God's Existence

[icelandic_iceskater]

God doesn't need a cause ^^ He never came into being.

[quote name='Semalsia' post='1927131' date='Jul 21 2009, 08:58 PM']How is love any different from lust or hunger, and what does it have to do with the existence of gods?[/quote]
Have you ever been completely happy? Fully at peace? Unable to fathom anything greater than that moment?

Be honest with yourself.

Edited July 22, 2009 by icelandic_iceskater

[philothea]

[quote name='Semalsia' post='1927131' date='Jul 21 2009, 07:58 PM']Any imaginable physical thing that happens in the world could always be explained by some potential natural phenomena. Therefore, I think, it is not possible to have any sort of evidence or proof for the existence of God or gods (which necessarily would be non-physical, most would agree) as the other physical explanations would always dominate.

Likewise it would be impossible to disprove God's existence by observing the physical world. And since all we have is the physical world, there's nothing we can say about God.

The above also leads to the conclusion that all religions are and will always be wrong.[/quote]
It also makes the discussion of the reality of [i]anything at all[/i] futile.

Unless you live a very complicated life, I assume you believe the things you interact with on a daily basis exist outside of your own senses, and behave in a predictable way. I imagine you also believe in things you have never seen, yet have been told of by credible sources.

There's not a whole lot of difference between believing in God, and believing in the existence of quarks, black holes, or Io, except that those don't require you to do anything. You can believe or disbelieve and it really doesn't make much difference. Therefore, most people believe -- why not?

Believing in the Judeo-Christian God, though, requires you to change your life and act a certain way, a way which is in many ways contrary to natural inclination. So, often it's easier to disbelieve.

There's plenty of evidence that Jesus of Nazareth lived and performed miracles, far more than many historical figures whose life and impact no one disputes.

Edited July 22, 2009 by philothea

[Winchester]

[quote name='Oliver' post='1926429' date='Jul 21 2009, 07:32 AM']However he destroy's his own argument because if anything is possible, then why isn't a miracle possible?[/quote]
Because it's not a miracle. A miracle doesn't occur because the particles decide to move, it occurs because a preternatural or supernatural force acts upon the natural world.

Your argument is like the "can God make a rock so heavy He can't lift it?" argument. I don't agree with Dawkins, but I understand his argument.

[Varg]

[quote]Existence is a relatively simple concept -- it is defined as that which consists of either matter or energy. Therefore if a god exists, it must be composed of either matter or energy.

The opposite must also be true. If a god is not composed of matter or energy, then that god, by definition, does not exist. Thus to argue that a god exist, despite a total absence of matter or energy, is to argue, existence equals non-existence, which is a complete contradiction.
If a god exists, then physical evidence is really the only methodology by which we can ascertain that a god exists.[/quote]

[Oliver]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1928057' date='Jul 22 2009, 04:18 PM']Because it's not a miracle. A miracle doesn't occur because the particles decide to move, it occurs because a preternatural or supernatural force acts upon the natural world.[/quote]

You don't understand the argument I was trying to make. If the particles were all to move at the same time so the mary statue would wave the probability would be soo high and rare that I would believe a miracle did happen. Dawkins beliefs in chance, we believe in God. Any miracle that has happened he thinks there is no supernatural force but it's purely chance or luck no matter how improbable it maybe.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Semalsia' post='1927131' date='Jul 21 2009, 08:58 PM']Any imaginable physical thing that happens in the world could always be explained by some potential natural phenomena. Therefore, I think, it is not possible to have any sort of evidence or proof for the existence of God or gods (which necessarily would be non-physical, most would agree) as the other physical explanations would always dominate.[/quote]

Yes, and that leads one to conclude that the physical world is eternally existent.

[quote name='Semalsia' post='1927131' date='Jul 21 2009, 08:58 PM']The above also leads to the conclusion that all religions are and will always be wrong.[/quote]

How so? It's not possible that there a true religion or belief? Contradictory beliefs cannot both be true, but if there isn't a contradiction, then one or the other could be true.

[quote name='Semalsia' post='1927131' date='Jul 21 2009, 08:58 PM']How is love any different from lust or hunger, and what does it have to do with the existence of gods?[/quote]

Did Michaelango paint the Sistene Chapel because he had some bills to pay and needed to put food on the table? Does lust inspire people? Love is genuinely unique from any feeling, drive, or desire. When we love something, we find in it more value than its material worth; when we love somebody, we find in them more value than simply the use of their body and mind and even the shared relationship. Not only are we willing to love and sacrifice ourselves in some way for that love, we are even seeking it out. If a person is only a physical body and mind, why is there a desire to sacrifice and love residing in the core of our being? Where does that come from?

[Winchester]

[quote name='Oliver' post='1928076' date='Jul 22 2009, 10:44 AM']You don't understand the argument I was trying to make. If the particles were all to move at the same time so the mary statue would wave the probability would be soo high and rare that I would believe a miracle did happen. Dawkins beliefs in chance, we believe in God. Any miracle that has happened he thinks there is no supernatural force but it's purely chance or luck no matter how improbable it maybe.[/quote]
I understand your argument. I disagree that Dawkins contradicts himself because a miracel requires an intelligent force. The mechanism is unimportant, in this case.

[Winchester]

[quote]Existence is a relatively simple concept -- it is defined as that which consists of either matter or energy. Therefore if a god exists, it must be composed of either matter or energy.[/quote]
I don't accept that definition of existence. It reduces existence to the realm of phenomena. It makes existence dependant on perceptible accidents. It rejects reason, which does not exist as matter or energy, though the use of reason is measurable, we are not certain yet of its origin. If you argue that reason is physical because its electrochemical, then you must agree that God exists because, as a concept within the human mind, he has a physical form. In your world, then, concept would be reality. The end of your argument is, bizarrely, solipsism.

[quote]The opposite must also be true. If a god is not composed of matter or energy, then that god, by definition, does not exist. Thus to argue that a god exist, despite a total absence of matter or energy, is to argue, existence equals non-existence, which is a complete contradiction.
If a god exists, then physical evidence is really the only methodology by which we can ascertain that a god exists.[/quote]
It's only a contradiction if one accepts your definition of existence. Even if one did, the question would remain open as science may well be incapable of detecting certain kinds of energy or matter. In rejecting one God, you're merely putting another in its place.

[philothea]

Varg:
[quote]Existence is a relatively simple concept -- it is defined as that which consists of either matter or energy. Therefore if a god exists, it must be composed of either matter or energy.

The opposite must also be true. If a god is not composed of matter or energy, then that god, by definition, does not exist. Thus to argue that a god exist, despite a total absence of matter or energy, is to argue, existence equals non-existence, which is a complete contradiction.
If a god exists, then physical evidence is really the only methodology by which we can ascertain that a god exists.[/quote]

By that definition neither time nor space exist either.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i think O had two thoughts going on when he said dawkins shut out his own argument. O said "the moving particles are too far fetched to not be God (though hinting it's possible)" and then a separate statement (though combined in a paragraph, adding to confusion) "arguing anything is possible but not miracles is self contradictory"
i might be wrong, in hwat O intended to be arguing

i only find him ie dawkins not self contradictory, cause i know dawkins says that God might exist, there's a very slight, in his mind, possibility. so he's not precluding it, as O said. it's just a case of really really really really bad judgment on dawkins' part that he'd think it's just chance or some phenomenon that we don't know about. (when would the obvious ever be enough?)

[Varg]

[quote name='philothea' post='1928269' date='Jul 22 2009, 12:57 PM']Varg:


By that definition neither time nor space exist either.[/quote]I didn't write it I just thought it was interesting :-(

Edited July 22, 2009 by Varg

[Winchester]

[quote name='Varg' post='1928280' date='Jul 22 2009, 02:04 PM']I didn't write it I just thought it was interesting :-([/quote]
Nope, I'm afraid it's simply vapid. But stick with us and you will develop taste and decency, and, possibly, theology and geometry.

[philothea]

[quote name='Varg' post='1928280' date='Jul 22 2009, 02:04 PM']I didn't write it I just thought it was interesting :-([/quote]



Discussing the nature of reality is pretty much doomed to failure. It's hard enough in the realm of physics, using only mathematics!

[Semalsia]

[quote name='philothea' post='1927760' date='Jul 22 2009, 04:55 AM']It also makes the discussion of the reality of [i]anything at all[/i] futile.[/quote]

How so? There's much we can say about the world we live in. We can see and touch and sense it in many ways. My point was that it's only pointless to discuss something of which we can't know anything about. And that would be God and everything else of that sort.

[quote name='philothea' post='1927760' date='Jul 22 2009, 04:55 AM']Unless you live a very complicated life, I assume you believe the things you interact with on a daily basis exist outside of your own senses, and behave in a predictable way. I imagine you also believe in things you have never seen, yet have been told of by credible sources.

There's not a whole lot of difference between believing in God, and believing in the existence of quarks, black holes, or Io, except that those don't require you to do anything. You can believe or disbelieve and it really doesn't make much difference. Therefore, most people believe -- why not?[/quote]

Sure, I do. However I could know directly about all of those thing, if I just dedicated the time to study them. It's not impossible to sense them and all those who do, show that by providing proof and evidence for what they say. That's why they are credible. Not so with God, since no matter how long I study I could never sense God. And neither could anyone else in the world. Yet people who believe in God and who have nothing but their own feelings to cite talk like God's existence is a truism. Now how does that make sense?

[quote name='philothea' post='1927760' date='Jul 22 2009, 04:55 AM']Believing in the Judeo-Christian God, though, requires you to change your life and act a certain way, a way which is in many ways contrary to natural inclination. So, often it's easier to disbelieve.[/quote]

You're right. I suppose it comes down to how important it is to know for sure. If someone comes and shouts that there's a bomb in the building, you don't stay and demand he provides proof, instead you run. And if someone credible tells you about quarks, sure believe it since it's no big deal if it turns out to be false later. But if there's a cost to believing, you don't want to be wrong and so it's only natural to demand proof.

[Semalsia]

[quote name='icelandic_iceskater' post='1927205' date='Jul 22 2009, 01:09 AM']Have you ever been completely happy? Fully at peace? Unable to fathom anything greater than that moment?

Be honest with yourself.[/quote]

What does my happiness has to do with whether God exists or not?