A Logical Look at the Existence (or Non-Existence) of God.

Epic

Sorry about screwing up the name. My brain is cooked right now so I'm not going to bother with a full blown post. Just thought I'd appologize for the name thing in case I forgot to do so later.

Ah, sweet delicious sleep...MMmmmmmmzmzzzzzz

 

If God is timeless, and time is dependant of space, is God then spaceless?

If there is no space in God, is there any movement?

If there is no movement, what does God do?

 

Dane - I wish you'd at least try to not post total gibberish...


And in reply to Jahithophel's post about the nihilism of atheism versus the enlightened happiness of Christiniaty, I would agree that in an ideal world, religion would prove a good grounding for everyone. It would be great if we could all link arms and sing Kumbayaa into the sunset, but, alas, the real world doesn't work like that.

Once religion collides with politics we get control. And that's what the Church is -- whatthe Church has always been - a control mechanism. Once you start building societies around religious beliefs, you start walking down a dangerous path that has led us to countless conflicts and tragedies.

So while it might be nice to decide that theism is best because life will improve, I actually disagree. If we allow theism to control our lives and the lives of everyone within our societies, such is the polar morality of the Christian religion that it becomes a cross with which to beat others with.

 

Darth Dane: If God is timeless, and time is dependant of space, is God then spaceless? If there is no space in God, is there any movement? If there is no movement, what does God do?

Please don't make false assumptions. I would first like to say that God created space, time, and matter, and all three of them depends on one another. Before he created them (which is kinda weird to say because time didn't exist), there was nothing. Once he created them, he wasn't ever subject to them, and he never will be. That is what makes him God.

Scum&Villainy: And in reply to Jahithophel's post about the nihilism of atheism versus the enlightened happiness of Christiniaty, I would agree that in an ideal world, religion would prove a good grounding for everyone. It would be great if we could all link arms and sing Kumbayaa into the sunset, but, alas, the real world doesn't work like that.

Once religion collides with politics we get control. And that's what the Church is -- what the Church has always been - a control mechanism.

Once you start building societies around religious beliefs, you start walking down a dangerous path that has led us to countless conflicts and tragedies.

So while it might be nice to decide that theism is best because life will improve, I actually disagree. If we allow theism to control our lives and the lives of everyone within our societies, such is the polar morality of the Christian religion that it becomes a cross with which to beat others with.

First off: we will never live in an ideal world. Because of original sin, humans will continue to sin and there is no hope for percfect world. If we did live in a ideal world, we would need religion, because then everything would already be perfect. We have religion (or relationships ) to make the world a better place. If this were an ideal world, we would already be grounded and we wouldn't need religion.

When you say, "once religion collides with politics we get control," you automatically make it seem like a theocracy. I will say that theocracies are horrible, ineffective, and controling. But your statement is wrong. What is right would be, "once religious people use political power to impose their beliefs on others, you get control."

Also, the church is not a control mechanism (unless the government is a theocracy, which is not what we have today, and therefore the church is not). I also have to add that you use the term "the church" in relation to "religion." If you say the "church," then you would have to say "Christianity" instead of "religion." Anyways, back to the issue. As defined by the Bible, the church is a group of believers that meets together at least once a week to encourage one another. And to most of the churches I've been too, that is exactly what it is. Unfortunately, there are some churches that have lost sight of what a church is supposed to be and they stray away from it, and then they are not really a church.

I agree with you that building a government around a religion would be bad. It is called a theocracy, and it usually brings with it much bloodshed and grief. But are you saying that we should abandon all religious beliefs and take them out of our government just because they are from a religion. The Ten Commandments have been under much criticizem (did I spell that right?) these days, just because it came from the Bible. Maybe I should post them here to show how much sense they make (I've shortened them to get to the point, but you can look them up for yourselves):

10. You shall not covet (oh the horror!)
9. You shall not lie (now I feel bad for Bill Clinton)
8. You shall not steal (wow isn't that appalling?)
7. You shall not commit adultery (imagine how many children's lives would be healed if their parents stuck together)
6. You shall not murder (and this is what liberals are upset about?)
5. You shall honor your father and mother (why not?)
4. You shall honor the sabbath day by keeping it holy (in other words, you can't work on saturdays!)
3. You shall

 

IkritMan: We have religion to make the world a better place.

But you never really stated your argument for why you think "God" exists -- certainly not just because religion tells us He exists, right?

 

Space: good job! :-D

Jahith: what Space said.

DLM: i didn't know there was another kind of theist. ;-)

 

IkritMan:

"When you say, "once religion collides with politics we get control," you automatically make it seem like a theocracy"

You misunderstand me. I know the Christian church began as a small, informal meeting group. But by the 5th Century, The Church had become a sociopolitical movement and at that time became a body of control. Look back at history - the Church has one function - to control the people. Any other benefits - such as the enlightenment of the people, or getting the masses through those great Pearly Gates, is secondary. The Church's past actions will prove me right - religion has been used as a mechanism for directing the people. Whether it's conquering new continents, erasing entire peoples or justifying the sending of another generation to their dooms, or even covering up sexual shenanigans of its own priests, the Church's main function is control. That's all it's ever been. I utterly separate the spirituality from the organisation. The Christian spirituality is undeniably noble and largely moral; the Christian religion/organisations are not.

I see 'spirituality' as the personal relationship or internal feeling; I define 'religion' as organised spirituality; by 'the Church' I mean the organisation responsible for the religion. Therefore by my definitions, the Church is the religion - netierh of which necessarily agree with the spirituality.

 

Something being overlooked by theists in this thread: gods are not required for spiritual and moral outlooks and ways of living.

My evidence: surely Buddhism has done as much good for people and for the world as Christianity, and Buddhism does not believe in deities. And surely you all know non-theists (atheists, agnostics, etc.) who are very moral and concerned about helping and not harming the world they live in.

However, we're wandering off-topic. If you're presenting the need for god as evidence that he must exist, that's a very precarious argument, and I have refuted it by pointing out there are millions, perhaps billions of people on earth who have better morals than the average theist. And if you're arguing something else, that's neither here nor there as the point of the thread is not WHY one believes, but rather the question of beliefs being logical.

 

The topic, I take it, is logical proof or that God exists or doesn't exist. Of course I have my thoughts on who or what God is which may differ with others. Here it goes...

I think God is only 2 things. Possibly 3 but the third is only an illusion yet a neccessry one.

The first one I'll mention, which really doesn't need anything else said about it, is 1. One being, the only being. The one at the top. Omnipotent and all that. And that being the case, it shouldn't be any surprise, really, that the only thing which totally describes that being is one, itself. One! Thats one part of God.

The second one I'll mention is infinity. You all know this exists. Think of the highest number possible and then add 1 to it, conveniently enough. You then have a new highest number and then you add 1 to it. This can go on ad infinitum. Thats the best part about infinity. The mere realization that you can keep adding one til infinitum proves infinity exists. And being that infinity exists then every possibility exists. Everything concievable and everything inconceivable can exist. A wonderful result of infinity, for example, is what would seem as a singularity could expand and cool to form galaxies, inside it, in which stars form and subsequently planets and life. Thats just one of an infinite number of possibilities though. But that one, among a few others, stand out. Another thing infinity allows is the number 1 and everything about it. Another wild thing infinity allows is for the possibility of one being to feel part of a community some of the time and utterly alone at others. The community being infinite over time but allowing for single, personal perspective.

The third part of God, which is more an illusion, is nothingness. It's an illusion because to properly define nothing, you end up having to say it's the opposite of everything. For example, if 'nothing' exists outside of this Universe, then there's no real way to describe it. So, it seems to be an entity unto itself when really it's just the lack of anything and everything. But on a similar scale, it's almost as hard to describe as God or everything.

Will write more later.

Grand Designer

 

Alright, finally some time to reply. I'm not sure I'll hit everyone's responses but I'll do my best.


I think the point is that when one believes in: a caring God, eternal life, etc., those beliefs serve to alleviate suffering.

Epic corrected me on a misconception I had about atheists and I'm glad he did. I get to read up on quantum physics. Would someone mind directing me to some relevant articles? Thanks.

So now I'd like to try to dispel a common misconception about Christianity. It didn't come from a need to "alleviate suffering." Christianity came from a guy named Jesus who claimed to be the son of God; Christians are those who believe the claim. In fact, Christ promised his followers that professing his name would cause them to suffer. And that's exactly what happened. If you look at the early Church before Christianity became the official church of Rome it can be described as continual persecution. What makes this persecution remarkable is that it is counter-intuitive. What is there about a person who condones forgiveness, humility, love, and redemption that makes other people want to feed him to lions? Nothing really, until he says he believes all that stuff because of Jesus. Fortunately the number of Christian-based lion snacks has dropped sharply over the years, but we still get called silly, a believers in fairy nonsense, superstitious, and would we please stop holding back humanity's evolution.

So suffering is part of the Christian life. Christians all over the world still get cancer, still declare bankruptcy, still get heartbroken, still have to watch the world decay along with everyone else. Being Christian doesn't make suffering go away. I know there are those church goes with their plastic smiles who are invariably "blessed" when you ask how they're doing. They annoy me too.

What Christ does promise is peace, not on a global scale (in fact he prophesied the opposite) but inner peace. And this brings us to:

has your suffering really been alleviated by a Divine power, or have you just found a way to psychologically console yourself -- quite independent of any God-like force?

Let me paraphrase it now that we're not talking about suffering anymore. How do I know that the peace I have is from God and not some psychological gymnastics I've given myself? Well, for one I have peace despite the suffering, but I realize that this must sound like a pre-canned answer and doesn't really go that far to answer the question. So here's the real answer. I don't. I just believe it. I don't know there's a God, but I believe it. And I continue to believe because there continues to be support for that belief. It's not like I go on loving God despite a complete lack of evidence that He even exists--I'm convinced.

There?s more I?d like to get to but for the sake of brevity I?ll do that later.

BTW--If anyone out there would also like to be convinced feel free to private message me. I'd be happy to discuss this whole God thing on a more personal level.

 

Jahithopel, I think you mixed me up with Epic. At least, I know I mentioned the "common misconception" and quantum physics. As for articles, the basic one to start with is REALLY long, but fascinating: The Hologram Paradigm It's not a theory every quantum physicist finds plausible (only about one-third embrace it as likely), but it serves to demonstrate how deeply science and "mysticism" can coincide. Religion and science, properly practiced, are searching for the same truths.

So now I'd like to try to dispel a common misconception about Christianity. It didn't come from a need to "alleviate suffering."

Well, you're right that the religion didn't come from that, like Buddhism did. Unlike Buddhism, which promises an end to suffering, Christianity just says God's love can make the suffering worthwhile, after you die. I prefer the pro-active Buddhist approach myself, but to each his own.

What is there about a person who condones forgiveness, humility, love, and redemption that makes other people want to feed him to lions? Nothing really, until he says he believes all that stuff because of Jesus.

Actually - and Jesus himself demonstrates this - people have always loathed and despised people who preach those things, long before anyone attached them to any offending religious figure. Telling people to be more compassionate has never gone over well, and I suspect that's due to deeply hardwired instincts of survival: if we are generous to those with whom we compete for survival, we may allow the inferior to survive and breed, and upset the natural order. (There's nothing wrong with consciously chosing to behave better than instinct demands, but it's counter-intuitive to people who don't think a whole lot, which is most people.)

How do I know that the peace I have is from God and not some psychological gymnastics I've given myself?

Then how do I have peace without believing in God? I realize you weren't saying God is the only way to peace: but my point is, and I guess you already conceded this, you simply can't know if God is where your peace is coming from. I have been through quite a lot of suffering in my life, and yet I laugh more than anyone I've ever known. I have a high capacity for joy, even in the midst of trauma and tragedy, all without believing in God. The source of my joy could very well be the same source as yours. I don't attempt to identify the source, and you do. What benefit does labeling it as God bring you?

 

Space_Man: But you never really stated your argument for why you think "God" exists -- certainly not just because religion tells us He exists, right?

Right. I'll tell you why I think he exists in a minute. Thanx for pointing that out to me!

scum&villainy: You misunderstand me. I know the Christian church began as a small, informal meeting group. But by the 5th Century, The Church had become a sociopolitical movement and at that time became a body of control. Look back at history - the Church has one function - to control the people. Any other benefits - such as the enlightenment of the people, or getting the masses through those great Pearly Gates, is secondary. The Church's past actions will prove me right - religion has been used as a mechanism for directing the people. Whether it's conquering new continents, erasing entire peoples or justifying the sending of another generation to their dooms, or even covering up sexual shenanigans of its own priests, the Church's main function is control. That's all it's ever been.

Oh boy! I think we have some misunderstandings. You are talking about the Catholic church. I am talking about the church based on the New Testament (pentecostals, methodists, baptists, etc.). I will agree with you on this: in the 5th century, the church had become a controling device. But they were deviating away from the teachings that they were supposed to conform to.

When Christianity became the official church of Rome (I believe it was done by Charlegmane, however you spell it), the emperor had forced it upon every one of his subjects. That totally goes against the teachings of Christ, and therefore cannot be considered a trait of Christianity.

Another thing that went wrong is the pope suddenly had the power to excommunicate people, which is another idea that goes against the teachings of Christ.

I can look back in history right now and tell the Church has been used for a lot of things. But of course there is only one purpose that is meant for it: for believers to encourage and help one another throught their trials in life. The Catholic religion is very different from Christianity, and therefore both churchs are very different from eachother.

TreeCave However, we're wandering off-topic. If you're presenting the need for god as evidence that he must exist, that's a very precarious argument, and I have refuted it by pointing out there are millions, perhaps billions of people on earth who have better morals than the average theist. And if you're arguing something else, that's neither here nor there as the point of the thread is not WHY one believes, but rather the question of beliefs being logical.

I have a question. From where do we get morals? You say that there are a lot of people who have better morals than the average theist. Who is to decide what morals are better than others, or even decide that morals exist in the firstplace. There is no where in nature where morals are exercised, except in humanity.

Of course, there are people in this world who give no regard for life, human or otherwise, or people's possessions, or respect for people's feelings, etc. The majority of the population would think of this as wrong. If someone killed another human being for no other reason than to amuse himself, then most people would think that as sick. I would too.

But if there is no God, Christian or any other kind of religion, then where do we get moral values? If we are nothing but matter that has somehow come alive, then why in the world do we care about other people and how they feel? Evolutionists would lead us to believe that we are just like any other animal. I don't see any other animals with moral values.

My point is this. There has to be a higher power that has set in our minds this sense of right and wrong, of good and evil. I have not heard of one civilization that upholds cowardly and selfish acts, yet all civilizations I have heard of believe in honorable and great heroic deeds. Where do we get this preconception of wh

 

But if there is no God, Christian or any other kind of religion, then where do we get moral values?

Where did God get his moral values?

 

From where do we get morals?

From the simple realization that anything I do to you, you (or someone else) could do to me. In children and in primitive people, this leads to a sort of arms race/cold war mentality in which we both agree not to hurt each other. With further development (adulthood or cultural evolution), we learn the value of cooperation, which is even cooler than simply agreeing not to hurt each other. That's where compassion begins, and you get the full-circle version of the "anything I do to you, you could do to me" concept: I should only do to you things I wouldn't mind having done to me. This concept is present in virtually every religion and philosophy, despite varying interpretations of what one might "mind" having done to himself, and it is the basis of morality. God is not necessarily to this revelation, as it is simple common sense.

Now, to the rest of your question...

You say that there are a lot of people who have better morals than the average theist. Who is to decide what morals are better than others, or even decide that morals exist in the firstplace.

Good point. To keep from muddying the topic, let's scratch my comment about better morals and just say that Buddhists (an atheistic religious group) and many atheists have a code of ethics they apply to their own behavior and the behavior of others, without believing in any gods.

There is no where in nature where morals are exercised, except in humanity.

I disagree 100%. Many animals are astoundingly compassionate and cooperative, which is the basis of morality. Now, while I can't tell you a dog's motive for taking care of abandoned kittens, or a pet's motive for consoling its distressed human, I also can't truly tell you what any human's motives are for actions that seem compassionate to me. So as far as I am concerned, when my pet consoles me, it's because she likes to be consoled when she's distressed, and recognizes that treating me as she likes to be treated is the best way for us to get along. As for the obvious self-interest implied - that by consoling me, she hopes to guarantee future consolation for herself - I can't honestly say I don't stand to gain from every act of compassion I commit. There is no such thing as a selfless good deed, but selflessness is overrated. Being selfish at the expense of others sucks, IMHO, but taking care of yourself is as compassionate and essential as taking care of others.

My point is this. There has to be a higher power that has set in our minds this sense of right and wrong, of good and evil.

I hope I've answered that adequately above. It's simple common sense. That makes it no less wonderful, IMO - perhaps it removes some of the drama, but if you believe in God because it makes life more exciting...well, hell, I can relate to that. But I can't take it anymore seriously than believing in aliens because it makes life more exciting.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

 

TreeCave, good points. I wouldn't say that your argument completely erases the existence of God, or that mine completely proves his existence. I guess that both sides of this one have to accept their position on faith, eh?

 

no, the theist claims the existence of god, and thus requires faith to back up such a claim. atheism is the lack of belief in god, thus, no faith is required.

 

Well, as epic said, I'm not trying to prove a negative, i.e. the non-existence. It's logically impossible to prove a negative. So if this was just about winning arguments, the burden of proof would be on those trying to prove a god exists.

That's why I asked what benefit the theist gets from labelling his personal miracle experiences as God-given, while the atheist simply appreciates the miracle without trying to ascribe where it came from. Why isn't is just as easy to be eternally greatful for a random life-saving coincidence as it is to be greatful to a theoretical deity?

 

no, the theist claims the existence of god, and thus requires faith to back up such a claim. atheism is the lack of belief in god, thus, no faith is required.

You also need faith to prove that God doesn't exist, because science can't prove his non-existence.

I could say the wind doesn't exist, because I can't see it. Therefore, if you believed that the wind existed, you would have the burden of proving its existence. Your argument would probably be that you could feel the wind, and see its effects. Of course, I could easily refuse to interpret the wind as you do, and see it is a coincidence, as you seem to do with miracles.

So you see, I see miracles and incidents of the supernatural as coming from God, because I believe in cause and effect. I have seen someone who had been cripple all her life stand up and walk. You could say this is a coincidence, as someone could say a tree's smaller branches moving around a coincidence.

And besides, you still have faith in something that leads you to believe in the non-existence of God. Science has not and (I believe) will not prove the non-existence of God. Don't be fooled by the retards running Discovery Channel and Animal Planet (although I do like Jeff Corwin!) Evolution has so many flaws and holes in it that it could easily be confused with a block of swiss cheese.

What makes you believe that God doesn't exist. I don't want to sound lazy, but I don't want to go through the entire thread looking for it. So far I have heard answers to our arguments, but not any arguments for the acual non-existence of God.

 

"You also need faith to prove that God doesn't exist, because science can't prove his non-existence."

Correct. Science can't prove the nonexistence of God. It also can't prove the falsehood of any supernatural claim.

A supernatural claim is one which, by definition, is immune from cause and effect, and therefore outside the capacity of the scientific method to test it.

This is one of the reasons creation science isn't real science. There's no way to test its fundamental hypothesis.

 

Faith is a belief in something that cannot be known. The athiest does indeed have faith, a belief, that his philosophy is correct because he has no proof that his assertion is correct. I have pointed out this many times, and here is the Merriam Webster definition of faith:

faith

2b: firm belief in something for which there is no proof.

3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction

Faith is simply belief. It really isn't a dirty word, yet some have attempted to make it so.

Proving the existence of God via utilization of physical measurement is also oxymoronic. You're trying to prove something that exists above the physical realm using physically measurable tests and standards.

It's really quite interesting, as individuals are going in circles trying to fulfill some inherent internal need for answers to their own questions that they refuse to find through theistic faith.

I am interested in others' descriptions of the functions of nature, although I'm not altogether interested in others' opinions of theistic faith. I find scientific knowlege to be beneficial and interesting, but simply not an end to all means. As a 'theist', I simply hold belief in God, and I'm just as interested in the workings of nature as any atheist here.

 

DM

"The athiest does indeed have faith, a belief, that his philosophy is correct because he has no proof that his assertion is correct."

The atheist has a faith of sorts, perhaps, but you're overstating it in my eyes.

The atheist has a faith in that which is scientifically observable, testable and reproducable. The supernatural occurences with which many religions are associated are none of these, therefore the atheist has no reasonable justification for believing they exist.

I think it's a bit dishonest to imply that the faith required to be sceptical of the supernatural is of the same order of that faith required to believe.

 

I think it's a bit dishonest to imply that the faith required to be sceptical of the supernatural is of the same order of that faith required to believe.

Re-read the definition.

Again, the assertion I stated above is correct, faith is seen as a 'dirty word'. It's simply only a belief.

 

Ikrit, if someone adamantly swears God couldn't possibly exist, you would be correct in demanding proof. However, no one here is doing that. We're just saying until someone proves God exists, we have no logical reason to conclude he does.

I don't have any strong beliefs about deities existing or not. If I came across proof of some god existing, that would suit me just fine. I figure if any worthwhile gods exist, they're more concerned about my continuing attempt to be the best person I can be than whether I have devoted X hours per week wondering if they have long flowing beards or not.

 

"Faith is simply belief. It really isn't a dirty word... As a 'theist', I simply hold belief in God.

I agree with this, although I would add that "faith is belief where proof is impossible."

If more theists were as as honest as you, DM, in acknowledging that your belief in God is a simple matter of faith, then none of these God threads would be able to stay on page one.