Ignosticism (Prove to me there is a God)

[Csargo]

Roman Catholic .

Are you crazy?

[Scurvy]

So a giant explosion is implausible as the cradle of life but an old robed geezer living on a cloud, smiting here and there when the mood takes him is a better explanation for existence...

You do realise how mental that sounds dont you?
.

Its no less mental than some of the scientific theories

I find it hard to believe that the "world" was created through science, because something must of created science, therefore whatever "caused" the world (ie. the first cause, Thomas Aquinas i think) must be God. In my opinion the real argument here is what is "God".
God doesnt necessarily have to be any religious interpretation, or even given any "human characteristsics", God is simply the first cause, the thing that created everything... It exists, but is of little importance now.

Csar --> Whats wrong with him being Catholic?

[Csargo]

Your sig says it all Scury. It says it all.

[Scurvy]

No it doesn't (or am i missing something really obvious?)

[Ice]

Are you crazy?

Only when when I have exams or when people piss me off. So yes, I'm usually crazy because atleast one is happening always.

[Reverend Joe]

Let me try to explain God in a rational way.

God does not exist. However, I believe in It- more specifically, in Him, the male aspect of God. You see, the most plausible theory of God for me is that God is Life, and Life is God; but the two do not exist in the same way. They have interactions, but they are effectively impossible to comprehend. One example , though, may be how humans apparently may have eradicated all of the sentient apes, so that the human genus would have no competition: this may have been a drive stemming from the newly-sentient God, who saw a threat to Its existence and drove Humanity to destroy this threat, as It destroyed the threat on Its level. It was competing with other Gods, and It won.

Okay, what is the point of this? Well, how the hell can I prove any of this stuff I just said? I can't. God is not a scientific notion and to compare him/it to such is ridiculous in itself, because there is no correlation between the two. but to reject God outright because It is not scientific is folly, for this very reason.

So please reconsider your reasons. If you choose not to believe in God, fine. But do it for the right reasons.

And remember- you do not have to believe in what others tell you is God. You can decide for yourself what is God. It's your choice.

[AntiochusIII]

OOPS forgot to say I was joking. People are way too serious back here. Slave drivers even.

Oh, but I enslave leprechauns for a living. You ain't gettin' no better job than torturing them 24/7 for their pots of gold. I ought to be serious all the time, lest the little smelly Irish greenfolk dare challenge my authority.

My post itself was not particularly serious.

[Divinus Arma]

I commend your open mind and lack of arrogance. It takes a truly humble individual to conclude that absolute certainty is unattainable. But if you are so willing to listen, I will share my perspective with you.

There are, in my view, two major consderations in a discussion on God. (1) Purpose, and (2) Ethical relevance.

The concept of religion itself is an antiquated and obsolete form of existential observation. We all hold a perspective on existence, be we agnostic, atheist, or devout. Therefore, set aside the notion of "religion" for just a moment. I would argue that the atheist shares more in common with the Christian or the Jew than he would prefer to admit. The only difference is the absence of organization in the observance of the atheist's perspective. Despite this, atheists share with spiritualists the concept of purpose and ethical relevance. These are the two overriding concepts in any existential perspective, regardless of name or origin.

First consider purpose. To the atheist, Man is both the highest order of known intellect and the equal of animals. From this viewpoint, the Atheist finds that his only prupose is hat which he himself chooses. This purpose may be a selfish one or it may be selfless. The concepts of "Good" and "Evil" are merely crafted from human imagination and relevant only in the selfish ambition of a symbiotic mutually gratifying civilization. In other words, civilization itself and its series of behavioral tradeoffs only function so long as there is an individual benefit to those within the society. When society ceases to be mutually rewarding, the individual agent of society may select an anti-social self-gratifying behavior with no feelings of guilt. Again, the purpose of the individual is that which the individual selects. Thus, an individual may choose to allow himself the "losing end" of a social role in order to benefit others. This provides an intrinsic reward rather than an extrinsic material benefit.

However, I would argue that self-determined purpose is ultimately empty purpose. The breat that you take today will matter no more than the last breath of your life. Your actions, choices, and the consequences are thus rendered irrelevant in this environment. There can be no satisfaction because ultimately you will die and you may well have never lived- you are worthless in the scope of time eternal. Your thoughts, dreams, loves, ambitions, relationships are all without any true purpose other than a brief goal to entertain your shallow and callous mind.

Now consider ethical relevance. I already mention the futile irrelevance of morality since "Good" and "Evil" exist only so long as one is willing to play a symbitotic role in society. Proponents of atheistic ethical philosophy rely on the concepts of utilitarianism, ehtical relativism, and Kantian theory. Utilitarianism argues that decision should be made which affect the most good for the largest amount of people, ex: If murdering one human will save the lives of two people, then it is an ethically acceptable proposition. Under moral relativism, the only justification for behavioral modification is that which the culture deeems appropriate, ex: Mayan human sacrifice is perfectly acceptable because the Mayan culture deems it so. Finally, Kant proposed the humans should be treated as ends themselves rather than simply means to an end, ex: In other words, propositions to utilize a human being as a sacrifice are unacceptable because the human life cannot be treated as an object of barter. While each of these theories alone provides us with a guide for ethical decision making, they all ultimately fail because there exists no ultimate moral authority. It relates back to the lack of purpose in human life and the inherent fact that ethics is ultimately futile and irrelevent.

God fills these voids by providing both purpose to humanity and ethical guidance, linked in one relationship. The failing of "religion" is in the claimed monoploy over superiority of perspective. As an eclectic, I find that all religions have equal universal principles which are found in their doctrine and interpretation. The difficulty is in removing the myth and legend and rooting to the intent. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and even Hindusism all offer a single God be he Yaweh, Allah, or Brahman. Buddhism teaches us that suffering can be avoided by abandoning desire, as does the Torah in the book of Job, as does Jesus's teaching on the perils of materialistic desire, and as does the Qu'ran in the celebration of Ramadan and the importance of the fast. In each and every existential perspective embracing a higher power, purpose is found in our relationships; first with God and secondly with each other. Why is this?

This is the relationship between Purpose and ethical relevance. I have gone on at length on this topic in previous threads. If you wish, I'll dig them up for you.

[Devastatin Dave]

I hereby declare myself an ignostic. Why? Because there is no way to prove whether there is, or is not a God, merely faith, trust, and belief. Thus, the concept of God is incoherent and absurd.

Also, I declare that the existence of a God is emotionally meaningless to me as well. I do not need worship or faith in a higher power to feel complete.

Now, you in the backroom can either try to prove to me that there is a God, or just give me an amen in agreement, or give me your own take on faith and religion.

Please read the following 71 pages of God's creation. Amen
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=43728

[AntiochusIII]

Please read the following 71 pages of God's creation. Amen
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=43728

DD, honestly:

I'm a convert. God loves us all.

And God's a she :P

[DemonArchangel]

Divinus Arma: I see what you're trying to say, that your definition of God is a concept of moral, emotional and ethical authority. But do you really feel that humans cannot possibly make a working society based off of purely secular values? I think it's not entirely implausible. There doesn't exactly have to be ultimate authority in moral/ethical decision making.

Sure, there might be no afterlife, but it definitely doesn't mean that our lives are meaningless. Meaning is derived from both the impact of your actions on other people and how others remember you. It's not to entertain just your mind, but how you affect other people around you. And since man is a naturally social animal, I think that an altruistic meaning of life isn't an entirely irrational position. It is IMPOSSIBLE for society to totally lack at least some gratification, because man, even introverted ones, seek constant contact with other human beings.

Furthermore, because man lives and derives meanning from other humans, no matter what the status of existence of a higher power is, the question of God is thus irrelevant.

However, I do not deny the existence of faith. We all require faith. I personally put my faith in science and in the inherent altruistic intentions of humanity.

(Note: And your position was very well written by the way).

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Please read the following 71 pages of God's creation. Amen
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=43728

I am God!

[lancelot]

Its no less mental than some of the scientific theories

I find it hard to believe that the "world" was created through science, because something must of created science, therefore whatever "caused" the world (ie. the first cause, Thomas Aquinas i think) must be God. In my opinion the real argument here is what is "God".
God doesnt necessarily have to be any religious interpretation, or even given any "human characteristsics", God is simply the first cause, the thing that created everything... It exists, but is of little importance now.

I really dont understand this desperate need to find some higher power behind everything, pulling the strings' as it were. Perhaps we did evolve out of an explosion or a puddle...perhaps it is that mundane...

And you say 'It exists' which implies that a someone or autonomous something had a direct hand in our universe's creation...perhaps the universe is a mistake or the least probable outcome in a random chain of events...

Let me try to explain God in a rational way.

God does not exist. However, I believe in It- more specifically, in Him, the male aspect of God. You see, the most plausible theory of God for me is that God is Life, and Life is God; but the two do not exist in the same way. They have interactions, but they are effectively impossible to comprehend. One example , though, may be how humans apparently may have eradicated all of the sentient apes, so that the human genus would have no competition: this may have been a drive stemming from the newly-sentient God, who saw a threat to Its existence and drove Humanity to destroy this threat, as It destroyed the threat on Its level. It was competing with other Gods, and It won.

Er...what? That makes no sense.

God is life and sent his killer humans to eradicate monkeys in a effort to give the finger to other gods????


I believe Thor was mad at Cerberus for stealing his lunch money so he gave him a wack over the head with his hammer, which in turn got Cerberus so mad he exploded and formed the universe. There- job done. Existence explained.

[Spetulhu]

You might wish to read what someone more critical has to say about hogwash like Intelligent Design before declaring for a higher power.

"When you think about it, a theory which can predict anything is actually a theory which predicts nothing. An open-ended "prediction" which is incapable of ever saying "no, we won't see that" is absolutely, utterly, completely useless. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is "intelligent design" theory in a nutshell: completely useless."

http://www.creationtheory.org/Essays...sUseless.shtml

[Ronin]

Its no less mental than some of the scientific theories

I find it hard to believe that the "world" was created through science, because something must of created science, therefore whatever "caused" the world (ie. the first cause, Thomas Aquinas i think) must be God. In my opinion the real argument here is what is "God".
God doesnt necessarily have to be any religious interpretation, or even given any "human characteristsics", God is simply the first cause, the thing that created everything... It exists, but is of little importance now.

Csar --> Whats wrong with him being Catholic?

to say that "the world was created through science" is a wrong position....the creation of the world was a natural process (I say this because I have never seen any proof of an unnactural process occuring), science is merely a model we use to try and understand the natural processes...

[BDC]

Claiming the universe is too complex to have been created without a god isn't going anywhere. You just shift everything up a level. Who made god? If the universe is so complex that it needs a creator, so does god, who was presumeably just as complex. And that needs a creator... And so forth forever.

[Jubilation T Cornpone]

You really needn't look any further than 'Red Dwarf' for an answer. Kryten summed it up nicely: 'Human Heaven? Goodness me, humans don't go to Heaven! No, someone made that up to prevent you all from going nuts!'

The only annoying thing is that when you all finally do die and nothing happens, none of you will actually realise it!

[Andres]

I am God!

No, I am! Your moderating powers are derived from your True Lord, AndresTheCunning. But I'm too lazy to moderate myself. That's why I have slaves like you Making you believe you are a God just makes it easier for me WAHAHAHAA!

On topic now:

Imho, the existence of a God is more a question of believing then empiric studies.

You believe or you don't believe. Simple.

On a side note: Why not reverse the question? Prove to me there is no God.

[Devastatin Dave]

I am God!

Can I have a puppy then, O' Lord?

[caravel]

This reminds me of a conversation that the Caravel had with one of those religious street pester'ers a few months ago.

*Caravel walking down city centre street*

Young man: "excuse me?"

*Caravel stops in his tracks*

Caravel: "alright?"

Young man: "I'm representing the church of <some cult or other> and...

Caravel: "whooaaaaa.... I may as well stop you there. Not-into-religion-sorry-bye"

Young man: "could you tell me why?"

Caravel: Well for one thing there's no proof that god exists is there?"

Young man: "well there's the bible..."

Caravel: "ha..."

Young man: "and there's faith..."

*continues to explain about his particular brand of religion*

Caravel: "Well I'm afraid you haven't convinced me. I subscribe to the idea that we're biological beings powered by little electrical impulses that shoot about our body sending signals... ...when it comes to shutdown time there's no coming back, so you have to live this life and make the best of it because it's the only life you have. I'm not about to waste it messing around in a cult..."

Young man: "that's a really sad and negative approach, my life was really sad and empty and then I found god and love and now I'm..."

Caravel: "Well... my life is not empty, nor incomplete, I have love, but not god, nor do I feel the need to subscribe to/invent a fictional diety in order to achieve "inner piece", discipline nor happiness. I can be a good person within my own right without resorting to religion. Those people that need religion as a discipline to achieve happiness... ell they have their own issues. In view of this I feel that your religion has nothing to offer me... bye now...

Young man: Ok bye *waves his 'handbook thingy*.

The point is that he needed it for some reason or other. And that's often the case. Either people need it because of some past trauma/event in their lives, or their culture/system/family forces it down their throats from birth. In times of plenty religion often goes down the toilet because people don't need it. Which is when the fanatics surface. The sad bastards, that because they don't have a life, don't want anyone else to have one either. In times of plenty people begin to think for themselves and see it for the fiction it is. Look for poverty in the world and some religious movement or other will be close by. This is why I don't believe that religion is a choice, moreso a deception, an illusion even. If I was born and raised by hindus it is likely I'd be a hindu for life. If born and raised by atheists I'd probably be an atheist for life. If I converted it would be because someone influenced me to do so, at a time when I was in an impressionable state. And because I felt like deceiving myself in order to be part of a group or club.

[Reverend Joe]

Er...what? That makes no sense.

God is life and sent his killer humans to eradicate monkeys in a effort to give the finger to other gods????


I believe Thor was mad at Cerberus for stealing his lunch money so he gave him a wack over the head with his hammer, which in turn got Cerberus so mad he exploded and formed the universe. There- job done. Existence explained.

That's a tiny part of my own religious beliefs. And when I say "religion", I use a much looser form of the word than Divinus does; my version of Religion is simply a complex system of metaphysical and ethical beliefs; each person can have his own religion. I have my own, and it certainly has made life a lot more interesting.

But it is not really necessary. My main point was that I worry that DemonArchangel was dismissing God and religion for the worng reasons; but it appears he is not. He has his own religion. He si thinking for himself.


(I hope.)

[Sasaki Kojiro]

"How can I believe in God when just last week I got my tongue caught in the roller of an electric typewriter?"
~Woody Allen

[Prince of the Poodles]

Originally Posted by lancelot
So a giant explosion is implausible as the cradle of life but an old robed geezer living on a cloud, smiting here and there when the mood takes him is a better explanation for existence...

You do realise how mental that sounds dont you?

Just as mental as any of the theories out there today. 8)

[DemonArchangel]

But it is not really necessary. My main point was that I worry that DemonArchangel was dismissing God and religion for the worng reasons; but it appears he is not. He has his own religion. He is thinking for himself.

(I hope.)

I really do hope that I'm thinking for myself. I really don't like thinking for other people, it's really a drain on the brain.

[yesdachi]

"How can I believe in God when just last week I got my tongue caught in the roller of an electric typewriter?"
~Woody Allen

Thats Great!

"How can I believe in God when just last week I nailed my sack to the roof with a nail gun to stop myself from falling 20 feet?"
~bad karma guy from another thread

The best, possibility the only proof that a there is a god is in the babe thread, no way could that have been made without a divine plan (see hunk thread to view the devils contribution) . So take back your faithless words least Thor smite you with his mighty hammer!

[Claudius the God]

Re: on the definition of atheism:

One who denies the existence of god...

this simple definition supposes that there is in fact one or more gods or deities which the atheist is denying - this definition by nature makes Atheists look bad and makes the term 'Atheist' almost derogatory.

I offer a better definition of Atheism:

The simple absence of belief in deities.

this definition neither supposes that deities do or do not exist, and defines the Atheist viewpoint on a neutral framework of reality.

I myself am a Humanist...



This description seems to me to be a reasonable one for Ignosticism:

"Ignosticism is the view that the question of the existence of God is meaningless because it has no verifiable (or testable) consequences and should therefore be ignored
...
For most purposes, this view may be considered a form of agnosticism (sometimes referred to as "apathetic agnosticism"), and falls under the general category of nontheism. But it is a particular form. From this approach, the "I don't know" of agnosticism ceases to mean "I don't know if God exists or not" and becomes "I don't know what you're talking about when you talk about God." This underlies the form of the word: ignosticism, indicating an ignorance of what is meant by a claim of God's existence. Until this ignorance is cleared up, the ignostic is justified in ignoring putative arguments for or against.
...
The consistent ignostic, therefore, awaits a coherent definition of God (or of any other metaphysical concept to be discussed) before engaging in arguments for or against."

[Samurai Waki]

I have never met a man in battle who didn't believe in god

[Claudius the God]

"There are no Atheists in Foxholes" is not an argument against Atheists, It's an argument against Foxholes!

[Duke Malcolm]

even posing the question is the first mistake.

think about it.....if nobody had told you about "God"...would the concept even have come into your head?
if it isn´t a question that naturally comes to you what is the point of it....?

But surely, therefore, at some point in human history someone must have been told about God for the idea to come into his head?

[Mongoose]

Its no less mental than some of the scientific theories

I find it hard to believe that the "world" was created through science, because something must of created science, therefore whatever "caused" the world (ie. the first cause, Thomas Aquinas i think) must be God. In my opinion the real argument here is what is "God".

"God created the universe. God just exists."

*Ockhams Razor*

"The universe just exists"

There. I got rid of the unneeded term.