Why Does God Exist?

[falcon22]

And if the patient refuses treatment? What can you do then?

It is up to the patient. I never said it wasn't. I said I will try to accomodate to others as much as I can, to as many as I can. However, say if, the condition of that client could possibly be harmful to other people (say if someone had cancer but was too tired of a religious person telling him/her that it was sin that gave him/her the cancer and he/she planned to kill that religious person) an intervention, whether that client wants it or not, is necessary.

And so what if responsbility is French myth or Babylonian myth? It's still a myth.

 

[baumgarten]

It is up to the patient. I never said it wasn't. I said I will try to accomodate to others as much as I can, to as many as I can. However, say if, the condition of that client could possibly be harmful to other people (say if someone had cancer but was too tired of a religious person telling him/her that it was sin that gave him/her the cancer and he/she planned to kill that religious person) an intervention, whether that client wants it or not, is necessary.

If it is up to the patient, then it is the patient's responsibility. Even if you prevent the patient from harming himself or others, he cannot release his anguish until he is willing to do so. If you do not believe yourself to be the source of the emotional pain you experience, then it stands to reason that therapy will be of no help.

The very nature of the work of a social worker or clinical psychologist shows the importance of personal responsibility in overcoming hardship. Simply laying the blame of depression on some external source will not make it go away; choosing to be receptive to therapy, which affects you alone, will.

And so what if responsbility is French myth or Babylonian myth? It's still a myth.

Ergo shame and pride, as much dependent on responsibility as any code of law or morals, are also illusory. How do you defend this?

 

[falcon22]

You do. And when you get to the Pearly Gates and the floor falls out from under you and you plummet into the hot black abyss, he'll tell you that you sent yourself there. It was a self-fulfilling prophecy, he'll say.

Oh shit, I missed reading this part.
Well, on this, here's the thing.
I belive that no human being deserves to go to hell for eternity for a crime they did in this finite life. An infinite punishment for a finite deed? That's unfair.
And since it's unfair, even if one person is going to hell, I will choose to go to hell to fight that unfairness. If I can go to hell in place of someone else, I would. No one deserves hell and if anyone does go to hell, you can bet yourself that I will be there along with them, supporting those who doesn't deserve it and opposing God who placed him/her/them there.

 

[falcon22]

If it is up to the patient, then it is the patient's responsibility.

If it is up to the president of the United States to push the button to launch the nuke on innocents in Europe or Asia, then it is the president's responsibility.

Ergo shame and pride, as much dependent on responsibility as any code of law or morals, are also illusory. How do you defend this?

Oh snaps, you totally got me. OH my god, shame and pride are completely fake!!! Except that, laws actually do exist (U.S. has Constitution and Legislative Branch, each state in U.S. has its own Constitution, etc.). Morals are different based on every individual. The theory of responsibility though, the theory that everyone has responsibility for his or her own fate... just like shame and pride, they're not written and they're not concrete. Plus, while pride and shame are emotions, responsibility is a virtue that's not proven. NO one FEELS responsibility as an emotion, maybe as an emotional burden and duty yes, but not as an emotional feeling. REsponsibility is not a written code and the theory of responsibility is not proven. Thus, it is a myth.

 

[baumgarten]

Oh shit, I missed reading this part.
Well, on this, here's the thing.
I belive that no human being deserves to go to hell for eternity for a crime they did in this finite life. An infinite punishment for a finite deed? That's unfair.
And since it's unfair, even if one person is going to hell, I will choose to go to hell to fight that unfairness. If I can go to hell in place of someone else, I would. No one deserves hell and if anyone does go to hell, you can bet yourself that I will be there along with them, supporting those who doesn't deserve it and opposing God who placed him/her/them there.

The extent of your penchant for poetry is evident.

If it is up to the president of the United States to push the button to launch the nuke on innocents in Europe or Asia, then it is the president's responsibility.

You are correct. And whose responsibility is a man's reaction to this murder?

Oh snaps, you totally got me. OH my god, shame and pride are completely fake!!! Except that, laws actually do exist (U.S. has Constitution and Legislative Branch, each state in U.S. has its own Constitution, etc.). Morals are different based on every individual. The theory of responsibility though, the theory that everyone has responsibility for his or her own fate... just like shame and pride, they're not written and they're not concrete. Plus, while pride and shame are emotions, responsibility is a virtue that's not proven. NO one FEELS responsibility as an emotion, maybe as an emotional burden and duty yes, but not as an emotional feeling. REsponsibility is not a written code and the theory of responsibility is not proven. Thus, it is a myth.

How proven is your "theory of no responsibility?" I suppose I can safely conclude it is a myth if you can't prove it to me, right?

You accept the existence of responsibility as a virtue, and that is more than I contend here. So what exactly are you disagreeing with?

 

[falcon22]

The extent of your penchant for poetry is evident.

So what are you saying, that no one should intervene to stop the president? No one should advise him against it? No one should consult him? Hmm?

Just like that, intervention is necesary with people and if does indeed turn out that theraphy will be of no use at all (which usually isn't the case), the person will probably be arrested after he/she/he-she commits the crime and will be locked up for a looong period of time.

How proven is your "theory of no responsibility?" I suppose I can safely conclude it is a myth if you can't prove it to me, right?

You accept the existence of responsibility as a virtue, and that is more than I contend here. So what exactly are you disagreeing with?

I'm saying... we do not have responsibility of our own fate when lshit some times randomly happen to us. If you get hit by a bus one day and you get stuck in a coma for the rest of your life, where is your responsibility then?
Plus, here in America, everyone tends to think that if you work hard, you will rise up out of your class and be just as good as everyone else. This isn't true and this is where the theory of responsibility is misleading. Look, it's okay if you believe in responsibility all you want, since it seems like you and I have the privilege to look after our responsibility since it doesn't seem like we've been dealt with too bad of cards in life, but to those down there, responsibility is not a simple virtue like you imagine it is; it's virtually a myth.

 

[falcon22]

You are correct. And whose responsibility is a man's reaction to this murder?

So what are you saying, that no one should intervene to stop the president? No one should advise him against it? No one should consult him? Hmm?

Just like that, intervention is necesary with people and if does indeed turn out that theraphy will be of no use at all (which usually isn't the case), the person will probably be arrested after he/she/he-she commits the crime and will be locked up for a looong period of time.

How proven is your "theory of no responsibility?" I suppose I can safely conclude it is a myth if you can't prove it to me, right?

You accept the existence of responsibility as a virtue, and that is more than I contend here. So what exactly are you disagreeing with?

I'm saying... we do not have responsibility of our own fate when lshit some times randomly happen to us. If you get hit by a bus one day and you get stuck in a coma for the rest of your life, where is your responsibility then?
Plus, here in America, everyone tends to think that if you work hard, you will rise up out of your class and be just as good as everyone else. This isn't true and this is where the theory of responsibility is misleading. Look, it's okay if you believe in responsibility all you want, since it seems like you and I have the privilege to look after our responsibility since it doesn't seem like we've been dealt with too bad of cards in life, but to those down there, responsibility is not a simple virtue like you imagine it is; it's virtually a myth.

 

[falcon22]

And man, how this debate started is pretty ridiculous. All I said was that God exists so that I can blame misery of life on him. It was simply a humorous statement. I didn't really expect it to go all this serious. Jeez.

 

[baumgarten]

So what are you saying, that no one should intervene to stop the president? No one should advise him against it? No one should consult him? Hmm?

No. I'm saying that if someone feels that the president should be stopped, then it is up to that someone to try. If you are in a position to stop him, and you later feel regret for not doing so, it was because you chose not to.

Likewise, if unfortunate circumstances enter your life, how you choose to handle that is entirely up to you. Whether you greet it with hardy resolve to continue on regardless, or the kind of deep, forlorn resignment that precedes the decision that life is no longer worth living, is a decision that only you can make. To say that you are miserable and there is nothing you can do about it is patently false. You are capable of dealing with it however you choose.

Again, I say: Crimes and disasters are not the source of one's misery. One is the sole source of one's own misery.

Just like that, intervention is necesary with people and if does indeed turn out that theraphy will be of no use at all (which usually isn't the case), the person will probably be arrested after he/she/he-she commits the crime and will be locked up for a looong period of time.

If it isn't the case, it's at least because the patient wasn't willing to be helped. Sometimes the patient is willing but can't be helped anyway. Never is the patient unwilling yet still able to be helped, though. That is the nature of free will. No one can tell you how to feel.

I'm saying... we do not have responsibility of our own fate when lshit some times randomly happen to us. If you get hit by a bus one day and you get stuck in a coma for the rest of your life, where is your responsibility then?

Where is your consciousness then? Are you really capable of deciding anything at all when you are unconscious? Can you even prove your own existence to yourself?

Now, on the other hand, if you are hit by a bus one day and paralyzed, it is up to you whether you will greet the rest of your life in a wheelchair with optimism or pessimism.

Plus, here in America, everyone tends to think that if you work hard, you will rise up out of your class and be just as good as everyone else. This isn't true and this is where the theory of responsibility is misleading. Look, it's okay if you believe in responsibility all you want, since it seems like you and I have the privilege to look after our responsibility since it doesn't seem like we've been dealt with too bad of cards in life, but to those down there, responsibility is not a simple virtue like you imagine it is; it's virtually a myth.

Did I not say that the world is cruel? Have I not been going on and on about unfortunate circumstances? Of course circumstances are outside our control; that's half the definition of a circumstance. I am saying, quite plainly, that your thoughts and actions are products of your free will, therefore your responsibility.

And man, how this debate started is pretty ridiculous. All I said was that God exists so that I can blame misery of life on him. It was simply a humorous statement. I didn't really expect it to go all this serious. Jeez.

I'm enjoying it.

 

[ggazoo]

No I haven't lost my mind. For starters I believe man has created God to try and make sense of why we and everything else is.

Depends on which God you're talking about. Mankind creating god matches the gods of the pagan religions quite well, and possibly explains the origins of these religions.

The God of Christianity differs from the gods of the world's religions though in terms of His nature and existence. Most of the religions of the world describe their god as existing within the universe. In many cases, these gods even have parents. Both of these attributes are logically inconsistent with the reality of our universe. Only a God who is transcendent to both space and time (as I once described here), like the Christian God, is logically possible.

Basically, God is quite unlike us. Therefore, the idea that we "created" God is highly unlikely.

 

[Fire]

Basically, God is quite unlike us. Therefore, the idea that we "created" God is highly unlikely.

This sounds like a silly thing to say. You are working under the assumption that a sentient creator is most likely - We once thought this about life too, but if you ignore the universe for a second and just focus on life. We have found that complexed things (to us) come about through a completely natural process (natural selection) which thereby makes our invoking of a supernatural god, far less likely. As with the emergance of of complexity in life, as far as the universe goes, this model must be the most likely scenario rather than the supernatural sentient creator.

The main point is that god must be far more intricate than the universe itself... so saying that this infinitely more complexed thing is the most likely origin of the universe, seems like a rather obvious contradiction.

Regardless wether or not there is a god, it remains a manmade notion. Since we have no knowledge of god, we invented it wether it exists or not.

 

[lightgigantic]

superluminal

What kind of a response is that? We're supposed to let this go? Some of the strongest arguments against the god hypothesis are

"then who created god?"

God exists as the cause of all causes

and

"If complexity requires a creator, what created the creator?"

he is eternally existing - so is the living entity - so is the material nature - so is the time factor - these otherthings can be understood to be caused from god however, just like if a fire is eternal you also have eternal heat, light and smoke (in other words if an energetic source is eternal, the energies are eternal)

Why can't you answer spidegoat's question like you know what you're talking about instead of just passing it off?

I thought I did - generally the nature of A's to Q's is further Q's for clarification

 

[oozish]

God exists for us to make fun of. He is the greatest nigga!

 

[lightgigantic]

Fire

This sounds like a silly thing to say. You are working under the assumption that a sentient creator is most likely - We once thought this about life too, but if you ignore the universe for a second and just focus on life. We have found that complexed things (to us) come about through a completely natural process (natural selection) which thereby makes our invoking of a supernatural god, far less likely. As with the emergance of of complexity in life, as far as the universe goes, this model must be the most likely scenario rather than the supernatural sentient creator.

There is direct empirical evidence of abiogenesis? I doubt it

The main point is that god must be far more intricate than the universe itself (even if you only want to accept god theoretically for the sake of agrument)... so saying that finitely complex things are the likely origin of the universe, seems like a rather obvious contradiction, particularly when the cause, function and reactions of such matter is shrouded in mystery

Regardless wether or not there is a god, it remains a manmade notion.

If something (even theoretically) is established as the cause, how can the caused be the cause - for instance, what would happen if you went to an artificial insemination clinic and demanded that they help you become your own father ("Erm ..... Sorry sir but the positionis already taken)

Since we have no knowledge of god, we invented it wether it exists or not.

A popular idea amongst those who have no knowledge of god

 

[oozish]

God is my nigga!

 

[lightgigantic]

God exists for us to make fun of. He is the greatest nigga!

actually he is completely independant and renounced - he doesn't suffer from being disassociated from us - on the hand material existence (seperation from god) is literally danger at every step fo us (or at least fraught with absurdity) .....

culminating in the inevitable

BG 2.69: What is night for all beings is the time of awakening for the self-controlled; and the time of awakening for all beings is night for the introspective sage.

Who laughs last?

 

[Fire]

There is direct empirical evidence of abiogenesis? I doubt it

I was talking about evolution. Evolution is fact. It's 'genesis' is not. And it is more a question in which chemists are qualified to find the answer for than biologists. Don't go worshipping the 'god of the gaps' again, lightgigantic.

The main point is that god must be far more intricate than the universe itself... so saying that this infinitely more complexed thing is the most likely origin of the universe, seems like a rather obvious contradiction.

Had you planned on replying to that?

If something (even theoretically) is established as the cause, how can the caused be the cause

It would only be a lucky guess. Faith doesn't equate to knowledge, so by all accounts god doesn't exist even to the theist. They merely believe it exists. If a theist claims to know god exists but can not provide evidence, then they are simply delusional. People know they are Napoleon, but they are locked in padded rooms.

A popular idea amongst those who have no knowledge of god

See above.

 

[nova900]

Depends on which God you're talking about. Mankind creating god matches the gods of the pagan religions quite well, and possibly explains the origins of these religions.

The God of Christianity differs from the gods of the world's religions though in terms of His nature and existence. Most of the religions of the world describe their god as existing within the universe. In many cases, these gods even have parents. Both of these attributes are logically inconsistent with the reality of our universe. Only a God who is transcendent to both space and time (as I once described here), like the Christian God, is logically possible.

Basically, God is quite unlike us. Therefore, the idea that we "created" God is highly unlikely.

And just where is the proof that Yahweh is not a "man created god" ?
As far as the christian god being unique in that he exists "transcendent to both time and space"...this is false.
What many fail to realize is that many pagan religions worship a multiplicity of Gods and Goddesses , but they all originate from ONE transcendental God .They simply represent all the various aspects of creation by the difference in their nature and character.

 

[lightgigantic]

Fire

I was talking about evolution. Evolution is fact. It's 'genesis' is not. And it is more a question in which chemists are qualified to find the answer for than biologists. Don't go worshipping the 'god of the gaps' again, lightgigantic.

Just to ride with the whole evolution thing for a moment - it still doesn't exclude the notion of god, since god is accepted as the director of the universe and the cause of all causes - there are many scientists who entertain the notion of evolution and god without a problem (maybe you could use it for an argument about god's relationship with the material world but its not clear how you would use it about how god is not required for such a model)

The main point is that god must be far more intricate than the universe itself... so saying that this infinitely more complexed thing is the most likely origin of the universe, seems like a rather obvious contradiction.

Had you planned on replying to that?

No - lol - it was a horrendous typo and lack of clarity in thought - I edited it .... thanks for pointing it out

It would only be a lucky guess. Faith doesn't equate to knowledge, so by all accounts god doesn't exist even to the theist.

Actually my comment was pointing out the logical fallacy of your argument, which basically boils down to you saying "I don't believe in god" in response to "I believe in god" ..... but actually it is seen that theism culminates in direct perception of spiritual truths, much like any field of knowledge you care to mention (theory > prac > observation> conclusion).

Because atheists don't accept this they are understandably perplexed by the phenomena of theism, wondering how over 75% of the population could be deluded or whatever

They merely believe it exists. If a theist claims to know god exists but can not provide evidence, then they are simply delusional.

either that or the persons are not qualified to perceive the evidence

Here is something anecdotal - when eistein discovered something in outer space that seemed to confirm his theory of relativity it was investigated by the royal british astronomy society (at that time britain was the most powerful country in the world, and the society was highly credible, with links back to newton etc). The head speaker for the society made a press release that this was the most important discovery of the century - when the news reporters asked what it was that he had discovered the speaker was adamant that there was no way for the general public to understand the exact nature of what einstein had discovered.

Methodologies of presenting evidence are fully dependant on qualification (I don't mean qualification in the instituitonal sense, I mean it in the sense it in the sense of being capable of perceiving the nature of evidence)

We would hardly lay as a condition for scientific inquiry that unless a truth was pereceivable to the man on the street it cannot be accepted - on the contrary it is accepted in science that there are very important truths that only a handful of people can understand - why?

People know they are Napoleon, but they are locked in padded rooms.

Therefore you don't find that over 75% of the world's population, over many spreads of culture and history, think they are napolean

 

[Jaster Mereel]

either that or the persons are not qualified to perceive the evidence

Here is something anecdotal - when eistein discovered something in outer space that seemed to confirm his theory of relativity it was investigated by the royal british astronomy society (at that time britain was the most powerful country in the world, and the society was highly credible, with links back to newton etc). The head speaker for the society made a press release that this was the most important discovery of the century - when the news reporters asked what it was that he had discovered the speaker was adamant that there was no way for the general public to understand the exact nature of what einstein had discovered.

Methodologies of presenting evidence are fully dependant on qualification (I don't mean qualification in the instituitonal sense, I mean it in the sense it in the sense of being capable of perceiving the nature of evidence)

We would hardly lay as a condition for scientific inquiry that unless a truth was pereceivable to the man on the street it cannot be accepted - on the contrary it is accepted in science that there are very important truths that only a handful of people can understand - why?

Anyone can be taught the scientific method, and then provided with the materials to understand the conclusions of a scientist, provided that they have the patience to learn.

Also, religion is not science. Would you care to explain to me the spiritual method?

In order to pre-empt any statement that you may make about reading scriptures, science textbooks are not the same thing. The method precedes the book in science. In religion it seems not to. Again, I could be wrong, but if I am I'd appreciate it if you explained the exact method by which theologians come to the knowledge which they set down in holy scriptures.

(Post Script: I am earnestly interested in an answer to the query on some kind of spiritual method, since if one actually does exist it would clear up most, if not all, of the arguments on this message board by providing everyone here with a standard by which to compare religious ideas, which could lead us to a reasonable model of the objective basis for religious experiences which doesn't rely on a reading of Holy Scriptures and reflection on their meaning. Deep introspection doesn't count, since everyone is different, so the conclusions that everyone could come to would necessarily be different. Also, that wouldn't mesh with your assertion that one must be educated in the appropriate processes for understanding the nature of God.)