.

If we look around us, we can see that there are many people whose faith drives them to do wonderful things, giving them courage and a feeling of meaning to their lives. We can also people who use faith as an excuse to kill, and we can see nonreligious people who are also quite admirable.

Correct!

And it never hurts to remind our fellow A2Kers who think "faith" and a "belief" in some god are necessary to being a moral, courageous person...that there are many, many moral, courageous people who do not buy into that stuff.

Snood was taking a shot with his post...I shot back.

0 Replies

Ah...Frank, Frank, Frank -

So, when I say "people of faith have character and courage", that's taking a shot?

At you, I suppose?

It couldn't be that I was making a PRO-faith, and not ANTI-anything statement, could it?

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Ah...Frank, Frank, Frank -

So, when I say "people of faith have character and courage", that's taking a shot?

That is not what you said.

What you said was: "All of the people I've met with what I considered to be real character OR courage had faith. "

So you are saying that EVERY person you have EVER met with what you consider to be "real character" or "courage"...has been a person of faith.

Yeah...I consider that to be a shot.

Quote:

At you, I suppose?

At everyone...including yourself.

It is an embarrassing statement to have to read.

Quote:

It couldn't be that I was making a PRO-faith, and not ANTI-anything statement, could it?

Anything is possible...but I think it was exactly what I said it was...a shot.

0 Replies

God, Existence and the Human Condition

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know