Does God exist? the definitive answer.

bassist

Playboy wrote:

Your post has a major flaw. Who created the two stars that collided causing the cosmic event that eventually led to evolution. What is your ultimate cause of the universe? Who dictated the laws of the universe and put the big bang into action etc. ?

Im not even going to attempt to answer that one. I dont know but I certanly dont think that our interpretation of "God" sat on a cloud for 6 six days and created the Earth and the Universe, and then rested on the sabbit. How could we start to attempt to say who or what created the Universe when we dont even understand our own Solar system. we're stuck on this planet in our little corner of space, the furtherest any human has been away from the Earth is the dark side of the moon. we have no first hand knowlegde of the universe to make that decision. as i said the idea of "god" was created by men who needed and answer to what he couldn't understand. we're so small and insignificant that we dont pocess the knowledge to make that decision. how could we be that egotistical to think that we, on Earth, in this little solar system, in this little galaxy come with the answer to who created it all?

Pocari Sweat

Its all to do with a load of atoms that were put in the universe by someone. These atoms make up all the planets, stars and black holes etc.
So who put the atoms in there in the first place, and why is the universe so big, why couldn't they have made it a bit smaller?

Most people blame a god/s or something for rustling up all the stuff in the universe and probly the universe itself. But who invented him/her or them?

And if someone invented a god, who invented them there that made him? and so on.

The fundamentals of agnosticm is to weigh up the god / universe argument, look at the hard facts, and say right, I'm off t' pub cos I can't dispell or confirm the god type cryptic teasers, so a few pints it is.

Being all for, or all against, is the choice of those that want to argue the toss, but to be open minded is to say both the extreme camps are faffing about a bit cos neither has any proof, and one side cancels out the other anyway.

Jackie laughlin

Some are aware of the evidence or lack of it and of the arguments for and against, and DECIDE to believe.

eddyc

Just jumping in here, cant be arsed reading all the other posts so if you've covered this completely ignore this.
My two cents....
The question is flawed, Does God exist is a completely meaningless question, there is no way of measuring the existence of deities, we can measure the existence of carbon and oxygen and the like, but as far as I know there is no machine on this planet that can measure the existence of god. There is no measure of godness as far as I know, does anyone know of one?You may say, ah but you cannot disprove it , the burden of proof though unfortunately is on the person who suggests that god or gods do infact exist.

Do you mean 'could god exist?' , or 'do you believe god exists?'

Jackie laughlin

Eddy,
The question isn't especially flawed. There are many questions which fall into the realm of, let's call it, the speculative. Off the top of my head: any question which science cannot address or has not yet addressed or for which science has not developed a test or any working hypothesis. The God question is interesting but there haven't been any new arguments in centuries. We are, for example, left speculating about prime cause.

My difficulty is the zeal with which some people approach the issue. I can't see how proof would change the human situation. I recall a story from my school days and I think it concerned St. Francis. He was sweeping the cloisters and someone asked him what he would do if God revealed Himself as a certainty. The saint replied that he would continue sweeping.

eddyc

Do you agree that asking someone "does 'X' exist?" , is the equivelent of asking "does 'Y' exist?", or do you think that the God question is a special case because many people believe it to exist already?

Pocari Sweat

One guaranteed certaintly is, despite having 127 posts so far, there is not yet an established answer.

A further guarantee will be that after another 10,000 posts, I am sure there will still be no answer, and so on.

The ongoing thousands of posts here with no outcome, are the sort of reflections of the trillions of thoughts about this question, humanity has had in the last few thousand years, again with no established outcome, except a lot of blood and tears.

Maybe a god would be thinking, save yer next trillion ponderings and instead save your time and go and do good deeds for each other, and don't worry about gods, they can take care of themselves.

banaman

Firstly define God.
Secondly define exist.
Without agreed definitions of these terms the discussion cannot take place

bassist

Pocari Sweat wrote:

Its all to do with a load of atoms that were put in the universe by someone.

why does it have to be some one? why does it have to be at a certan point in time?
do you not think that there are things in this universe that our feeble little brains cannot understand?
That there our other forms of life in it and that maybe they have there own versions of god?

Pocari Sweat

God could be a fat ferret called fred, and he could have indeed shoved in the atoms in there.

There is absolutely no proof that he is not infact a fat ferret called fred and it is just as likely that he is a fat ferret as anything else.

Pocari Sweat

What is unlikely is that most popular organised religions would not want to invent a god looking like a fat ferret, and instead make them look like a caucasion white male, indeed the same appearance as say the caucasion white males that have their oars in the running of many popular religions.

Any bookmaker though, based on any logic, would still have to give the fat ferret a 50/50 chance against any other invented idea of what a god should be.

It just seems generally its a matter of taste as to what flavour of god is invented.

18AD

Pocari Sweat wrote:

What is unlikely is that most popular organised religions would not want to invent a god looking like a fat ferret, and instead make them look like a caucasion white male, indeed the same appearance as say the caucasion white males that have their oars in the running of many popular religions.

Any bookmaker though, based on any logic, would still have to give the fat ferret a 50/50 chance against any other invented idea of what a god should be.

It just seems generally its a matter of taste as to what flavour of god is invented.

Although the vision of a perfect caucasian man could be explained as an archetype. This would probably only apply to white males or white females who see men as superior. Even so, someone tortured by ferrets may infact believe that the fat ferret king is leading the show.

Pocari Sweat

They could also believe that a king of the fat ferrets could instead be an underworld leader like Satan.

Ferrets are after all, able to burrow under ground and sneak about a bit, and could give you a nasty nip.

Just as easy a fat ferret, as a bloke with horns and goat legs, stitched together like some kind of daft concoction from the imagination.

FromFarEast

When we decide if something exists, we must consider whether it conforms to the definition of existence or not.
So when we decide if God exists, we should do it in the same way.

If you insist he does exist or he doesn't exist, then what definition is your opinion based on?

banaman

FromFarEast wrote:

When we decide if something exists, we must consider whether it conforms to the definition of existence or not.
So when we decide if God exists, we should do it in the same way.

If you insist he does exist or he doesn't exist, then what definition is your opinion based on?

Assuming for the moment that I pass your criteria for existence, then since I exist we then come to the existence of what I experience as Not-Me, ie "the world outside my skin which I experience and interact with".
Now I know from experience(or think I know since memory is far from a perfect replica) that if I do certain things certain other things happen, eg if i drop my glass of beer on a stone floor I have to buy another, it never, in my experience, lands upright and undamaged.
We then come to ideas(beliefs if you will) as to where the world of Not-Me came from, is going and what, if any, its purpose might be.
Given that we humans have a need to ask the "why" question(try talking to a curious three-year old)then we traditionally attributed questions about why life etc to the existence of a deity or deities.
However since the advent of the Renaissance and the growth of the Scientific approach most people beleive that there is no God and that the Universe(which most of us cannot see) exists due to the "Laws of Physics". Most people cannot prove any of this so on an everyday level a belief in Science is as much of a "leap of faith" as belief in a deity.
My own view? I was given a good scientific education and have read fairly widely since. If belief in a deity helps you to make sense of your world then fair enough. Likewise a belief in Sience.
The problems start when zealots from one deity or another, or for a purely scientific viewpoint want to inflict/impose their views on the rest of us.
So does God exist? I believe in a deity but I also understand and have faith in science in some respects. As a definitive answer it is in that good old Scottish legal verdict Not-Proven.

Pocari Sweat

What god is it the Hindus have?

gagga

Any answer to this question will always remain unsatisfactory to someone. So probably best to give it a rest.

For my money the simple truth is there is no god or gods other than those we create ourselves. We are but a cosmic fluke. Accept this and move on with your short life.

Playboy

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Playboy,
Suppose you get a definitive answer to this question, what difference will it make?

I dont necessarly think there is a definitive answer to the question but I do believe that in asking the question and attempting to answer the question that we can rule what God is not and this can help a person to grow in their understanding and awareness of their own place in this reality. Which is always a good thing imo.

Jackie laughlin

Interesting point. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the search for God, despite knowing that it will fail, is a good in itself.

Playboy

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Interesting point. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the search for God, despite knowing that it will fail, is a good in itself.

Absolutely

lebogurl1988

God does exist then who made the sun earth and human it did not make it self so god does exist.

18AD

lebogurl1988 wrote:

God does exist then who made the sun earth and human it did not make it self so god does exist.

If someone or something did make it, you don't know what it was, means it's an unknown creator. Imposing ideas on it that make it more than an unknown creator seems illogical to me. Yet calling this unknown creator, God, is totally up to you.

Pocari Sweat

The Oxford an Cambridge Dictionaries have decided this year after much discussion that god does not exist.

Their entries for the year 2007, are going to conclude that god was a mis-spelling and the bible, regardless of its long run, does not have as much clarity and clear facts as a dictionary, so it is void because of its discrepancies, contradictions and lack of conclusion.

R0C0

There is a post on page 2 of this Debate, written by someone who goes by the name 'RealCar'. It completely shoots AmigoBoys 'theory' to pieces and you should all read it!!

Procrastinator

Pocari Sweat wrote:

The Oxford an Cambridge Dictionaries have decided this year after much discussion that god does not exist.

Their entries for the year 2007, are going to conclude that god was a mis-spelling and the bible, regardless of its long run, does not have as much clarity and clear facts as a dictionary, so it is void because of its discrepancies, contradictions and lack of conclusion.

I know i'm being a wally here but

The OED won't have an 2007 edition. It takes years, sometimes decades to compile an edition and to date, the've only ever compiled two of them. Three is underway as we speak and won't be ready for at least another 5 years.

The OED doesn't care about discrepencies or conclusions, only 5 quoted, that's written uses of a word to constitute a mention. Then it lists the word's best known etymology.

So theoretically, we could invent a word here, try to get it printed in 5 publications and then submit it to the OED for inclusion in the third edition. Actually, that might be quite cool. Could invent some kind of Boardism for inclusion.


Anyway, is there a God?
Yes...if that's what you believe.

Pocari Sweat

Sorry, it was Chambers, which is better than Oxford anyway.

Procrastinator

Pocari Sweat wrote:

Sorry, it was Chambers, which is better than Oxford anyway.

depends on what you mean by 'better'. Simpler, easier to use...yes.
Authoratitive...no

God...yes...If you wish to believe it
My chief problem with this stuff is the almost religious zeal with which ahtiests or agnostics, or rationali humanists or scientists prosecute their own anti-god arguments.
They argue vociferously against others' beliefs in God, as being naive and delusional, They are just as much the zealots as those who are spouting on about being saved, that you or i should be saved or warning us about hell etc.
Lived in the North for a while and almost every saturday there was some crackpot in town with a megaphone yelling on about sin and the devil

Sheesh...


about belief in God. I think belief serves a helpful and practical purpose with some people, and I think that's enough to support the idea of some sort of God in existence.
I'm not advocating god as a reason for political decisions though. Like the French, I feel that government should be secularised as much as possible.

And the actual existence of God is, i feel, directly linked to God's usefulness to individuals as a reassuring concept or as a means of ordering their lives according to rules and tenets that they don't have to compose themselves, or whatever.
Desire, need, self-helping fantasy, like our own selective memories, serves a healing or even a guilty purpose. psychologically, we'll believe whatever we need or desire to believe at a given time.
I believe myself, that this is the reaon for people to have moments of clarity or moments when God touched them...indissolubly linked with the needd for such things to 'turn' their lives or thoughts around.

Personally I Can't divorce psychology from pure theology. Phenomenology, I think at least, is an essential element in this debate.

And on that basis, on the basis of what's experienced by millions of people who are neither sick nor delusional, there must be a God.

Scigaithris

If you truly believe that God exists, then for you, God does exist.

Tar.Aldarion

What kind of statement is that?
Master of the obvious?


If you think you are right, then for you, you think you are right.

Playboy

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

What kind of statement is that?
Master of the obvious?


If you think you are right, then for you, you think you are right.

I think you are missing his point.