Jump to content


God real or not?

Started by Guest_stubblehamster , Feb 15 2005 12:22 AM

  • Please log in to reply
6399 replies to this topic

#4151 Guest_الِش

Guest_الِش
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 12 April 2007 - 03:59 AM

^The thing is, though, the thought of something coming from something, which is indeed the Big Bang, is rather hard to grasp.Whereas the idea of God simply existing the whole time can not logically be disproven. I'm an atheist, but I admit that my religious beliefs are simple guesses.That was to 38542..etc.

Some day, hopefully soon, Christians, Muslims, Jews. and all faiths will succumb to scientific fact, just as Zeus, Apollo and the other Greek and Roman gods have.

Good luck with that hope.

Even if this were true, having no meaning is more worthwhile than wasting years of prayer and devotion to a mythical figure who will never hear these prayers or appreciate the devotion due to the fact that there is no such being

Except that prayer isn't that hard. And it really isn't that bad for a person. Actually, the knowledge that someone is listening to your problems can be rather calming.

Edited by الِش, 12 April 2007 - 04:13 AM.

  • 0

#4152 38542788

38542788

    Winged Serpent

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 366 posts
Offline
Current mood: None chosen
Reputation: 2
Neutral

Posted 12 April 2007 - 04:07 AM

^ That wasn't really what I was saying, like I said in my last post, time could be cyclical, existence could just be just be doing exactly that, existing, without a beginning or an end.And even assume that there is an initial event that acted as a trigger, whatever caused that doesn't exist here, to us, it might as well as be nonexistent.
  • 0

#4153 Guest_amateursuperhero

Guest_amateursuperhero
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 12 April 2007 - 04:26 AM

There's pretty solid evidence for the big bang, that's why it's the most popular theory out there about creation (there are other scientific theories, not with the same amount of evidence). For example, the big bang theory predicted that there will be background cosmological radiation, and decades later, this was verified through observation (after better equipment were developed that could measure such things). This isn't really something that you can do to judge the existence of god.And from what you said about god being an agent that's completely foreign to this universe, why should we care about it's existence at all? After all, according to relativity (which, if you remove the math, rests on some very simple logical proofs), that which cannot be observed, effectively does not exist.

Well but the big bang is merely a scientific theory which describes the birth of our universe. It does not answer the deeper questions of "why?" or "to what end?" These are the sort of questions which can only be answered with the improbable theories I've been referring to, and one of these theories is God.lxc: I've read Harris and Dawkins, as well as Dennet (another leading neo-atheist thinker.) Most of what they say I fully embrace as true, however the arguments of all three have two key weaknesses: First, they fail to disprove the concept of God philosophically, but continue speaking as if they have done so; and second, they never make a clear or effective attack on "religious moderates," which seems to be a far more palpable solution to the problems they outline.
  • 0

#4154 Guest_الِش

Guest_الِش
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 12 April 2007 - 04:31 AM

time could be cyclical, existence could just be just be doing exactly that, existing, without a beginning or an end.Interesting, but an idea like that is hard for a human mind to grasp...For example, anyone who's read Genesis knows that God created everything in seven days. While there's no specific idea when He did this, he did it in seven days.The idea that something simply starts, however, is much harder. No beginning, so how did everything form?

Well but the big bang is merely a scientific theory which describes the birth of our universe. It does not answer the deeper questions of "why?" or "to what end?" These are the sort of questions which can only be answered with the improbable theories I've been referring to, and one of these theories is God.

Well, the Big Bang being before...anything, it's hard to explain those ideas. According to the Big Bang theory, things just happened, and it's been expanding from then on, like a mindless firestorm. There was no "why" or "to what end".In my opinion, at least.

First, they fail to disprove the concept of God philosophically, but continue speaking as if they have done so

Well, Zennalathas, someone I'm in the middle of a debate with, seems to think that since Creationism is entwined with religion, and this makes religion wrong.That, however, is bull****.

and second, they never make a clear or effective attack on "religious moderates," which seems to be a far more palpable solution to the problems they outline.

Amen. Zen seems to think that with "discussion between regular people" should convert everyone to atheism (I don't know how he worded it; it's in the "Should wars be fought for religion" thread). He goes on to say that the world would then be alot more unified.While the latter is semi-true, it's not that big a difference. And the former makes even less sense.

Edited by الِش, 12 April 2007 - 04:43 AM.

  • 0

#4155 38542788

38542788

    Winged Serpent

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 366 posts
Offline
Current mood: None chosen
Reputation: 2
Neutral

Posted 12 April 2007 - 04:43 AM

Interesting, but an idea like that is hard for a human mind to grasp...For example, anyone who's read Genesis knows that God created everything in seven days. While there's no specific idea when He did this, he did it in seven days.The idea that something simply starts, however, is much harder. No beginning, so how did everything form?Well, the Big Bang being before...anything, it's hard to explain those ideas. According to the Big Bang theory, things just happened, and it's been expanding from then on, like a mindless firestorm. There was no "why" or "to what end".In my opinion, at least.

While it might seem that creation myths are universal, not all cultures have them, there's no reason that a cyclical view of time is less "intuitively obvious".Ideas like this are actually pretty difficult to formulate, for example, there is strong evidence that the wheel was invented only once, and then spread to other parts of the world, it might seem obvious, but in truth, it took what amounted to a genius to create it.Who knows what other "obvious" world views there are that no one's ever though of?

Well but the big bang is merely a scientific theory which describes the birth of our universe. It does not answer the deeper questions of "why?" or "to what end?" These are the sort of questions which can only be answered with the improbable theories I've been referring to, and one of these theories is God.

Nothing can ever answer that, we can only judge things as well as we can through observation.Why worry about something that you literately and figuratively can't see? According to Occum's razor that "something" just doesn't exist until there's evidence otherwise.
  • 0

#4156 Guest_الِش

Guest_الِش
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 12 April 2007 - 04:54 AM

While it might seem that creation myths are universal, not all cultures have them, there's no reason that a cyclical view of time is less "intuitively obvious".

True, but most cultures have them. Japan, India, Persia/Summer/Assyria the Abrahamic religions (of course), the Greeks, the Germanic peoples, the Native Americans...it's rather hard to find an ancient culture without a creation myth. Care to point me in the right direction?

Edited by الِش, 12 April 2007 - 05:09 AM.

  • 0

#4157 Guest_lxc789

Guest_lxc789
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 12 April 2007 - 05:00 AM

superhero--- I do agree with what you say about the two weaknesses, and after reading The God Delusion, the first one mentioned, how he 'failed to disprove the concept of God philosophically', stood out to me and made me want to try to read about someone who has done so. After reading Harris's book, and numerous little excerpts from others, I have not yet found a person to do so. If you know of any author who has disproved God philosophically I would enjoy hearing about them; but then, I doubt anyone has done that if both Dawkins and Harris failed. I have not read any Dennet, but he is on my list to read. And to your second weakness, I agree as well, but really hadn't thought of it in that way. After reading The End of Faith, I thought Harris had made some attempts on the attacks of moderates, but after reading what you had said, then quickly re-reading some sections that deal with that situation, he does not make a clear decision on the issue instead, he often repeats what he said earlier. Harris' The End of Faith does more justice to how to deal with moderates than Dawkins does, but then one of The End of Faith's purpose was to do so, while The God Delusion focused mostly on the fundamentalists.3854-- I'm glad someone brought up Occum's razor, and I will attempt to add on to that. While it states that 'something just doesnt exist until there's evidence otherwise' flies with many people; people of faith often make reference to the watchmaker analogy. One sees a watch, and knows that it had to have intelligently designed by a higher power, so seeing humans and animals, one can make the clear and and unfalible assumption that something greater created that. While I obviously don't agree with that, that is the automatic response for many people of faith; which, honestly, I don't understand how you can compare a watch to a living organism.To hyper- I agree that prayer may be good as a comforting agent, and there are not any negative effects of prayer (besides false hope); however, I just see it as unnecessary, and although I see no point in prayer, it is beneficial to many people. As to your statement pertaining to the fact that having someone to talk to and listen to you is comforting, therapists are paid to do this job (though I don't really see them as important, and would happily recommend prayer over therapy any day.) Also, I think friends and family are better comforting agents than God just because I know my friends and family are listening; because even if one does believe God is listening, a lot of religious people will admit they don't expect God to actually take any action through the prayers, but (as you said) acts as a comfort.

Edited by lxc789, 12 April 2007 - 05:12 AM.

  • 0

#4158 Guest_amateursuperhero

Guest_amateursuperhero
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 12 April 2007 - 05:07 AM

Why worry about something that you literately and figuratively can't see? According to Occum's razor that "something" just doesn't exist until there's evidence otherwise.

Edit: I think I understand your reference to Occam's Razor now, I'll talk about it later.But anyway, I (we) continue to talk about these things that we can't, literally or figuratively, see because that is really the nature of philosophical discourse. The point of philosophy is to seek truth, not merely evidence as science does. Sure, from a scientific standpoint, I have no right to say anything about that which I can not see, study, or test in any way. But from a philosophical standpoint, and as a seeker of truth, I have an obligation to continue my exploration, regardless of how much I may be wasting my time. A problem I'm beginning to see more and more with this neo-atheist awakening of sorts is that people are beginning to think that there are merely two ways of arguing: Scientifically, through empirical evidence; or religious, through silly passages in one of many God-written books. It seems the philosopher is losing his legitimacy in the contemporary debates of the world because he is not entirely committed to either empirical evidence or silly books written by gods.

Edited by amateursuperhero, 12 April 2007 - 05:16 AM.

  • 0

#4159 Guest_الِش

Guest_الِش
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 12 April 2007 - 05:09 AM

Occam's razor is actually the idea that the simplest solution to a problem is most often the correct one. I don't know which philosopher you're referring too, maybe someone else here does.

The exact statement is "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem". Or, if you can't understand latin cognatives, "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity".In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest hypothetical entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood. -All wikipedia

While I obviously don't agree with that, that is the automatic response for many people of faith; which, honestly, I don't understand how you can compare a watch to a living organism.

Ever had sex?Now you know.:blink: jkOh, and kindly respond to my points made on the last page, lxc? Is that right?

Edited by الِش, 12 April 2007 - 05:14 AM.

  • 0

#4160 Guest_lxc789

Guest_lxc789
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 12 April 2007 - 05:16 AM

"While I obviously don't agree with that, that is the automatic response for many people of faith; which, honestly, I don't understand how you can compare a watch to a living organism.Ever had sex?Now you know." (I really need to be able to understand the quoting system so that I can take advantage of it)I'm not sure I completely understand what you mean by this. Maybe its because its late, or because I am ignorant lol please explain. And I believe after reading your post after mine, I editted it to add your points. If not, let me know and I will gladly attempt or re-attempt to.
  • 0

#4161 38542788

38542788

    Winged Serpent

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 366 posts
Offline
Current mood: None chosen
Reputation: 2
Neutral

Posted 12 April 2007 - 05:19 AM

True, but most cultures have them. Japan, India, Persia/Summer/Assyria the Abrahamic religions (of course), the Greeks, the Germanic peoples, the Native Americans...it's rather hard to find an ancient culture without a creation myth. Care to point me in the right direction?Well, Occum's razor depends on what you're thinking when you say praeter necessitatem (beyond necessity); in other words, if the Big Bang is the assumption or if God is.

China doesn't, not initially at least (long after written history was established). Zen and Taoism both pretty much ignores the issue of creation, though if I recall correctly, one of these philosophies/religions made up the Chinese creation myth (both philosophies came into being many centuries after written history was established, I don't think that it's safe to say that a newborn culture created the myth).Hinduism does have creation, but it also incorporates the wheel of time, creation isn't unique, it's timeless. (I'm pretty sure that there are other cultures with a cyclical concept of time too, like the Mayans).Jainism holds that the universe is eternal, without beginning or end.As for which issue is the assumption, the direction that the conversation is going in would suggest god, if there is no big bang, there's no reason for some entity to have initiated creation.

A problem I'm beginning to see more and more with this neo-atheist awakening of sorts is that people are beginning to think that there are merely two ways of arguing: Scientifically, through empirical evidence; or religious, through silly passages in one of many God-written books. It seems the philosopher is losing his legitimacy in the contemporary debates of the world because he is not entirely committed to either empirical evidence or silly books written by gods.

I prefer arguing using the text as a basis actually, it's a lot easier in a way, as long the text is bible at least, I haven't read enough of any other scriptures.

Edited by 38542788, 12 April 2007 - 05:23 AM.

  • 0

#4162 Guest_الِش

Guest_الِش
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 12 April 2007 - 05:19 AM

It was a joke. heh. I'll right, I'll see your points. Oh, the quoting system works like [insert what you want] (text you want) [/insert what you want]When u is in that, you get underline, i is italicize, b is bold, quote is quote, and there are a few other's I don't know.

The religious live to die. Does that sound like the kind of life anyone would want to lead?

That's a little harsh. :(Really, prayer isn't that bad. And none of my Islamic friends go "You're going to hell" or "**** you, I'm going to heaven and am therefore better than you". Actually, most of them have better morals compared to me.

China doesn't, not initially at least (long after written history was established). Zen and Taoism both pretty much ignores the issue of creation, though if I recall correctly, one of these philosophies/religions made up the Chinese creation myth (both philosophies came into being many centuries after written history was established, I don't think that it's safe to say that a newborn culture created the myth).Hinduism does have creation, but it also incorporates the wheel of time, creation isn't unique, it's timeless.

Well, Hinduism is sort of different, in that every 6,000 years the universe is destroyed and then recreated, but yeah, good point.

Edited by الِش, 12 April 2007 - 05:36 AM.

  • 0

#4163 Guest_amateursuperhero

Guest_amateursuperhero
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 12 April 2007 - 05:20 AM

superhero--- I do agree with what you say about the two weaknesses, and after reading The God Delusion, the first one mentioned, how he 'failed to disprove the concept of God philosophically', stood out to me and made me want to try to read about someone who has done so. After reading Harris's book, and numerous little excerpts from others, I have not yet found a person to do so. If you know of any author who has disproved God philosophically I would enjoy hearing about them; but then, I doubt anyone has done that if both Dawkins and Harris failed. I have not read any Dennet, but he is on my list to read. And to your second weakness, I agree as well, but really hadn't thought of it in that way. After reading The End of Faith, I thought Harris had made some attempts on the attacks of moderates, but after reading what you had said, then quickly re-reading some sections that deal with that situation, he does not make a clear decision on the issue instead, he often repeats what he said earlier. Harris' The End of Faith does more justice to how to deal with moderates than Dawkins does, but then one of The End of Faith's purpose was to do so, while The God Delusion focused mostly on the fundamentalists.

Dawkins, as critical as he is, seems to have numerous friends, whose views he respects, that are religious moderates or liberals. If you get a chance, go on Dawkins site and watch the interview with the Bishop of Oxford. It seems that the Bishop offers a view of religion that Dawkins finds he's hardly at odds with.
  • 0

#4164 Guest_lxc789

Guest_lxc789
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 12 April 2007 - 05:24 AM

superhero- if there is one thing that I find most admirable about Dawkins it is how debates with religious figures openly, and does not bash them for the hell of it. In fact, out of all the neo-atheists (i believe that is the term you, or someone else used) he is the most open to how the religious think and he will admit when he is defeated, or not necessarily defeated but that he has no response to what was presented before him. I have seen that interview before, I was impressed with the Bishop and how Dawkins reacted. That was however, a little while back, and may not remember it altogether correctly, so tonight or tomorrow, I will most likely get on and watch that interview. I didn't know that was online, and I'm happy that you told me about it because I forgot about it completely.

Edited by lxc789, 12 April 2007 - 05:35 AM.

  • 0

#4165 Guest_lxc789

Guest_lxc789
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 12 April 2007 - 05:43 AM

I don't mean to demean you or anything like that, but how many of the 10 commandments do you actually follow? Do you not do a thing or work or anything on the Sabbath, and do you honor your parents to the point that you do not talk back or thinking not so pleasant thoughts about, because if you do, you either have more patience than me, or your parents are far better than mine (no sarcasm) or if you don't then according to many verses in the bible, by talking back you should be stoned to death. It would be nice to get a religious person's perspective in this discussion rather than a bunch of skeptics, although I do enjoy that as well.
  • 0

#4166 Guest_الِش

Guest_الِش
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 12 April 2007 - 05:47 AM

^Dude, religion has changed. The Torah says to kill nonbelievers where you find them, yet most of the Jews I've met haven't tried to kill me. And the few who have always hired someone else to do it.Heh. Sorry, that was mean.
  • 0

#4167 Guest_lxc789

Guest_lxc789
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 12 April 2007 - 05:49 AM

I know it has changed, but I'm saying you cant pick and choose bits and pieces from the bible. Many of the things in religion have changed, but many things have stayed the same and still people choose what they want to hear from the bible, and then say 'the world has changed' to explain what is no longer reasonable.
  • 0

#4168 Guest_الِش

Guest_الِش
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 12 April 2007 - 05:53 AM

Er, yeah.I mean, logically, worrying that your daughter will get raped if a man sees that she is hawt is pointless in, say, a safe (mostly), western city like New York, but in 1984 Beiruit, it seems reasonable, no?
  • 0

#4169 Guest_lxc789

Guest_lxc789
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 12 April 2007 - 05:56 AM

Alright, I'm a little bit confused because rape is still occuring frequently throughout the United States and every part of the world. I live in a little town in Northeastern Ohio, which is considered a very christian and amish dominated area. One would think it was safe, but in the past 10 years I know of at least 3 rape/attempted rapes in this religious community. So if rape is still an occuring offense, I don't see what you mean by your above statement.
  • 0

#4170 Guest_amateursuperhero

Guest_amateursuperhero
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 12 April 2007 - 05:59 AM

I know it has changed, but I'm saying you cant pick and choose bits and pieces from the bible. Many of the things in religion have changed, but many things have stayed the same and still people choose what they want to hear from the bible, and then say 'the world has changed' to explain what is no longer reasonable.

I think that's Harris's foolish way of looking at the Bible, and this goes back to my point that Harris fails in attacking religious liberalism effectively. Religious moderates pride themselves as intellectuals, and anyone with half a brain is aware that the Bible isn't merely a singular work of God, but rather a collection of works written by all different kinds of people over the course of thousands of years. Once one realizes this, it becomes very sensible to ignore certain passages. This, however, does not mean that one cannot see divine wisdom behind other books written by other authors within the collective work. Why then even keep these works in the Bible? I would argue that the Bible is a work of literature which has three elements: the spiritual message of the Judeo-Christian tradition, the history of Israel, and the laws of Israel. Of course then, there are going to be instances which are all history or all law and no spirituality. That does not change the fact that the sermon on the mount is one of the most spiritually compelling works ever composed.
  • 0

#4171 Guest_lxc789

Guest_lxc789
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 12 April 2007 - 06:02 AM

I think I may reneg on my statement of picking and choosing from the bible and such because I understand how the Bible works/ is supposed to work, and that not everything that applied back then applies now. So if my previous statement were stricken from the record, I'd be most pleased. It may not seem important to anyone on this page, but it is to me lol
  • 0

#4172 Guest_الِش

Guest_الِش
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 12 April 2007 - 06:08 AM

^I was refering to the Islamic practice of hjjab. Hence mentioning both New York and Beiruit.And rape has nothing to do with religion. I was just looking for an example.
  • 0

#4173 Guest_lxc789

Guest_lxc789
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 12 April 2007 - 06:20 AM

Yeah alright, I understand now...What I meant by "the religious live to die" was that a lot of their life is devoted to making sure they are where they want to be in the afterlife. Preparing for an afterlife seems pointless to me, when you have such little time on Earth; which should be cherished more than an afterlife (in my opinion).Oh, and if you make future Islamic references, I guarantee you I will not understand what you mean unless you lay it out plain and simple because I don't have much knowledge on the good aspects of Islam, nor do I know any Muslims.

Edited by lxc789, 12 April 2007 - 06:23 AM.

  • 0

#4174 Guest_الِش

Guest_الِش
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 12 April 2007 - 06:31 AM

What I meant by "the religious live to die" was that a lot of their life is devoted to making sure they are where they want to be in the afterlife. Preparing for an afterlife seems pointless to me, when you have such little time on Earth; which should be cherished more than an afterlife (in my opinion).Preparing for an afterlife...that doesn't exist in most religions. Sure, there's praying, there's the haj, there's Communion, there's all those other various things, but only the first is totally needed in more/less every religion.Oh, and if you make future Islamic references, I guarantee you I will not understand what you mean unless you lay it out plain and simple because I don't have much knowledge on the good aspects of Islam, nor do I know any Muslims.Alright, fine. >_<
  • 0

#4175 Guest_lxc789

Guest_lxc789
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 12 April 2007 - 06:35 AM

You're saying that Christianity, Islam (and I am pretty sure Judaism) do not believe that when they die they go to a place similar to heaven and hell? I say similar because once again I know practically nothing of the Islamic faith. Please explain what you mean by 'preparing for an afterlife doesnt exist in most religions.' Maybe I am completely bypassing your point.
  • 0
Back to Debates


  1. DGEmu.com
  2. → DGEmu Social
  3. → Dragon's Den
  4. → Debates
  5. Privacy Policy
  6. Forum Rules ·