Is there a god?

[Woodruff]

The fallacy is assuming that since we can't know anything for 100% sure, then everything is equally possible. This isn't so. Even though anything we know today may be refuted in the future, and current theories will be made more accurate, it is not a reason to discount current knowledge, because it's still the best knowledge we have. And if we discard the current knowledge, there's no way to get to those future discoveries.

but if you're anxious holding onto a belief just because that's the current knowledge and the most accurate you have, without looking beyond that point, you end up being wrong all the time. That's why it's important to keep looking forward, and actually inspect if other statements are true. instead of just assuming you're right all the time.

How does religion "not look beyond that point"? How does religion "keep looking forward, actually inspecting if other statements are true"? How does religion avoid "just assuming you're right all the time"? Because I gotta tell you, science makes religion look foolish in all three of those domains.

@Haggis if you ask the question like that everyone would choose 2. however judging by your previous posts and the posts of everyone else in this topic i would say you actually believe:
3) I know there s no god and somehow everything just appeared out of thin air and everything worked perfectly fine and balanced, and even though it's an universal law that when something is not maintained it will decay, we still believe the universe and the laws of the universe just randomly appeared.

Then you're not paying very close attention, because I have explicitly stated that I do not believe that.

now THAT would that a lot of faith to believe. yet, it seems a lot of people actually believe that.

I don't know a single individual that believes that. Not a single individual.

[zimmah]

It was intuitions and common sense we relied upon when we proudly declared that the Earth was flat, or that the sun revolved around us, or that we are the centre of the universe, or that the rotations of the planets are perfect circles, or that at the very least our galaxy is at the centre(hell we even had "proof" all of the other galaxies were moving away from us).
It's still intuitions and common sense we rely upon to declare that the universe was created for us by a being that is in our image. I wonder how many more times we have to be proven wrong before we learn some humility.

Job 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

Job 26:10 He drew a circular horizon on the face of the waters,
At the boundary of light and darkness.

Isaiah 40:21-22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in

this was all written way before the general consensus was that the earth is actually a sphere.

note how Job was written around 1470 B.C. and that was WAAAAAY before Pythagoras. (like 900 years)

just a simple random guy writing a fairytail book, right?


and woodruff, you don't believe in god, and you also don't believe there's no god, now what DO you believe?

[Woodruff]

and woodruff, you don't believe in god, and you also don't believe there's no god, now what DO you believe?

As I've stated quite plainly several times, I strongly believe that I don't know the answer to that question, but I tend to believe that there is no god because there is little evidence for it.

[chang50]

and woodruff, you don't believe in god, and you also don't believe there's no god, now what DO you believe?

As I've stated quite plainly several times, I strongly believe that I don't know the answer to that question, but I tend to believe that there is no god because there is little evidence for it.

Zimmah,do you really not get the distiction between knowledge and belief?Without understanding such a basic philosophical concept it's hard to see you making any worthwhile contribution to any discussion.If you do understand,what are your counter arguments to the agnostic atheist position?

[ViperOverLord]

Random chance? Come on now. God exists, and he's a horny perv. God bless 'im.

Interesting.

[natty dread]

Wow, those girls have some well-evolved knockers.

[Begbie]

Hitchslaps to all and sundry..amen

[cookie0117]

A few points of interest, the laws of the universe are written by us as the limit of understanding. They are by no mean fixed and unchangable. They are evolving and always have been. Remember that people used to think that earth was the centre of the universe and it was flat. Science is the search for answers. A "theory" is what is observed and understood to be true to the current limit of our knowledge.

Also the argument that I dont understand and only works to rubbish itself is the "life and the universe is too complicated to have just come into existence, meaning an even more powerful complicated being must always have existed in order to create it"

Well then who made this force? It must of had a creator as its too complicated and powerful to always have existed, if something as simple as a human must of had a creator.... At some point along this ever lasting chain you have to accept that some thing came into existence. Or you have proved that you are happy that something does not require a creator, at which point the universe and humans no longer need to have a creator.

[chang50]

A few points of interest, the laws of the universe are written by us as the limit of understanding. They are by no mean fixed and unchangable. They are evolving and always have been. Remember that people used to think that earth was the centre of the universe and it was flat. Science is the search for answers. A "theory" is what is observed and understood to be true to the current limit of our knowledge.

Also the argument that I dont understand and only works to rubbish itself is the "life and the universe is too complicated to have just come into existence, meaning an even more powerful complicated being must always have existed in order to create it"

Well then who made this force? It must of had a creator as its too complicated and powerful to always have existed, if something as simple as a human must of had a creator.... At some point along this ever lasting chain you have to accept that some thing came into existence. Or you have proved that you are happy that something does not require a creator, at which point the universe and humans no longer need to have a creator.

\ Well said,the traditional theist response is that their god is the first or uncaused cause,outside of space and time.Personally I'm quite happy to say I just don't know the answer to questions of this scale and magnitude,and it is sheer arrogance and fatuousness for anyone to say they do.The agnostic atheist position is a reasonable and measured response,whereas the gnostic theist claims way too much knowledge for our primate species at our stage of development.

[cookie0117]

For the record im a devout athiest, I have strong religious faith in my lack of belief in a Deity of any description.

Not knowing an answer is not a problem, trying not to find the answers is what bothers me.

[chang50]

For the record im a devout athiest, I have strong religious faith in my lack of belief in a Deity of any description.

Not knowing an answer is not a problem, trying not to find the answers is what bothers me.

I'm curious as to why you say you have religious faith in your atheism? Do you have religious faith in all the other countless things you don't believe exist?
I concur not knowing an answer is not a problem,making stuff up is what bothers me.

[cookie0117]

Im religious because I have strong belief. I just like the way words can be used differently. I dont like it when a word is used by or for a group, language is for everyone. Also, it is as a statement correct but also an oxymoron.

Although a religious atheist is very common, budhism being a major world religion based around atheism.

[chang50]

Im religious because I have strong belief. I just like the way words can be used differently. I dont like it when a word is used by or for a group, language is for everyone. Also, it is as a statement correct but also an oxymoron.

Although a religious atheist is very common, budhism being a major world religion based around atheism.

There might be more religious atheists than irreligious ones when you add up all the Jains,Confucianists and Taoists,etc.Not all Buddhists are atheists,but here in Thailand there are over 90% Theravada Buddhist who do not believe in gods.
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say you have a strong disbelief,you might say it is just semantics,but I think it is an important distinction.

[natty dread]

I assume there are no gods, because there is no evidence of such.

I assume that after death my consciousness of this universe, my point of view as an individual, will simply cease to exist. I say this because it would be kinda fallacious to simply state "I will cease to exist", since that's not what happens after all - all the matter that makes up "me" will still exist, it will just change it's form.

I assume these things, but I don't have certain knowledge, just like I don't have certain knowledge that the universe isn't just a computer simulation, or of anything really... but the lack of certain knowledge doesn't mean that I have to consider every possibility as equally probable.

So, I like to turn the Pascal's wager argument upside down: if, after I die, it turns out there's some kind of afterlife, or continued existence of consciousness, well, that's just bonus for me; however, if it turns out that there is nothing after this life, and this is the only life I get (which I find most likely), then that just makes this life all the more precious - I don't want to waste this life by dedicating it to a god whose existence is dubious at best, or by following some kind of religious dogma based mostly on guilt and shame of our basic needs and yearnings. I want to live this unique life to the fullest, with full appreciation of the beauty of the universe.

On that matter, lots of religious people seem to feel that taking away the "creator" would make the universe somehow less special, as if the idea that the universe, or life, just "came to be" on it's own somehow makes it less magnificent, or less beautiful. I find it is exactly the opposite - if some magical being just somehow magically wished this all to existence, then it's nothing special: that kind of being could probably create millions of universes like this with no effort, like it's no big deal. But if this universe, and this life, was born by an amazingly vast amount of time and chance, it gives a whole new kind of appreciation for the beauty of this universe.

[chang50]

I assume there are no gods, because there is no evidence of such.

I assume that after death my consciousness of this universe, my point of view as an individual, will simply cease to exist. I say this because it would be kinda fallacious to simply state "I will cease to exist", since that's not what happens after all - all the matter that makes up "me" will still exist, it will just change it's form.

I assume these things, but I don't have certain knowledge, just like I don't have certain knowledge that the universe isn't just a computer simulation, or of anything really... but the lack of certain knowledge doesn't mean that I have to consider every possibility as equally probable.

So, I like to turn the Pascal's wager argument upside down: if, after I die, it turns out there's some kind of afterlife, or continued existence of consciousness, well, that's just bonus for me; however, if it turns out that there is nothing after this life, and this is the only life I get (which I find most likely), then that just makes this life all the more precious - I don't want to waste this life by dedicating it to a god whose existence is dubious at best, or by following some kind of religious dogma based mostly on guilt and shame of our basic needs and yearnings. I want to live this unique life to the fullest, with full appreciation of the beauty of the universe.

On that matter, lots of religious people seem to feel that taking away the "creator" would make the universe somehow less special, as if the idea that the universe, or life, just "came to be" on it's own somehow makes it less magnificent, or less beautiful. I find it is exactly the opposite - if some magical being just somehow magically wished this all to existence, then it's nothing special: that kind of being could probably create millions of universes like this with no effort, like it's no big deal. But if this universe, and this life, was born by an amazingly vast amount of time and chance, it gives a whole new kind of appreciation for the beauty of this universe.

Beautifully put,the theistic explanation is actually a mundane and dull one in the face of all the countless possibilities we can't even imagine,with our limited brainpower.

[PLAYER57832]

God demonstrably wants to be worshipped, per pretty much any text around on the subject. Therefore, God would show himself in some provable fashion so that the worship-value would exponentially exponentiate.

Just to take this particular piece: What if his more obviously revealing himself would prevent something in humanity which is ultimately more important than the expedience of simply having everyone believe.

Or, well... we do have free will. God irrefutably presenting himself would pretty much eliminate a big portion of that.

[john9blue]

"i don't know anything about how the universe began, but i know it wasn't god!"

^ the fact that people can say this and call themselves logical is hilarious and baffling

[zimmah]

and woodruff, you don't believe in god, and you also don't believe there's no god, now what DO you believe?

As I've stated quite plainly several times, I strongly believe that I don't know the answer to that question, but I tend to believe that there is no god because there is little evidence for it.

so instead of believing there's a god you believe the universe shaped itself and defined it's own laws, and that's a more logic assumption then to just assume a divine being of unlimited energy did this?

[zimmah]

A few points of interest, the laws of the universe are written by us as the limit of understanding. They are by no mean fixed and unchangable. They are evolving and always have been. Remember that people used to think that earth was the centre of the universe and it was flat. Science is the search for answers. A "theory" is what is observed and understood to be true to the current limit of our knowledge.

Also the argument that I dont understand and only works to rubbish itself is the "life and the universe is too complicated to have just come into existence, meaning an even more powerful complicated being must always have existed in order to create it"

Well then who made this force? It must of had a creator as its too complicated and powerful to always have existed, if something as simple as a human must of had a creator.... At some point along this ever lasting chain you have to accept that some thing came into existence. Or you have proved that you are happy that something does not require a creator, at which point the universe and humans no longer need to have a creator.

our understanding of the laws is evolving, the laws don't change, however.

gravity for example has always been there, keeping things in place, keeping oxigen and water on or near the surface of the earth, and keeping the earth and the planets in orbit of the sun, and the moon in orbit of the earth, creating the tides because the gravity of the moon pulls the water and stabilizes the earths rotation and axis, those things don't chance, those rules are strictly defined a long time ago, and only god himself can bend those rules.

we don't have a full understanding of those laws of the universe yet, i assume we only know less then 1% about all of those laws, but we know enough to do crazy things like space travel, long distance communication, internet, television, etc.

also, like i stated before, COMMON people believed the earth was flat and the center of the universe, religious people NEVER believed that. the bible proof that roughly 1500 B.C. the bble writers allready wrote statements about the earth and the universe that are even correct to todays scientific knowledge about those statements (like the earth is a sphere and it's kinda 'floating' in orbit)

god didn't need a creator because he didn't have a beginning in the first place, and besides, if god didn't create it, you're effectively assigning god-like properties to the universe itself, if you say the universe shaped itself, the universe IS your god. however in the case that the universe has godlike properties it's unlikely you'll ever hear of him because the universe is not a living being.

[zimmah]

For the record im a devout athiest, I have strong religious faith in my lack of belief in a Deity of any description.

Not knowing an answer is not a problem, trying not to find the answers is what bothers me.

good, because that's what bothers me too. at least you're seeking answers. still my standpoint on this subject is, if you don't believe a god created order from chaos and defined the laws of the universe, the universe kinda has godlike powers by itself in that case.

anything that can define laws on that magnitude and create life out of nothing is a god, don't you agree?

otherwise we'll have to define the term 'god' first to even have a discussion.

[zimmah]

I assume that after death my consciousness of this universe, my point of view as an individual, will simply cease to exist. I say this because it would be kinda fallacious to simply state "I will cease to exist", since that's not what happens after all - all the matter that makes up "me" will still exist, it will just change it's form.

did you know that the bible actually also sais this exact same thing?

maybe not in the exact wording, but still, this IS according to the bible what happens to the death. (the bible does NOT speak of hell, nor does it speak about an immortal soul, nor does it state anywhere that every good person or every person goes to heaven) instead of that, it states "the death know of nothing" and it also compares dead to a long dreamless sleep.

however, even though there is a good chance you will make it to the afterlife even without choosing the side of god in his war, the 'just' thing to do is to do chose his side. and besides, god knows what humans want and need, for he's our creator, and he wants us to be happy. so being a follower of god does make you happy. your life is certainly not wasted, if anything it ADDS to your life. i experienced this first-hand. i've seen both sides of the medal, i have had a 'normal' life without god and i can say with all honesty that i prefer my new lifestyle over the previous one.

also, if the universe was randomly created by a random chain of events, wouldn't there be much more chaos, like, everywhere? yet, the universe is very accurate, the time it takes for the earth to revolve around the sun is the same every year, and that's true for all planets, and everything else in the universe has strict laws to define what they do, even if we don't know those laws yet.

if a global war against religion would come, and you have to chose between either fighting all forms of religion to death or being killed or put in jail yourself, i'm quite sure which side you'll choose. (and ofc the side i'll chose).

[chang50]

"i don't know anything about how the universe began, but i know it wasn't god!"

^ the fact that people can say this and call themselves logical is hilarious and baffling

No sensible person does indeed say that,but it is logical to say.'I don't know anything about how the universe began,but i disbelieve god/fsm/Russell's teapot,were responsible,due to an overwhelming lack of evidence.
What is baffing is why anyone would believe human beings are capable of even being remotely close to to knowing how the universe.meaning everything,began.

[john9blue]

"i don't know anything about how the universe began, but i know it wasn't god!"

^ the fact that people can say this and call themselves logical is hilarious and baffling

No sensible person does indeed say that,but it is logical to say.'I don't know anything about how the universe began,but i disbelieve god/fsm/Russell's teapot,were responsible,due to an overwhelming lack of evidence.
What is baffing is why anyone would believe human beings are capable of even being remotely close to to knowing how the universe.meaning everything,began.

partial knowledge (or strong belief) is still knowledge in the sense that it requires evidence.

occam's razor eliminates the teapot and FSM in favor of a god

[chang50]

"i don't know anything about how the universe began, but i know it wasn't god!"

^ the fact that people can say this and call themselves logical is hilarious and baffling

No sensible person does indeed say that,but it is logical to say.'I don't know anything about how the universe began,but i disbelieve god/fsm/Russell's teapot,were responsible,due to an overwhelming lack of evidence.
What is baffing is why anyone would believe human beings are capable of even being remotely close to to knowing how the universe.meaning everything,began.

partial knowledge (or strong belief) is still knowledge in the sense that it requires evidence.

occam's razor eliminates the teapot and FSM in favor of a god

Can you clarify that last bit,why exactly can't one equally say occam's razor eliminates the teapot and god in favour of the fsm?I think there is an equal paucity of evidence for all three.

[cookie0117]

A few points of interest, the laws of the universe are written by us as the limit of understanding. They are by no mean fixed and unchangable. They are evolving and always have been. Remember that people used to think that earth was the centre of the universe and it was flat. Science is the search for answers. A "theory" is what is observed and understood to be true to the current limit of our knowledge.

Also the argument that I dont understand and only works to rubbish itself is the "life and the universe is too complicated to have just come into existence, meaning an even more powerful complicated being must always have existed in order to create it"

Well then who made this force? It must of had a creator as its too complicated and powerful to always have existed, if something as simple as a human must of had a creator.... At some point along this ever lasting chain you have to accept that some thing came into existence. Or you have proved that you are happy that something does not require a creator, at which point the universe and humans no longer need to have a creator.

our understanding of the laws is evolving, the laws don't change, however.

gravity for example has always been there, keeping things in place, keeping oxigen and water on or near the surface of the earth, and keeping the earth and the planets in orbit of the sun, and the moon in orbit of the earth, creating the tides because the gravity of the moon pulls the water and stabilizes the earths rotation and axis, those things don't chance, those rules are strictly defined a long time ago, and only god himself can bend those rules.

we don't have a full understanding of those laws of the universe yet, i assume we only know less then 1% about all of those laws, but we know enough to do crazy things like space travel, long distance communication, internet, television, etc.

also, like i stated before, COMMON people believed the earth was flat and the center of the universe, religious people NEVER believed that. the bible proof that roughly 1500 B.C. the bble writers allready wrote statements about the earth and the universe that are even correct to todays scientific knowledge about those statements (like the earth is a sphere and it's kinda 'floating' in orbit)

god didn't need a creator because he didn't have a beginning in the first place, and besides, if god didn't create it, you're effectively assigning god-like properties to the universe itself, if you say the universe shaped itself, the universe IS your god. however in the case that the universe has godlike properties it's unlikely you'll ever hear of him because the universe is not a living being.

To say the laws do not change is an assumption that you are making. In the space and time where we exist we can measure them but we do not know what is true beyond the event horizion of a black hole for instance. We do not know the boundaries of when and where the laws hold true to our knowledge. Hence as science grows the theories evolve and laws are rewritten.

If god did not have a beginning or creator, why does the universe need one?

I in no way think the universe is a god, I do not believe it is any way concisous or controlling of its or anyone elses destiny. Also and more importantly I do not require it to be a god or for any force to be reguarded as a god. So the lack of one is not a void I must fill.

Vague and non specific predictions almost always prove to be true, this is why we have to put up with people quoting astrology as if it has some truth. Read the day after you can always relate some events predicted to reality in your stars. The bible can be read anyway you want to. The worlds are so vague and detached from modern meanings. They are used interchangable at will of the person making an argument. It has been translated many times across many languages. Plus there is no proof it is even from the source it claims to be, only belief that it is. Which is why I can prove the bible says the earth is flat, it used a world which in other places mean circle/disc.

Another problem I have is god told people about how he created the earth/stars and everything but was unable to give a concistent account of it, with any detail.