Why Does God Exist?

lightgigantic said:
Fire


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)
Click to expand...

It doesn't disprove god, but theism is known for it's hatred of evolution... Science in general actually. Theists thrive on mystery and science thrives in understanding things. Theists would rather mystery because then everything seems like a miracle thereby increasing the role for a god. Understanding things appears to reduce the role of a god as we understand how things come about (such as life). Even if we discovered an apparently natural origin for the universe itself, theists would still be able to claim god did it. Why? Because god is the root of everything of course. I see that as a copout.

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

I don't see how your amendment related to my point. If you are invoking something which can only be more complicated than the universe itself, it makes it unlikely.

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
Click to expand...

Spiritual truths = subjective thought. Which basically means 75% of the population are worshipping their imagination.

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

If 75% of the population really did think they were Napoleon they wouldn't be locked up. It's not crazy if it's popular.
 
Fire said:
Spiritual truths = subjective thought. Which basically means 75% of the population are worshipping their imagination.
Click to expand...
Wrong. You don't know what subjective means. I'm sick of people misusing this word whenever someone says that spirituality is subjective. Something which is subjective is something which is different for everyone, not something that has no basis in reality. Something which is subjective has just as much a basis in reality as something which is objective. The difference is that everyone looks at something which is subjective in a different way than everyone else. In no way does this imply that it is somehow "less real" than something which is objective.

If I tell you that my favorite color is blue, and you say that you hate the color blue (making it a subjective quality which we have both agreed to call "blue" for the time being), does that mean that my preference for that particular quality, and your distaste for it, don't exist?
 
PsychoticEpisode said:
....Why does God Exist?
Click to expand...
To take pleasure in death. Simply put - God loves to watch things die. He thinks blood sacrifice is usually the best form of murder. He likes to pit one animal against the other. The entire existence of animals on this planet is dependant on it trying to kill and devour another life.

As a matter of fact – God has ensured that in order to live an animal must kill.

God is all powerful, it can do “anything” even make round squares and married bachelors – It easily could have made man with all of man’s attributes – except that man doesn’t need to kill (or even can not kill).

So - "To take pleasure in murder” is the answer.



Michael
 
Jaster Mereel said:
Wrong. You don't know what subjective means. I'm sick of people misusing this word whenever someone says that spirituality is subjective. Something which is subjective is something which is different for everyone, not something that has no basis in reality. Something which is subjective has just as much a basis in reality as something which is objective. The difference is that everyone looks at something which is subjective in a different way than everyone else. In no way does this imply that it is somehow "less real" than something which is objective.

If I tell you that my favorite color is blue, and you say that you hate the color blue (making it a subjective quality which we have both agreed to call "blue" for the time being), does that mean that my preference for that particular quality, and your distaste for it, don't exist?
Click to expand...

What you described is just one use of the word:

sub·jec·tive

a. Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.

b. Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.


My use of the word is only false if 'spiritual truth' is external... which it is not.
 
Fire said:
My use of the word is only false if 'spiritual truth' is external... which it is not.
Click to expand...
Entertaining this baseless assertion for just one moment... how do you know this? How do you know that anything is external? In fact, to steal lightgigantic's favorite line of questioning (roughly), what method did you use to come to this conclusion?

In addition:
sub·jec·tive

a. Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.

b. Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.
Click to expand...
I'm talking about the basis for religious beliefs, namely, religious experiences. That would fall under definition (b), as you well know. Your assertion would require that the experience of spirituality be a decision, which it is necessarily not, considering that it is experienced without an internal prompt. This is why religions continually gain converts... you don't honestly think that all religious people have been indoctrinated at birth, do you? If that's what you think, that people always go from theistic-to-atheistic and never the reverse (without somehow being mentally ill), then surely we could find a counter-example on this very message board.

You did use the word incorrectly in the context of this discussion, and quoting the dictionary gets you nowhere in a philosophical debate, since it is often the very definition of a given term that is under scrutiny.
 
Godless said:
After seven odd pages still no answer :p

God does not exist, what exists is a remnant of our primitive mind.

Perspective of Mind: Julian Jaynes
http://www.bizcharts.com/stoa_del_sol/conscious/conscious3.html

It is this remnant of our "bicameral" mentality that "god" still exists today.
Click to expand...
I don't think so. God is a mythological archetype used to cope with unexplained personal experiences for which there are no good and reasonable explanations. The metaphysical truth of God's existence is mostly immaterial to me (I don't believe in an omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient personal force in the Universe), but at least I acknowledge the usefulness of the idea as it relates to providing a context for living (and for unexplained, subjective, experiences), and for providing a meaningful level of mystery to everyday existence.

Other than that, whatever.
 
I don't think so.
Click to expand...

Somethings are true, wether one believes them to be or not.


but at least I acknowledge the usefulness of the idea as it relates to providing a context for living
Click to expand...


Religions context for living has always been to wipe out those with apposing views, from it's acceptance after Constatine made christianity the religion of Rome, their agenda became to wipe out by force all other religions, killing, burning, destroying peoples lives, cause they didn't believe their "god" bs, is hardly a context for living.

http://www.truthbeknown.com/victims.htm

From it's begining Islam also has a start with violence and killing. Hardly a "context for living"

http://www.historyofjihad.org/

Not sure if the links will work :confused:
 
Both God.. and E=mc2.. share a lot in common..

One might also ask why does E=mc2 exist.

Both God.. and E=mc2.. share a lot in common..

They are both symbols.. that represent a way of understanding things.

Symbols are useful shortcuts that allow us to think more efficiently

Both are concepts basically.

That go towards understanding the nature of wholeness.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

"Nick Herbert, a physicist who heads the C-Life Institute, suggests that we have merely discovered an elemental oneness of the world. This oneness cannot be diminished by spatial separation. An invisible wholeness unites the objects that are given birth in the universe, and it is this wholeness that we have stumbled into through modern experimental methods. Herbert alludes to the words of the poet Charles Williams: "Separation without separateness, reality without rift."

"The interrelation of human consciousness and the observed world is obvious in Bell's Theorem. Human consciousness and the physical world cannot be regarded as distinct, separate entities. What we call physical reality, the external world, is shaped - to some extent - by human thought. The lesson is clear; we cannot separate our own existence from that of the world outside. We are intimately associated, not only with the earth we inhabit, but with the farthest reaches of the cosmos."

http://astrosite.com/___QuantumPortal-5.htm


*
 
Jaster Mereel said:
Entertaining this baseless assertion for just one moment... how do you know this? How do you know that anything is external? In fact, to steal lightgigantic's favorite line of questioning (roughly), what method did you use to come to this conclusion?
Click to expand...

Beliefs of all kind are in the mind. 'Spiritual truths' is just 'beliefs' dressed up to sound pretty and justify person baseless belief.

I'm talking about the basis for religious beliefs, namely, religious experiences. That would fall under definition (b), as you well know. Your assertion would require that the experience of spirituality be a decision, which it is necessarily not, considering that it is experienced without an internal prompt. This is why religions continually gain converts... you don't honestly think that all religious people have been indoctrinated at birth, do you? If that's what you think, that people always go from theistic-to-atheistic and never the reverse (without somehow being mentally ill), then surely we could find a counter-example on this very message board.
Click to expand...

Religion is obviously explained by the nature of the way our brains experience things. Since I'm currently reading the god delusion, I'll just speak about what made an impression on me in the 'Roots of Religion' chapter (they are however, hypothesis). Belief has been an important evolutionary trait as most of what our elders tell us (especially in a baritone voice) is useful in prolonging our survival. For example, don't go into those woods because there are dangerous creatures in there. Quite natrually, there are some beliefs which get passed down which are inherantly irrational but overall it is a useful commodity for our survival - people who believe what their elders tell them will survive more than those who don't believe a word.

Other emotions useful to our survival are love, or sexual love. This chemical high is useful perhaps for sticking with a partner long term until your child has been reared. People who 'love' Jesus are only in love with the beliefs that have been passed down which have overblown his charisma. The combination of belief and of love backfire to fall in love with these figments of the imagination.

Religion is a byproduct of something else which is useful for our survival. I don't think religion itself is useful for our survival, and indeed religion is evidence of an evolutionary trait backfiring to do something completely detrimental. For example, the human capacity for suicide or ability to refrain from sex is a byproduct of something else that evolved.

You did use the word incorrectly in the context of this discussion, and quoting the dictionary gets you nowhere in a philosophical debate, since it is often the very definition of a given term that is under scrutiny.
Click to expand...

I believe it's context was totally relevant when it stated 'Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind'. It accurately sums up religion to a T.
 
A "personal experience" is not enough evidence to prove the subjective view that God exists just like how "personal experience" is not enough to prove the subjective view that UFOs exist and has abducted some people.

ON the contrary, evolution is a subjective view that is supported by genetics, DNA research, fossils, biology, physics, bacteriology, and even the study on virus.
 
There is still much confusion here. To equate objectivity with truth and subjectivity with being somehow unreal, imaginary, or false is incorrect. An object exists independent of observation; anything objective deals with objects. A subject is what you are - the totality of sensations, thoughts, feelings, and other qualia. Something subjective pertains to the subject.

Actually, the theory of evolution is an objective scientific model inferred from the subjective experiences of a number of people. Do you see the distinction here?

The subjective experience of seeing a UFO or God is enough to justify the belief that such an experience was had, and is arguably enough to justify belief in the existence of either as an object. Since no direct experience of any physical object is provided by our sensory organs, it is impossible to know if our sensations are completely faithful to the external universe they represent. Despite this, we rely on our senses not only in day-to-day affairs but in the conduct of science and other hard disciplines. So whether it is justified to believe something based on sensory data should be independent of whether it is actually the case.
 
Last edited:
Fire


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) ”

It doesn't disprove god, but theism is known for it's hatred of evolution... Science in general actually. Theists thrive on mystery and science thrives in understanding things.
Click to expand...

and mystery isn't intrinsic to understanding things?

"the results of the scientific search in which, during several decades, I have taken a small part, ... leads unavoidably back to those eternal questions which go under the title of metaphysics" - Max Born


Theists would rather mystery because then everything seems like a miracle thereby increasing the role for a god. Understanding things appears to reduce the role of a god as we understand how things come about (such as life).
Click to expand...

"We really don't know what the Earth was like three or four billion years ago. So there are all sorts of theories and speculations. The major uncertainty concerns what the atmosphere was like. This is a major area of dispute" Stanley Miller


Even if we discovered an apparently natural origin for the universe itself, theists would still be able to claim god did it. Why? Because god is the root of everything of course. I see that as a copout.
Click to expand...

"there are several tenable theories about the origin of organic material on the primitive earth, but in no case is the supporting evidence compelling" Leslie Orgel

Before you pat yourself on the back you should come up with a natural origin for the universe


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

I don't see how your amendment related to my point. If you are invoking something which can only be more complicated than the universe itself, it makes it unlikely.
Click to expand...

"thought processes as well as consciousness are the primary concepts, ... our knowledge of the external world is the content of our consciousness, and this consciousness cannot therefore be denied" Wigner


“ 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 ”

Spiritual truths = subjective thought. Which basically means 75% of the population are worshipping their imagination.
Click to expand...

first of all establish how spiritual truth equals subjective thought - kind of difficult given the high saturation of religion in terms of geography culture and history, which usually determine the limits of subjective thoughts that manifest on a communal level


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

If 75% of the population really did think they were Napoleon they wouldn't be locked up. It's not crazy if it's popular.
Click to expand...

I guess you can argue that everyone is deluded except for you and a few of your friends but it is not very compelling
 
baumgarten said:
Actually, the theory of evolution is an objective model inferred from the subjective experiences of a number of people.
Click to expand...
How is the measurement of a bird's beak "subjective"?
 
spidergoat said:
How is the measurement of a bird's beak "subjective"?
Click to expand...

I think his point was that you actually have a birds beak in your hand when you measure it - when you come to entities or articles that operate beyond a controlled environment (like evolution or god) it doesn't work like this
 
But science does not rely on subjective experience for the experimental aspects of testing a theory. That is why it is so powerful.
 
spidergoat said:
But science does not rely on subjective experience for the experimental aspects of testing a theory. That is why it is so powerful.
Click to expand...

therefore the basis for evolution is more theoretical than the basis for car manufacture due to its subjective foundations (its not like the fossil record changes, its the ideas of what the fossil records indicate that changes)
 
No, I meant quite the opposite.

The creation of the theory of evolution was one person's best guess based on the evidence. However, the later steps of testing that theory are not subjective, they are based on objective measurement, and the objective ability of the theory to predict outcomes.

Therefore, evolution is just as reliable as the theory that compressing a sheet of steel in a mold will result in a body panel.
 
spidergoat

No, I meant quite the opposite.

The creation of the theory of evolution was one person's best guess based on the evidence. However, the later steps of testing that theory are not subjective, they are based on objective measurement, and the objective ability of the theory to predict outcomes.
Click to expand...

It appears that it is still subjective since the theory is still fine tuned by the same processes of deduction that it was established by (exmination and re examination of the fossil record)- the only way it could break out of these confines is if the findings of micro-evolution can be determined in macro evolution

Therefore, evolution is just as reliable as the theory that compressing a sheet of steel in a mold will result in a body panel
Click to expand...

Only if you live in an area where car manufacturers don't actually manufacture cars but go around advertising that they can

In other words the problem with establishing evolution is that it operates outside of a controlled environment
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top