God Part N....

[Quietus]

...Continued from another thread.

If there`s ever something as futile as arguing against/for the existance of a God/Jesus/you-name-it, then someone better show it to me.
There`s nothing to discuss, it is no proof/disproof to either side, it`s all futile. It might be a mighty force out there, or it might not, but frankly, I don`t care. People should not care about others faith/lack of fate, either, please!

With regards to God, there's no proof that a God exists, that's the proof.

If I accuse you of killing 10 people, what proof do I have? I have none, that's your proof you didn't kill anyone. You won't say "I may or may have killed people" because there's no proof on either side.

Nope, that`s a fact.

No, but no one knows whether there is a God or not, it`s a matter of belief, no matter if you are religious or an atheist.

The burden of proof lies upon the one that makes a claim, but that`s not the same as that the claim is false if there is no proof. Then you either believe in what that person said, or you don`t. It`s a matter of a faith, and faith only.

Where's the proof?

Does the Flying Spaghetti Monster exist? Yes? No? Or You can't make the determination?

Right, if you wipe the slate clean, there's no God, because there's no proof. You start from Zero. Claiming God means going right to 1. Claiming 1 is not true (no God doesn't mean going left to -1) you simply stay at Zero where the slate is clean.

Ok, it isn`t a fact, but it isn`t a proof either.

Maybe, maybe not. A such monster would be easily observable, I imagine, thus its existance is unlikely because of lack of observations. I do not know, however.

No. Then you have made a claim, and the burdon of proof is now upon you, too.
If I claim that I have made cold fusion and tell you how, you might claim that it isn`t possible. Then, you will have to prove that, if I refuse to prove anything. You cannot know if you don`t disprove it.
Same if I claim that I am a god. If you say that I am not, then you`ll have to prove it.

Leprechauns, Unicorns, Chupacabra, Loch Ness monster, Dragons, Yeti, Chimera, Gargoyles, Minotaurs, et al?

Ok. Start from Nothing (clean slate).

I say there's earth and there's proof of earth.
I say there's the moon and there's proof of the moon.
I say there's God, where's the proof? None. It doesn't exist.

I say there's earth 2, where's the proof? None. It doesn't exist.
You say cold fusion, where's the proof? None. It doesn't exist.

Yes. If you make claim that there is a monster under my bed, then I can just go and have a look and see that it indeed isn`t.
Claim that Yeti exist, and I`ll go and have a look. Himalay is however huge, and to conclude that Yeti doesn`t exist is close to impossible. I could be be lucky and find him if he exist, so proving existance is easier than disproving. But the lack of real evidences when they should have been easily seen, makes their existance unlikely.
Dragons can be disproved by scientifically method, I believe.

No proof does not equal non-existant. If I claim that there is a black stone on the Moon without having a proof for it, it could still easily exist.

I don`t see where you are going.

In short, Yes or No? Or Maybe?

Or better yet, what's the difference between a Leprechaun and God?

But you have some proof. The moon is a rock. A black rock is only a rock that absorbs all the visible spectrum, hence dark according to your eyes.

Secondly, black stones do exist. It's only a matter of probability.

What's your proof in god? God doesn't even have a physical property. God is metaphysical or Supernatural.

You're starting from a positive (1) not a neutral position (0). So, if you say God, that's already a positive. If I say Earth, that's a positive.

If I say Earth 2, that's a positive. What Earth 2? It doesn't exist.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Is there proof that I'm not just some very articulate Artificial Intellegence created by Mossad?

[Kanamori]

There`s nothing to discuss, it is no proof/disproof to either side, it`s all futile.

Because you know of none does not mean that there are none. I suspect it would be very difficult to prove that there are neither any proofs of God's existence nor that there are any disproofs of God's existence.

I say there's earth and there's proof of earth.
I say there's the moon and there's proof of the moon.
I say there's God, where's the proof? None. It doesn't exist.

Claim 1: I would like to see proof. Claim 2: I would like to see proof. If those two claims are granted, the conclusion is still erroneous.

It seems clear that a person may have heard of horses, but prior to their experience, they had never actually seen a horse, yet the horse exists. In such a case, the horse was quite independent of the individual and existed whether or not the person has seen them (if it is assumed that "seeing" amounts to some sort of proof). Further though, seeing is not in itself a proof that something exists. If seeing alone showed us the nature of things, then we would gather that the sun is only a yellow circle in the sky (sun1), yet, that is not how we understand the sun as it is (sun2). In such a case, our beleif of sun1 would be an erroneous representation of sun2, and sun1 which we perceive cannot be said to exist except in our minds as an idea.

[W]hat's the difference between a Leprechaun and God?

A leprechaun is a little person that lives in Ireland, whereas my idea of God is of a being that is supremely powerful, intelligent, infinite in the number of qualities possessed, and is the definition of perfection.

God doesn't even have a physical property.

The base of this claim? God most certainly must have "physical" properties if He can be said to be infinite in nature.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Sorry problem with the post two steps above this one. This is the intended message (mods please delete the two posts above and let this one remain instead):

I used to argue over the existence or non-existence of God, but have realized that the debate actually isn't about existence or not, but about the consequences a proof of either existence or non-existence would have. It is further complicated by the fact that people define God differently. I think the debate is facilitated if it's split up into a few different parts:

- is there a being/force etc. that created everything? The answer is yes, no matter whether you're atheist or believe in God. The force is either God, Determinism or a controlled random process.
- will this force make sure good wins in the end, and punish bad? There exists a lot of scientifically shown causalities that often make sure the bad guys don't fare particularly well on earth, but there are exceptions where bad people could achieve much without getting punished (usually the ones people concentrate on rather than looking at the billions of examples where good is favored and bad punished).
- this good rewarded and bad punished thing, is it carried out by a system created by this great force, or is it continually a result of actions by this force? One can show many causalities in the very laws of nature which punishes bad guys and rewards good guys in most cases. However there are a few cases of "miracles" or unexpected events. Whether these are caused by a random process or by a God doesn't matter, it's too unusual to hope for and count on.
- does belief in the higher being increase your health, well-being and ability to defend yourself against threats on earth? Nothing implies so. But it can give comfort, but so can insight in the causalities and laws of nature.
- is science, research and philosophy good or evil things? They often result in bad things. Civilization has been a curse, but has also given us a few good technological advances.
- are humans superior to all other beings? this is a matter of definition - define being superior to another being.
- is it possible to change the very system of earth so that evilness pays off more, and death and destruction increases, without any force like a God having to interfere to give the punishment? Many causalities and laws of nature have shown that this is the case, and it has been confirmed after major disasters and similar. No lighting bolts are needed to destroy modern equivalents of Sodom and Gomorra, however there isn't full consistency in who gets punished by the wrath of nature/God.
- should humans accept poverty and oppression because there is a good God and he thinks this is the correct order of things? There is nothing that suggests any God would like poverty, and in this case the religion is used as a tool of oppression.
- are humans entitled to destroy nature or do whatever they like with it? Will they be punished if they do? Much suggests that it's in the very system of earth things that will strike back at us when we damage earth. Whether a God has created this system or not matters little. As miracles are statistically unlikely, they can be attributed either to the very system (created by God, Determinism or a controlled random process), or God or randomness interefering along the way. However, the interferences from our scientific models and common sense expectations are very few and nothing we can rely on largely. Destroying nature must, whether God exists or not, be considered a dangerous thing, probably also a sin which God could punish people for, but we can't know as nothing explicitly has been said about it (however killing humans is sinful, so the indirect deaths of humans caused by destruction of nature might indeed be a sin).
- if we screw up completely with earth, will a savior come and rescue us all? We can't know, and it's pretty foolish to try our luck at this. The bible messages about saviors are vague at best, and there are also insinuations about bad guys being punished when the savior comes. It's very likely that the destruction of earth could be considered a sin by this savior, so there's really nothing that suggests we should continue with it.
- is there a life after death? nobody has ever returned to tell us about it. There also seems to be conflicts about what sends you to paradise and what sends you to hell. Therefore, relying too much on the afterlife seems risky. If you want a good life it's best to try and make your life on earth good.

...and so on...

In any case if God's existence is to be proved or counter-proved, it's an essential first step to define God. If the definition is:
- allmighty
- can interfere with ANYTHING happening now
- good
then his definition in itself is a contradiction, which means he can't exist. But if it is:
- the creating force behind everything
- interferes little or nothing in the system once it has been created
- good
then he can exist. God could also be defined as:
- the truth itself
- the reality
- the very system and laws of nature and everything that is, and that carries out the punishing and rewarding
- prayers to God can comfort and make the praying person strength and insight to deal with the problem he prays for help against, without it actually affecting God's decision. God can still be a personal God and listen, and be attributed the response in the form of the insight the praying man/woman gets.
- God can be wisdom itself
...without the definition being a contradiction.

The bible definition of God is quite vague, but following the system of all other names in the bible, the very name of God might be a good description and definition of him as a character, just like Jakob = "he who pulls in the leg" or Israel = "he who fights with God" and so on. "I am" might suggest something along the lines mentioned above - he is "all that exists", "the truth", "the wisdom" and so on. And the truth of course exist, because that's the very definition of the truth - the truth is that that exists.

For the record, I'm an atheist, but reading the bible in an objective way I find it to be more of a praise of an atheistic-like, secularised wisdom and philosophy, than a dogmatic belief, and therefore I could title myself Christian as well, although I don't, as people might find it offensive.

[Soulforged]

Read the Bible again...

Regarding the subject: Quietus I think there's no point in trying to proove that God doesn't exists, you can't proove a negative, you can proove that he exists or what it's, but you can't proove a negative. That's because I've always tried to proove that "he" is no more than an idea.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

not nessisaryly, there was proof for newtons laws but then Einstein came along and showed that despite this proof the theory had flaws. Proof can only be considered temporary until the whole universe is understood.

how would you feel if god stopped every bad thing from happening, including things that you yourselves may not consider bad because he knew the harm it would cause you, you would rebel, you would want freedom wouldn't you, but now you come along and complain about that freedom!

the same can happen with parents if they over shelter their child and control them to much it stresses them as they have no freedom, how many of you when you were younger wanted to rebel against your parents?
Surely the ideal parent should love you what ever you do, and provide you with the guideance you need, and that is what i believe god does.

if you don't want to believe in god you don't have to, thats another freedom, but by trying to disprove god are you not trying to control the beliefs of others? what gives you that right?

I believe in god because of experiences that i have seen both first hand and second hand and because of the good that i have seen at work in the christian comunitites that i have seen.

Also simply because the message makes sense, and explains everything in a way that science can't when you get to the fundememtal question of why the bilions upon billions of facts required for my existance occured, why should the universe have stars? who decided? if there was no god then surely there is no particular reason that life should be possible, no more so then that the universe should consist of a giant cloud of Hydrogen, or a grand piano.

If you take everything peole have taught you and trust only what you see as many athists also claim to do all your left with is the question why is everything as it is, to me god is the only satisfiying anser, any other anser would have to rely on our natural laws existing for no reason!

[Viking]

In short, Yes or No? Or Maybe?

Maybe; as long as it cannot be disproved scientifically.

Or better yet, what's the difference between a Leprechaun and God?

They way they exist, if existant. But Leprechauns was invented, God might be.

But you have some proof. The moon is a rock. A black rock is only a rock that absorbs all the visible spectrum, hence dark according to your eyes.

Secondly, black stones do exist. It's only a matter of probability.

What's your proof in god? God doesn't even have a physical property. God is metaphysical or Supernatural.

But it pointed out that lack of proof does not equal non-existant, wich is true in all cases, no matter probability.

Is there proof that I'm not just some very articulate Artificial Intellegence created by Mossad?

Not as I know; thus you might very well be it.

Because you know of none does not mean that there are none. I suspect it would be very difficult to prove that there are neither any proofs of God's existence nor that there are any disproofs of God's existence.

Correct, but logic tells me that such proofs simply cannot exist.

For the record, I'm an atheist, but reading the bible in an objective way I find it to be more of a praise of an atheistic-like, secularised wisdom and philosophy, than a dogmatic belief, and therefore I could title myself Christian as well, although I don't, as people might find it offensive.

I`m an agnostic, I am not willing to believe in something supernatural, nor believe in claims without proof.
If you are an atheist, you are claiming that there is no God, thus you are not a Christian.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Read the Bible again...

This is, as I've found out, a controversial subject, but certain parts of the bibel to me seem strange to interpret as holy, or commandements or examples of what to do, but rather has a function of being a chronicle. For example:
5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
5:4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
5:6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
5:7 And Seth lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters:
5:8 And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died.
5:9 And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan:
5:10 And Enos lived after he begat Cainan eight hundred and fifteen years, and begat sons and daughters:
5:11 And all the days of Enos were nine hundred and five years: and he died.

and it continues like that for quite some time. The parts of the old testament outside Mos 1-5 aren't part of the Torah and not considered as holy as the rest of the old testament, but are more of a chronicle. Most cruelties and stuff the bible is infamous for is located in these books, for instance the book of Kings 1:

18:40 And Elijah said unto them, Take the prophets of Baal; let not one of them escape. And they took them: and Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon, and slew them there.

But of course the Bible is probably one of the most dangerous books that exist, because most who read them are told beforehand that all of it is God's words and holy, and they therefore don't see it as a chronicle. Often they even come with arguments like: "we can do that because it's in the bible", but not all characters in the bible are illustrations of good conduct. An obvious example is the population of Sodom and Gomorra. Another thing to note is that according to Genesis the world stopped being a paradise after the expulsion of Eden, which means one can't expect the chronicles about periods following upon that event to illustrate good conduct, but rather contain a lot of examples of what not to do. So, it's probably the most dangerous book that exists even though some logic and historical knowledge applied to it yields a quite beautiful, and for it's time insightful (some insights in it are even forgotten by the majority even today) message.

[Soulforged]

This is, as I've found out, a controversial subject, but certain parts of the bibel to me seem strange to interpret as holy, or commandements or examples of what to do, but rather has a function of being a chronicle.

There're actually many parts that are stated in the form of rules. But of course logic, though stimulated in other parts of social life, is absent in the religious life. So if logic tells you, the words of this man are the words of the eternal wisdom so it must be just, because either they're inspired by God or are the words of God (it must be just to be slave of God and follow his will in all circumstances it doesn't matter what your common sense might tell you), then logic will lead you to believe that you've to do such a thing no matter what it's, no matter the injustice. But logic, as said does not applies in this crazy world of religion, so what might seem just because of God's inspiration ends being the exact opposite because of personal agendas or simple common sense, and thanks God for that!

But in short that's the problem, rule-like statements that only have one way to be interpreted, and many of them were not corrected in the "second edition" of the Bible, the famous New Testament. So this people who take this mighty book in their hands and read it's cheap (though atractive) philosophy have two options, they take what appeals to them and has some sense, or they take every word, even the contradictory ones, because as we know God can contradict himself if he wants so.

We don't need moral rules, they're part of the common sense, of that empiristic phenomenum that happens everyday and that is infered from the social life. As a chronicle it might be that good, but as a philosophy book I prefer a thousand others before it.

Edit: Spelling and sintactical corrections.

[Kanamori]

Correct, but logic tells me that such proofs simply cannot exist.

Actually, I know of several convincing proofs of God's existence. They do not say much about the nature of God, i.e. which version of God it is according to scriptures though. In the end, they are only slightly comforting as they say very little.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

like i said earlyer there is loads of proof, imagine the universe as a computer without the rules and laws of software it cannot function, it does nothing. There needs to be some sort of set of scietific rules which means there must have been something to create such rules ergo there must have been a creator

[Sjakihata]

like i said earlyer there is loads of proof, imagine the universe as a computer without the rules and laws of software it cannot function, it does nothing. There needs to be some sort of set of scietific rules which means there must have been something to create such rules ergo there must have been a creator

false, infinity does not demand a creator. then it is not infinite.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

false, infinity does not demand a creator. then it is not infinite.

Rules need a creator and our universe has many scientific rules.
the very reason that the rules of our universe demand a creator is that they are very specific, why should an ''accidental'' universe with no creator have scientific rules, how would they have been specified they cant just exist for no reason.

[Goofball]

Is there proof that I'm not just some very articulate Artificial Intellegence created by Mossad?

Yes, there is. The lack of clarity in your posts.








































Sorry my friend, I couldn't resist. You can't serve up a tater like that and not expect some smart-arse like me to take it downtown...

[Viking]

Rules need a creator and our universe has many scientific rules.

If humanity hadn`t existed, no rules would exist either.

the very reason that the rules of our universe demand a creator is that they are very specific, why should an ''accidental'' universe with no creator have scientific rules, how would they have been specified they cant just exist for no reason.

The rules are man-made. In the universe, things happen because they have to. It`s just the way it is.

[Kanamori]

If humanity hadn`t existed, no rules would exist either.

This is a very strong claim to have no evidence for...

I would tend to think that many of the rules here would exist even if we weren't here. Gravity would still effect the little critters and such; in fact we know of times before our existence, and the earth seemed to be relatively simalar or at least not as radically different as not having gravity or not having materiality.

[Viking]

This is a very strong claim to have no evidence for...

I would tend to think that many of the rules here would exist even if we weren't here. Gravity would still effect the little critters and such; in fact we know of times before our existence, and the earth seemed to be relatively simalar or at least not as radically different as not having gravity or not having materiality.

My point was that there is no such "rules". Things happen because it is the way it is. 'Rules' are mans attempt to explain why things happen.

[Quietus]

Claim 1: I would like to see proof. Claim 2: I would like to see proof. If those two claims are granted, the conclusion is still erroneous.

Just like Viking, your reference point can't be 1 but 0. Start from zero, nothing.

If you say God, that's 1.
If I say no God, that's back to 0.

It seems clear that a person may have heard of horses, but prior to their experience, they had never actually seen a horse, yet the horse exists. In such a case, the horse was quite independent of the individual and existed whether or not the person has seen them (if it is assumed that "seeing" amounts to some sort of proof).

Nobody has described a horse before its discovery or without any proof. Are you going to describe the dinosaurs accurately without fossils or any evidence?

Of course, "seeing" is proof, given the person isn't lying, hallucinating or just imagining things.

Further though, seeing is not in itself a proof that something exists. If seeing alone showed us the nature of things, then we would gather that the sun is only a yellow circle in the sky (sun1), yet, that is not how we understand the sun as it is (sun2). In such a case, our beleif of sun1 would be an erroneous representation of sun2, and sun1 which we perceive cannot be said to exist except in our minds as an idea.

There's still a proof there's a "yellow circle in the sky".

A leprechaun is a little person that lives in Ireland, whereas my idea of God is of a being that is supremely powerful, intelligent, infinite in the number of qualities possessed, and is the definition of perfection.

Ok. Do you believe both exist? Yes or No? Why, or why not?

The base of this claim? God most certainly must have "physical" properties if He can be said to be infinite in nature.

1) God, if natural, will have "physical properties" (ie. follow the laws of physics).
2) If God created the universe then God must be bigger than the universe. Given IIRC, from last I read, that our Galaxy approximately contain 200 (or 300?) billion stars and the universe have approximately with 500 billion galaxies, where is the bigger God? Matter, Anti-matter or Energy, where is God?

[Quietus]

Is there proof that I'm not just some very articulate Artificial Intellegence created by Mossad?

Yes. Are your parents Mossad?

[Quietus]

Read the Bible again...

Regarding the subject: Quietus I think there's no point in trying to proove that God doesn't exists, you can't proove a negative, you can proove that he exists or what it's, but you can't proove a negative. That's because I've always tried to proove that "he" is no more than an idea.

No proof is the proof, Soulforged. Think about it.

[Quietus]

Maybe; as long as it cannot be disproved scientifically.

Ok. All mythical creatures to you are a 'maybe'.

They way they exist, if existant. But Leprechauns was invented, God might be.

If leprechauns were 'invented' then 'maybe' isn't the best answer to the last question.

How do you know God was not invented too?

But it pointed out that lack of proof does not equal non-existant, wich is true in all cases, no matter probability.

If a cow doesn't not exist inside my head, that doesn't mean cows don't exist.

You're confusing 'non-existent in the moon' to 'non-existence in the universe'. The point is 'black stones' exists. The Moon exists as well. It's only a matter of probability the two coexisting.

[Quietus]

like i said earlyer there is loads of proof, imagine the universe as a computer without the rules and laws of software it cannot function, it does nothing. There needs to be some sort of set of scietific rules which means there must have been something to create such rules ergo there must have been a creator

If there is a creator of the universe, who created the creator of the universe? Surely the creator cannot function without rules, as well.

[Sartaq]

Is there any reason to believe in something that we have no physical proof of?
Does God perhaps exist as a physical entity in another dimension that, so far, is untraceable?
Why do humans need/want rules?
Why are humans aware of their own mortality?
Why are humans so tragically stupid?
Why do humans ask so many questions?

[Roark]

If there is a creator of the universe, who created the creator of the universe? Surely the creator cannot function without rules, as well.

As an omnipotent and omniscient being: Yes, he/she would certainly be able to function outside of the rules which govern us.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Yes, there is. The lack of clarity in your posts.





Sorry my friend, I couldn't resist. You can't serve up a tater like that and not expect some smart-arse like me to take it downtown...

Mmmm.....tater....bacon....I mean!

It's not like English is my first programmed langauge, it was Hebrew!

Yes. Are your parents Mossad?

You mean Windows and Linux? Maybe. Actually, they were both created to cause the American Goyims much distress. Muwahaha.

[Soulforged]

No proof is the proof, Soulforged. Think about it.

What fails is the object of the proof, because it's negative, not the proof itself. Proof X prooves Y, wich might be an indication that Z (allegated entity) doesn't exist, ie belongs to reality. So the silogism is: Y -> Z, but saying no Y -> no Z is a logical fallacy, pretty simple, because if this prooves fails it doesn't mean that there cannot be another evidence that Z exists. That's what I'm trying to say.

Edit: Spelling and sintaxis.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

What fails is the object of the proof, because it's negative, not the proof itself. Proof X prooves Y, wich might be an indication that Z (allegated entity) doesn't exist, ie belongs to reality. So the silogism is: Y -> Z, but saying no Y -> no Z is a logical fallacy, pretty simple, because if this prooves fails it doesn't mean that there cannot be another evidence that Z exists. That's what I'm trying to say.

Edit: Spelling and sintaxis.

Are you making God a math equation?

[Quietus]

What fails is the object of the proof, because it's negative, not the proof itself. Proof X prooves Y, wich might be an indication that Z (allegated entity) doesn't exist, ie belongs to reality. So the silogism is: Y -> Z, but saying no Y -> no Z is a logical fallacy, pretty simple, because if this prooves fails it doesn't mean that there cannot be another evidence that Z exists. That's what I'm trying to say.

Edit: Spelling and sintaxis.

That's quite a muddy explanation. Why do you need three variables? Proof X proves Y. Proof X proves God (Y). Unfortunately, Y is only a guess at best. As well as X.

About that logical fallacy, X is not just one proof, it is any SET of proofs. That means, any proof. But there's none or no any set ever.

Secondly, and more importantly, how did one arrive at God without any proof at all?

Stevie Wonder would never arrive at correctly saying the "Sky is Blue" without any proof. Because he doesn't know what Blue is.

[Samurai Waki]

as far as I can tell...there is still not enough proof to accept or deny the existance of god(s). In theory, the only thing mathematic equations have solved is that the process of using mathematics to show proof of the existance or non existance of god(s) is inheirantly flawed because of an unlimited number of variables.

I don't know if there is a god or gods, or not, I'd certainly like to think that there is something else in store for us after death, because it is mentally impossible for me to imagine non existance, and I also further believe that it is impossible for anyone to imagine non existance, because even imagining a blackness, or eternal sleep, or hanging out in a white limbo for eternity is indeed imagining something. We're talking about no thoughts, no feelings, absolutely nothing at all. That is an almost unnerving thought to me.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

the laws of phisics would exist with or without humans and they are the rules that i am talking about.

By the way most of modern physics is un proveable, supersting theory, dark matter etc.