Proof that God exists? - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Aesik · 11-02-2003, 04:57 PM

While I have a solid faith that God exists, unless I physically see him I won't have any real 'proof'. Why? Because God and his existence are beyond our puny little minds' ability to understand fully.

tecoyah · 11-02-2003, 07:13 PM

The first question to ask would have to be , what defines individual reality. If someone has deep enough faith to create a god within the mind that SEEMS real to them....wouldnt that god become real?

The Geek · 11-02-2003, 09:13 PM

At this point, my feeling is that believing in god is about on par with believing in vampires or smurfs.

Astrocloud · 11-02-2003, 09:38 PM

I think that the problems with belief in God occur not when someone believes in Him/Her/It... but rather when they expect somebody else to.

There's an interesting little story by Carl Sagan which is a parable about God and believing.

Quote:

The Dragon In My Garage
by Carl Sagan

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"
Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle--but no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floates in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick."

And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.

The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility.

Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative-- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."

Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons--to say nothing about invisible ones--you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.

Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages--but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all.

Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such "evidence"--no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it--is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.

irateplatypus · 11-02-2003, 10:52 PM

knifemissle,

i think that when Christians say that they can't believe you question God's existence they mix up the principles of belief and proof. When i talk to Christians and atheists both, the conversation takes a turn for the ignorant when the 2 words are mixed.

I personally believe in God with very little internal doubt. I also believe he is the one described in the ancient Hebrew texts and the one proclaimed by Christ. Can I empirically prove his existence? not by any stretch of the imagination. But, I think, the use of proof seems irrelevant to faith anyway.

Astrocloud · 11-04-2003, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by irateplatypus
knifemissle,

But, I think, the use of proof seems irrelevant to faith anyway.

But the problems occur because I believe that as a tenet of your faith -you are supposed to convert others.

Matthew 28 "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you."

But your evidence for God is unconvincing... Many don't have faith and won't without proof.

KnifeMissile · 11-04-2003, 02:22 PM

But why do christians think I'm insane for not believing while there is no proof? Hell, I don't even need proof, just show me some evidence!

But there is none. Can't they understand my position?

lolita · 11-04-2003, 03:34 PM

to knife missile - we rely on faith notb proof or evidence thats what christianity is about a truth in our hearts we acnnot deny just as u cant deny feeling the emotions of love or hate - we cannot deny that god exists!!thank u

KnifeMissile · 11-04-2003, 04:52 PM

lolita, yeah, I understand that. What you don't seem to understand is this is the position of christians! A lot of them seem to think it's more than just blind faith. They seem to think there is tangible evidence. Why?!

happyraul · 11-05-2003, 05:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by irateplatypus
knifemissle,

i think that when Christians say that they can't believe you question God's existence they mix up the principles of belief and proof. When i talk to Christians and atheists both, the conversation takes a turn for the ignorant when the 2 words are mixed.

I personally believe in God with very little internal doubt. I also believe he is the one described in the ancient Hebrew texts and the one proclaimed by Christ. Can I empirically prove his existence? not by any stretch of the imagination. But, I think, the use of proof seems irrelevant to faith anyway.

does your belief mean that you know God exists? If so, then does that mean that faith or belief is a source of knowledge?

raeanna74 · 11-05-2003, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by KnifeMissle
lolita, yeah, I understand that. What you don't seem to understand is this is the position of christians! A lot of them seem to think it's more than just blind faith. They seem to think there is tangible evidence. Why?!

I was raised Christian. It's collective events and circumstances that support a Christians faith. Some become overzealous and expect everyone to see the things around them that suggest a supreme god. Those who call you insane do no good for the religion and they are misguided. It's a personal choice to believe in god or not. In any situation "Faith" is something that we know in our hearts and CANNOT be proven. If it was Proven then it would no longer be Faith but rather it would become Fact.

If you are asking for the events and circumstances that these people place their faith in here are a few. Revelation can be interpreted in such a way that some recent past history matches up with it. The order and balance in the natural world can be interpreted as being a result of divine planning. Historians from ancient times tend to collaborate the Bible record at least in certain world events. The locations for the people and places and even destruction of some places mentioned in the Bible have been followed by some archeologists and found to be accurate. Certain personal events in their lives will often collaborate their faith - such as a person missing their apt and then finding out that there was s serious accident in the intersection they would have passed through had they been on time. They credit the circumstance to divine intervention preventing them from being involved.

I hope this was what you were looking for.

Tman144 · 11-05-2003, 01:56 PM

My proof of God's non-existience is that every religion that believes in a God is localized. If God spoke through a burning bush in one area, why didn't he do it in other reigions? Why did he tell the native-americans he was a bear or a fox? If any religion got it "right", then shouldn't there be another religion that has exactly the same story? But only across the globe somewhere? Therefore, if our idea of God comes from these completly different religions it can be assumed that each of them simply made it up.

tecoyah · 11-05-2003, 08:34 PM

I was also raised in organized religion and found thru the years that some aspects were helpful in my life. I guess this is the essence of outgrowing something for I now realize I was in need of the faith because I had none in myself. As I came to understand the basic flaw in the church I was compelled to leave behind the dogma. What is the flaw? Isolation from the rest of the world. I have been able to gather much more insight into spirituality, now that I dont think everyone who thinks differently is wrong. I dont think any of the god symbols are wrong if they give people the crutch they require to function in society.

raeanna74 · 11-06-2003, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tman144
My proof of God's non-existience is that every religion that believes in a God is localized. If God spoke through a burning bush in one area, why didn't he do it in other reigions? Why did he tell the native-americans he was a bear or a fox? If any religion got it "right", then shouldn't there be another religion that has exactly the same story? But only across the globe somewhere? Therefore, if our idea of God comes from these completly different religions it can be assumed that each of them simply made it up.

Just a thought. Most religions including some Native American foldlore - somewhere in their stories tell of a larger or major flood such as the one mentioned in the book of Genesis. In primitive times it would have been immpossible to know that the flood wasn't just a major one and not world-wide.

Eldaire · 11-12-2003, 06:49 PM

Nope, for to give proof would deny purpose.

Mantus · 11-12-2003, 10:57 PM

Anyone can say they believe something. People were absolutely sure the world was flat. Shamans danced every morning to make the Sun rise. Men eat tiger testicles to make their libido stronger. Astronomers though that all planetary orbits were perfect circles for they believed that god would only create the heavens out of perfect circular trajectories. Thieves sprinkled powdered human bone around houses they were robbing so the ones inside would sleep like the dead. Sailors were afraid that the horizon was the edge of the world. The example can go on for several thick volumes. The point is that in every case the people “believed”. Yet they were wrong.

Now some may say “but God hasn’t been disproven”. Well frankly, so hasn’t the bogeyman. If we are to look at one hint that god is a human creation, then we must look for the time he was created and I assure you there was such a moment. Tribal cultures never believed in god. In Asia people still do not believe in “the god”.

Then there is the obvious argument that the tribal cultures were not developed enough to understand god. And that the Asian cultures knew of god but interpreted him in a different way.

Both of these arguments have the obvious flaw. IF the only proof of god that you people have is the fact that you “feel” his existence. Then even the most primitive culture should be able to “feel” the same way. For our feelings were around long before our advanced intellects were sharpened by modern society. Infact these tribal people should have been the very first people to “feel” god because they were not inhibited by todays advanced logical thinking that makes so many question the existance of god. Also if all knowledge and understanding of god comes from the “heart” then the Asian and many other cultures which do not practice monotheism should not exist. For surely they would know in their “hearts” that there is only the one and all powerful god, because the knowledge of god does not come from the senses nor the intellect but from the source itself.

Torinn · 11-13-2003, 12:16 AM

I think my Cultural Anthropology Professor put it best in covering evolution. Religion is strictly a matter of the supernatural. Being that it is SUPERnatural, nothing natural (in this case, human science) can ever deal with it. Now that I've covered that, I would like to cover this

Quote:

Originally posted by Mantus
Both of these arguments have the obvious flaw. IF the only proof of god that you people have is the fact that you “feel” his existence. Then even the most primitive culture should be able to “feel” the same way. For our feelings were around long before our advanced intellects were sharpened by modern society. Infact these tribal people should have been the very first people to “feel” god because they were not inhibited by todays advanced logical thinking that makes so many question the existance of god. Also if all knowledge and understanding of god comes from the “heart” then the Asian and many other cultures which do not practice monotheism should not exist. For surely they would know in their “hearts” that there is only the one and all powerful god, because the knowledge of god does not come from the senses nor the intellect but from the source itself.

You say that eaveryone should be able to “feel” (god) the same way.... I am unclear why you think they should all feel god THE SAME WAY. Whether one is monotheist or polytheist, the fact remains that they are looking at the world and saying "something must have created this!" Perhaps that is the common trait shared across the world and it's cultures. Now, I am aware that there are some groups of "primitive" people who don't have any concept or belief in god/gods, but the truth is that the belief in deities and the supernatural is a uniting human cultural trait that different groups of people all came up with on their own. As a person of faith, I personally feel that when people look around the world and come up with gods, they are "feeling" the supernatural and choosing different ways to understand it. Just because people can't accurately understand it, or agree on the conditions doesn't mean that an All-Powerful doesn't exist. But, again, no human can or will ever be able to prove the Supernatural.... but now you have my two cents.

Mantus · 11-13-2003, 10:42 AM

I will try to be clearer up my thoughts on this.

As every one admits there is no rational explanation or proof of god’s existence. The only proof given is a feeling.

This “feeling” does not have a corporal or a rational origin. It is simply there. Therefore this feeling comes before understanding. When some one says they “feel” that god exists then they are saying that their knowledge was obtained from another source. In this case a god. For if the knowledge was obtained from a corporal source then we would be able to share it with others. Therefore this knowledge came from an incorporeal source (outside our senses). If this knowledge did come from an external source then it cannot be corrupted by our senses nor our consciousness. Since the knowledge is simply THERE. So you cannot say that people would interpret god differently in this case. For interpretation would mean that they obtain the concept of god from their senses. Every person who believes in god says that they never used their senses or their rational mind to obtain the knowledge of god. Those that have attempted to obtain the knowledge of god thought their senses have all failed.

To give an example: if some one believes “…in God with very little internal doubt.” and “…also [believes] he is the one described in the ancient Hebrew texts and the one proclaimed by Christ.” Then their source of knowledge must come from the god himself. For they have no rational proof of their beliefs. The person has some very profound and intimate knowledge about the god they believe in. Yet if they came upon this knowledge by way of god, then why didn’t every other culture come upon this same knowledge? There is nothing to misinterpret for the knowledge is supposed to be pure and come from the source itself. If the person, whose quote I used was truly right about god then why doesn’t every other person on the planet have the same knowledge?

The argument that there can be different interpretations of a higher being is flawed. Interpretation of knowledge requires rational though. Which means that if a person obtains a “feeling” and then rationalizes that this feeling comes from god, then there must be rational trail to the conclusion. We would be able to trace his line of thought. Yet we can’t.

There are two possible conclusions to how we obtain the knowledge of a divine being; those are: a) god gives us all basic knowledge of him or b) we simply feel something and then interpret that feeling as the existence of god.

Both cases don’t work. For if a god gave us pure knowledge then all people should see god the same way. Yet we don’t. On the other hand if we simply interpret a “feeling” as god, then we being the imaginative creatures that we are, have simply created the idea of god to interpret the “feeling”.

Since the knowledge of a god from an external source is a flawed concept then that only leave us with the idea that we created god to interpret things we don’t understand in this world. This comes at no surprise since the concept of god is very human and stems from our own nature. We are a selfish animal and feel very comfortable with the idea of a human being (or a being amicable to us) controlling the universe and our own fate. We accept this concept with ease for our most primal instinct (of proliferation) approves highly of this idea, since it ensures immortality, and that is all our gene’s want from us.

note: i am still learning to express myself in an understandable fashion. If any one has any tips (link to websites or books) on improving my comunication/writing skills please dont be shy and send me an e-mail to : guerrilla_poet@hotmail.com

Cheers

Nazggul · 11-13-2003, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by filtherton
...I don't care what you believe, just don't pretend that you have any definative answers, because everything is based on faith.

Somewhat agree, but it isn't faith so much as it is understanding our limits.

Science progresses while religion and Faith decay. There will always be limits to our understanding. You will always find people who will argue that what is beyond that limit is God, or some construct that they "believe" in. That is a cop out. Accept the fact that we have limits. Explore those limits and learn. But do not preach to me about what is beyond those limits when you have no better knowledge than I. The Prime Mover theory is an example.

meembo · 11-13-2003, 12:16 PM

From what I observe, most people (but not all) ultimately want to relate to God as a creator, of themselves primarily, and of everthing else secondarily. "Proof" just seems to me to be a self-serving confirmation of that belief or disbelief, whatever the case may be.

I'm convinced that any self-described thinker/philosopher can only relate to God via a leap of faith, leaving behind proof.

tecoyah · 11-13-2003, 06:16 PM

Science at least, freely admits it will likely be proven wrong at some point in the future....thus the term "Theory". Most religions could never admit such a thing....it would destroy itself without faith.

meembo · 11-13-2003, 07:29 PM

even the phrase "proven wrong" implies and assumes quite a lot about what it "true" and "real"

Religions destroy themselves over and over. Christianity is one of thousands of historical religions, and despite the death of almost all religions, more replace them all the time. What is the impetus for that?

filtherton · 11-14-2003, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tecoyah
Science at least, freely admits it will likely be proven wrong at some point in the future....thus the term "Theory". Most religions could never admit such a thing....it would destroy itself without faith.

Is it more or less rational to put all your faith in something that, from the outset, admits that it is most likely wrong(science), or something that promises divine truth, and really can't be proven wrong(religion)?

All of you who bring up the ideas that the world was once thought to be flat and the sun was once thought to orbit the earth fail to mention that science was responsible for those theories. Science eventually corrected itself, but i think you need to examine that before you place science above spirituality because science is less faith based. How many of you have actually seen an atom with your own eyes? How many of you have actually personally verified the speed of light? What do you do, just take the word of science as gospel? Sounds like an act of faith to me.

Nazggul · 11-14-2003, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by filtherton
Is it more or less rational to put all your faith in something that, from the outset, admits that it is most likely wrong(science), or something that promises divine truth, and really can't be proven wrong(religion)?

All of you who bring up the ideas that the world was once thought to be flat and the sun was once thought to orbit the earth fail to mention that science was responsible for those theories. Science eventually corrected itself, but i think you need to examine that before you place science above spirituality because science is less faith based. How many of you have actually seen an atom with your own eyes? How many of you have actually personally verified the speed of light? What do you do, just take the word of science as gospel? Sounds like an act of faith to me.

I trust in science because it questions itself and seeks to disprove itself. Without that approach it scientific advance would remain at a stand still...much like religion which refuses to question itself or seek answers.

I do not need to see an atom itself if I can see quantifiable tests that demonstrate it is real. I also see the results. Hiroshima, Nagasaki, the electricity lighting your home, etc.

Mantus · 11-14-2003, 11:54 AM

[edit] In response to filtherton

It should be noted that religion also “corrects” itself, much like science. It has evolved quite a bit over the years. We went a long way from believing in ancestral spirits and magic to monotheism that incorporates social and philosophical values.

As I have shown in my previous post religion doesn’t provide any answers whatsoever.

Mantus · 11-14-2003, 01:33 PM

In the posts above have shown that direct knowledge of god from the source of the divine being itself has never occurred on this planet. I also displayed that knowledge of god though interpretation cannot result in the truth about god.

I now realized that there is a third way to obtaining the knowledge of god that so many people use to justify their beliefs. The third way of obtaining knowledge of god is that of affirmation. Many people say that the have a feeling of corectness about the scripture they believe in. As if god is telling them that they are on the right path.

This is actually another side of the “feeling of god” confirmation to god’s existence that people like to use. The difference is that in this case the knowledge is obtained first which is then confirmed by the “feeling”. So the same argument that was used to disprove the “feeling followed by knowledge” case can be used.

If this “feeling” is to be taken as a direct sign from god that one’s beliefs are in fact valid, then why is there such a colorful variety of different beliefs though out the world? Some of them are even contradicting of one another. If god personally came and put a stamp of approval on just one belief, then obviously we would only have one belief in the world. Surely if there was only one true religion then all other religions would die out because their worshipers would not have that same “feeling” of truthfulness that god gives the worshipers of the true religion. Yet we don’t, people all over the world follow different religions. Even within the popular religions there is differences of opinion and practice. So this “feeling” could not have originated from god.

The feeling of justification that people get about their beliefs has some rather obvious sources.

The first source is social. Humans enjoy the company of others and enjoy acceptance for we are a pack animal. There fore just as our instincts enjoy and accept the idea of eternal life, our instincts also encourage us to gravitate towards social groups for there is strength in numbers and a higher opportunity to finding a mate. Therefore the more people belong to a certain religion, the more it appeals to humanity.

The second (and in my opinion) more important source of a human’s contempt with religion is its philosophical, social and moral values. These values are not unique to any one religion. Our moral and social values have existed long before organized religion. The reason that religions differ so much is because each one chooses to focus on just a small portion of the moral, social and philosophical dilemma. Each religion has a certain selective set of standards that, if attained would in turn solve all the other human dilemmas. Or so the author[s] believes. The very thing that makes them so appealing at first (their attempt to simplify humanity) is also their eventual downfall for their practitioners begin to see the holes in their scriptures.

With that I believe that I have successfully refuted both sides of the “feeling” and “knowledge of god from god” arguments that people use as proof of their understanding of god[s] and to justify their religions.

Cheers

tecoyah · 11-14-2003, 03:13 PM

Well done, this will be a never ending debate...simply because you cannot refute a feeling, It is real. It is important to note that it is a "feeling"though.proof of god is not forthcoming, because it CANNOT exist, except in a human mind.

meembo · 11-14-2003, 03:47 PM

For me, faith and reason were explained pretty well by a philosopher named Soren Kierkegaard. There are many places to read about him and his work, but a famous piece of his was called "Fear and Tremblng". Here's a link to get one started with Kierkegarrd and the leap of faith he talks about.
_____________

"Kierkegaard's point is that no matter how rigorous your logical system, there will always be gaps. As these gaps are logical gaps, it is futile to try and bridge them. Instead, they can only be breached by a leap of faith. What characterises a leap of faith is the absolute uncertainty that underlies it. Faith is by definition that which cannot be proven or disproved. That is why a leap of faith is undertaken in 'fear and trembling".

"In moral terms, that meant, for Kierkegaard at least, embracing the religious life. This was Kierkegaard's third sphere of existence. The first was what he called the aesthetic, which was a life dedicated to the instant, perhaps best summed up in the phrase carpe diem - 'seize the day'. The second was the ethical, where one tries to live in accordance with eternal values. For Kierkegaard, both are incomplete, in terms of rationality and of satisfying human needs. But, as we have seen, these gaps cannot be closed through a rational synthesis. Only Christianity, which paradoxically combined the temporal and the infinite in the God-man Jesus Christ, bridges this gap. But embracing Christianity requires leaving rationality behind and taking a bold leap of faith."

Mantus · 11-14-2003, 04:58 PM

tecoyah

I must be really bad at explaining things. I have refuted the “feeling”.

You say: “Proof of god is not forthcoming”. Then you contradict yourself by saying that it is in the human mind. So the concept of god is there, otherwise we would not be talking about it. So the question is, where did it come from?

You say a “feeling” put it there. Okay, and I say that this feeling means nothing and I offer my arguments (see above).

Meembo

I loved that. Will defiantly read some Kierkegaard tonight. Its really to bad that he coped out by throwing god in there. Much like Descartes did. One really has to wonder whether those are his actual thoughts or weather the strict social standard set by the Church forced him to add god in there.

Kierkegaard really seems like a skeptic with lines like: “What characterizes a leap of faith is the absolute uncertainty that underlies it”. Then decided to bring forth god, who is characterized as a certainty. Which seems to be a contradiction to everything he said before as the concept of god is just as uncertain as anything else. But of course I am judging a book by its cover.

Paeder · 11-14-2003, 05:14 PM

Christians that accuse others of being "insane and delusional" for simply not seeing on the same plane as them spiritualy are contradicting many of the beliefs and creeds that Chirstianity embraces. Faith is a blend of that which cannot be explained and that which can.

taliendo · 11-17-2003, 09:12 PM

I read through this a couple of days ago, and declined to add my opinion (especially since its very hard to express my 'proof' of God's existence,) but the more I think about it -- what makes you think that God doesn't exist?

We live in an amazing place. Even disregarding the universe or even the planet and looking at the human body. We have come so far (from living in caves and throwing our feces at one another) to a structured and somewhat 'free' society. Also we have been given the gift of conceptual thought - we as a people have the ability to experience beauty, love, hate, envy, wonderment. Where do those things come from if not from your spirit? Don't you feel and underlying connection with every human being that you meet on the street, not to mention the special connections that we experience in family, friends and lovers?

I'm not saying that this constitutes irrefutable proof of the existence of God, but doesn't it beg the reasoning that something greater than ourselves exists somewhere, holding this rolling ball of rock together? I guess that I just refuse to accept that life was created by a great chain of wonderful coincidence.

just a thought. . .

The.Lunatic · 11-18-2003, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by KnifeMissle
Unlike mathematics, life is not a formal system. As such, you cannot prove anything but that doesn't mean people don't think they have proof. Obviously, out here in the real world, the burden of proof is not as strict as it is in math. What constitutes proof ends up being an opinion.

I didn't realize I was starting a symantic argument...

it is so. There is proof of gods existence all around us. Give me any reason you can concieve that god doesn't exist, and i will give you a much better reason why he does. Not because i'm smarter than you, but because my argument has infinite amounts of examples.

saltfish · 11-18-2003, 08:27 PM

Something funny from a discussion at the coffee house:

If I tell a group of christians that I had a personal conversation with christ, I am applauded.

If I tell a group of christians (or most anyone else for that matter) that I had a personal conversation with Umbeke my wolf-like spirit guide, I am obviously deemed crazy.

-SF

nanofever · 11-18-2003, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Paeder
Christians that accuse others of being "insane and delusional" for simply not seeing on the same plane as them spiritualy are contradicting many of the beliefs and creeds that Chirstianity embraces. Faith is a blend of that which cannot be explained and that which can.

Which part of Faith can be explained ?

I'm serious, I would really like to know.

KnifeMissile · 11-19-2003, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tecoyah
Well done, this will be a never ending debate...simply because you cannot refute a feeling, It is real. It is important to note that it is a "feeling"though.proof of god is not forthcoming, because it CANNOT exist, except in a human mind.

As the one who started this thread, I must say that it most certainly hasn't gone where I intended it to. For instance, I never meant it to be a debate on whether He exists or not.

Once again, the question I am asking is why so many christians don't understand my skepticism. Religion is about faith, not proof, so how can they not understand that I'm unconvinced just because they told me so?

Carl Sagan said it well when he wrote about the the dragon in his garage, which Astrocloud posted earlier. Thank you, it was very good!

Sledge · 11-19-2003, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The.Lunatic
it is so. There is proof of gods existence all around us. Give me any reason you can concieve that god doesn't exist, and i will give you a much better reason why he does. Not because i'm smarter than you, but because my argument has infinite amounts of examples.

Please name some.

datalink7 · 11-20-2003, 01:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The.Lunatic
it is so. There is proof of gods existence all around us. Give me any reason you can concieve that god doesn't exist, and i will give you a much better reason why he does. Not because i'm smarter than you, but because my argument has infinite amounts of examples.

I am an Atheist not because there is an abundant ammount of reasons for God not to exist, but because I see no reasons to believe that God does exist, or no proof of God's existence at all.

Someguy280 · 11-20-2003, 01:55 PM

The thing wrong with the world these days, is that people just can't seem to fathom the accepting of others ideas. Just let people believe what they want, once a person is set on an idea it's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to pry them from that idea. It's the fault of the fundamentalists I tell you. ::sigh::

CSflim · 11-20-2003, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Someguy280
It's the fault of the fundamentalists I tell you. ::sigh::

You're probably right on this account. I would probably be much more tollerant towards religious beliefs if it were not for the damage that they have inflicted upon the world by extremists.

I'm not saying it would in any way change my beliefs, but perhaps I wouldn't despise religion to the extend that I do.

And anyone who makes the claim that religion has not caused damage to this world really needs to open his/her eyes.

Mael · 11-20-2003, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mantus
It should be noted that religion also “corrects” itself, much like science. It has evolved quite a bit over the years. We went a long way from believing in ancestral spirits and magic to monotheism that incorporates social and philosophical values.

how is this "correcting" itself? it's not. religions may evolve, but they don't correct themselves, they can't. since there is no proof one way or the other about god, if a religion modifies it's beleifs, it's actually becoming another religion. if christianity right now said, "well, turns out we were wrong about john chapter 3 verse 16, we translated it wrong" that would be correcting itself. saying that there is one god, and no animal spirit ancestors is just a change in belief structure.

/i'm not sure if this actually adds anything to the thread. <sigh>

11-02-2003, 07:13 PM	#42 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	The first question to ask would have to be , what defines individual reality. If someone has deep enough faith to create a god within the mind that SEEMS real to them....wouldnt that god become real? __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

11-02-2003, 10:52 PM	#45 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	knifemissle, i think that when Christians say that they can't believe you question God's existence they mix up the principles of belief and proof. When i talk to Christians and atheists both, the conversation takes a turn for the ignorant when the 2 words are mixed. I personally believe in God with very little internal doubt. I also believe he is the one described in the ancient Hebrew texts and the one proclaimed by Christ. Can I empirically prove his existence? not by any stretch of the imagination. But, I think, the use of proof seems irrelevant to faith anyway. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

11-05-2003, 01:56 PM	#52 (permalink)
Tman144 Tilted	My proof of God's non-existience is that every religion that believes in a God is localized. If God spoke through a burning bush in one area, why didn't he do it in other reigions? Why did he tell the native-americans he was a bear or a fox? If any religion got it "right", then shouldn't there be another religion that has exactly the same story? But only across the globe somewhere? Therefore, if our idea of God comes from these completly different religions it can be assumed that each of them simply made it up. __________________ "Don't touch my belt, you Jesus freak!" -Mr. Gruff the Atheist Goat

11-05-2003, 08:34 PM	#53 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	I was also raised in organized religion and found thru the years that some aspects were helpful in my life. I guess this is the essence of outgrowing something for I now realize I was in need of the faith because I had none in myself. As I came to understand the basic flaw in the church I was compelled to leave behind the dogma. What is the flaw? Isolation from the rest of the world. I have been able to gather much more insight into spirituality, now that I dont think everyone who thinks differently is wrong. I dont think any of the god symbols are wrong if they give people the crutch they require to function in society. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

11-12-2003, 10:57 PM	#56 (permalink)
Mantus lascivious	Anyone can say they believe something. Anyone can say they believe something. People were absolutely sure the world was flat. Shamans danced every morning to make the Sun rise. Men eat tiger testicles to make their libido stronger. Astronomers though that all planetary orbits were perfect circles for they believed that god would only create the heavens out of perfect circular trajectories. Thieves sprinkled powdered human bone around houses they were robbing so the ones inside would sleep like the dead. Sailors were afraid that the horizon was the edge of the world. The example can go on for several thick volumes. The point is that in every case the people “believed”. Yet they were wrong. Now some may say “but God hasn’t been disproven”. Well frankly, so hasn’t the bogeyman. If we are to look at one hint that god is a human creation, then we must look for the time he was created and I assure you there was such a moment. Tribal cultures never believed in god. In Asia people still do not believe in “the god”. Then there is the obvious argument that the tribal cultures were not developed enough to understand god. And that the Asian cultures knew of god but interpreted him in a different way. Both of these arguments have the obvious flaw. IF the only proof of god that you people have is the fact that you “feel” his existence. Then even the most primitive culture should be able to “feel” the same way. For our feelings were around long before our advanced intellects were sharpened by modern society. Infact these tribal people should have been the very first people to “feel” god because they were not inhibited by todays advanced logical thinking that makes so many question the existance of god. Also if all knowledge and understanding of god comes from the “heart” then the Asian and many other cultures which do not practice monotheism should not exist. For surely they would know in their “hearts” that there is only the one and all powerful god, because the knowledge of god does not come from the senses nor the intellect but from the source itself. Last edited by Mantus; 11-12-2003 at 10:59 PM..

11-02-2003, 04:57 PM	#41 (permalink)
Aesik Tilted	While I have a solid faith that God exists, unless I physically see him I won't have any real 'proof'. Why? Because God and his existence are beyond our puny little minds' ability to understand fully.

11-02-2003, 09:13 PM	#43 (permalink)
The Geek Upright	At this point, my feeling is that believing in god is about on par with believing in vampires or smurfs.

11-04-2003, 02:22 PM	#47 (permalink)
KnifeMissile Location: Waterloo, Ontario	But why do christians think I'm insane for not believing while there is no proof? Hell, I don't even need proof, just show me some evidence! But there is none. Can't they understand my position?

11-04-2003, 03:34 PM	#48 (permalink)
lolita Upright	to knife missile - we rely on faith notb proof or evidence thats what christianity is about a truth in our hearts we acnnot deny just as u cant deny feeling the emotions of love or hate - we cannot deny that god exists!!thank u

11-04-2003, 04:52 PM	#49 (permalink)
KnifeMissile Location: Waterloo, Ontario	lolita, yeah, I understand that. What you don't seem to understand is this is the position of christians! A lot of them seem to think it's more than just blind faith. They seem to think there is tangible evidence. Why?!

11-12-2003, 06:49 PM	#55 (permalink)
Eldaire Loser Location: Davidson College, NC	Nope, for to give proof would deny purpose.

11-13-2003, 10:42 AM	#58 (permalink)
Mantus lascivious	I will try to be clearer on this. I will try to be clearer up my thoughts on this. As every one admits there is no rational explanation or proof of god’s existence. The only proof given is a feeling. This “feeling” does not have a corporal or a rational origin. It is simply there. Therefore this feeling comes before understanding. When some one says they “feel” that god exists then they are saying that their knowledge was obtained from another source. In this case a god. For if the knowledge was obtained from a corporal source then we would be able to share it with others. Therefore this knowledge came from an incorporeal source (outside our senses). If this knowledge did come from an external source then it cannot be corrupted by our senses nor our consciousness. Since the knowledge is simply THERE. So you cannot say that people would interpret god differently in this case. For interpretation would mean that they obtain the concept of god from their senses. Every person who believes in god says that they never used their senses or their rational mind to obtain the knowledge of god. Those that have attempted to obtain the knowledge of god thought their senses have all failed. To give an example: if some one believes “…in God with very little internal doubt.” and “…also [believes] he is the one described in the ancient Hebrew texts and the one proclaimed by Christ.” Then their source of knowledge must come from the god himself. For they have no rational proof of their beliefs. The person has some very profound and intimate knowledge about the god they believe in. Yet if they came upon this knowledge by way of god, then why didn’t every other culture come upon this same knowledge? There is nothing to misinterpret for the knowledge is supposed to be pure and come from the source itself. If the person, whose quote I used was truly right about god then why doesn’t every other person on the planet have the same knowledge? The argument that there can be different interpretations of a higher being is flawed. Interpretation of knowledge requires rational though. Which means that if a person obtains a “feeling” and then rationalizes that this feeling comes from god, then there must be rational trail to the conclusion. We would be able to trace his line of thought. Yet we can’t. There are two possible conclusions to how we obtain the knowledge of a divine being; those are: a) god gives us all basic knowledge of him or b) we simply feel something and then interpret that feeling as the existence of god. Both cases don’t work. For if a god gave us pure knowledge then all people should see god the same way. Yet we don’t. On the other hand if we simply interpret a “feeling” as god, then we being the imaginative creatures that we are, have simply created the idea of god to interpret the “feeling”. Since the knowledge of a god from an external source is a flawed concept then that only leave us with the idea that we created god to interpret things we don’t understand in this world. This comes at no surprise since the concept of god is very human and stems from our own nature. We are a selfish animal and feel very comfortable with the idea of a human being (or a being amicable to us) controlling the universe and our own fate. We accept this concept with ease for our most primal instinct (of proliferation) approves highly of this idea, since it ensures immortality, and that is all our gene’s want from us. note: i am still learning to express myself in an understandable fashion. If any one has any tips (link to websites or books) on improving my comunication/writing skills please dont be shy and send me an e-mail to : guerrilla_poet@hotmail.com Cheers Last edited by Mantus; 11-13-2003 at 10:45 AM..

11-13-2003, 12:16 PM	#60 (permalink)
meembo Junkie Location: Connecticut	From what I observe, most people (but not all) ultimately want to relate to God as a creator, of themselves primarily, and of everthing else secondarily. "Proof" just seems to me to be a self-serving confirmation of that belief or disbelief, whatever the case may be. I'm convinced that any self-described thinker/philosopher can only relate to God via a leap of faith, leaving behind proof. __________________ less I say, smarter I am

11-13-2003, 06:16 PM	#61 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	Science at least, freely admits it will likely be proven wrong at some point in the future....thus the term "Theory". Most religions could never admit such a thing....it would destroy itself without faith. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

11-13-2003, 07:29 PM	#62 (permalink)
meembo Junkie Location: Connecticut	even the phrase "proven wrong" implies and assumes quite a lot about what it "true" and "real" Religions destroy themselves over and over. Christianity is one of thousands of historical religions, and despite the death of almost all religions, more replace them all the time. What is the impetus for that? __________________ less I say, smarter I am

11-14-2003, 11:54 AM	#65 (permalink)
Mantus lascivious	[edit] In response to filtherton It should be noted that religion also “corrects” itself, much like science. It has evolved quite a bit over the years. We went a long way from believing in ancestral spirits and magic to monotheism that incorporates social and philosophical values. As I have shown in my previous post religion doesn’t provide any answers whatsoever. Last edited by Mantus; 11-25-2003 at 01:19 PM..

11-14-2003, 01:33 PM	#66 (permalink)
Mantus lascivious	There is another argument that I would like to add to what I have already posted. In the posts above have shown that direct knowledge of god from the source of the divine being itself has never occurred on this planet. I also displayed that knowledge of god though interpretation cannot result in the truth about god. I now realized that there is a third way to obtaining the knowledge of god that so many people use to justify their beliefs. The third way of obtaining knowledge of god is that of affirmation. Many people say that the have a feeling of corectness about the scripture they believe in. As if god is telling them that they are on the right path. This is actually another side of the “feeling of god” confirmation to god’s existence that people like to use. The difference is that in this case the knowledge is obtained first which is then confirmed by the “feeling”. So the same argument that was used to disprove the “feeling followed by knowledge” case can be used. If this “feeling” is to be taken as a direct sign from god that one’s beliefs are in fact valid, then why is there such a colorful variety of different beliefs though out the world? Some of them are even contradicting of one another. If god personally came and put a stamp of approval on just one belief, then obviously we would only have one belief in the world. Surely if there was only one true religion then all other religions would die out because their worshipers would not have that same “feeling” of truthfulness that god gives the worshipers of the true religion. Yet we don’t, people all over the world follow different religions. Even within the popular religions there is differences of opinion and practice. So this “feeling” could not have originated from god. The feeling of justification that people get about their beliefs has some rather obvious sources. The first source is social. Humans enjoy the company of others and enjoy acceptance for we are a pack animal. There fore just as our instincts enjoy and accept the idea of eternal life, our instincts also encourage us to gravitate towards social groups for there is strength in numbers and a higher opportunity to finding a mate. Therefore the more people belong to a certain religion, the more it appeals to humanity. The second (and in my opinion) more important source of a human’s contempt with religion is its philosophical, social and moral values. These values are not unique to any one religion. Our moral and social values have existed long before organized religion. The reason that religions differ so much is because each one chooses to focus on just a small portion of the moral, social and philosophical dilemma. Each religion has a certain selective set of standards that, if attained would in turn solve all the other human dilemmas. Or so the author[s] believes. The very thing that makes them so appealing at first (their attempt to simplify humanity) is also their eventual downfall for their practitioners begin to see the holes in their scriptures. With that I believe that I have successfully refuted both sides of the “feeling” and “knowledge of god from god” arguments that people use as proof of their understanding of god[s] and to justify their religions. Cheers Last edited by Mantus; 11-14-2003 at 01:41 PM..

11-14-2003, 03:13 PM	#67 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	Well done, this will be a never ending debate...simply because you cannot refute a feeling, It is real. It is important to note that it is a "feeling"though.proof of god is not forthcoming, because it CANNOT exist, except in a human mind. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

11-14-2003, 03:47 PM	#68 (permalink)
meembo Junkie Location: Connecticut	For me, faith and reason were explained pretty well by a philosopher named Soren Kierkegaard. There are many places to read about him and his work, but a famous piece of his was called "Fear and Tremblng". Here's a link to get one started with Kierkegarrd and the leap of faith he talks about. _____________ "Kierkegaard's point is that no matter how rigorous your logical system, there will always be gaps. As these gaps are logical gaps, it is futile to try and bridge them. Instead, they can only be breached by a leap of faith. What characterises a leap of faith is the absolute uncertainty that underlies it. Faith is by definition that which cannot be proven or disproved. That is why a leap of faith is undertaken in 'fear and trembling". "In moral terms, that meant, for Kierkegaard at least, embracing the religious life. This was Kierkegaard's third sphere of existence. The first was what he called the aesthetic, which was a life dedicated to the instant, perhaps best summed up in the phrase carpe diem - 'seize the day'. The second was the ethical, where one tries to live in accordance with eternal values. For Kierkegaard, both are incomplete, in terms of rationality and of satisfying human needs. But, as we have seen, these gaps cannot be closed through a rational synthesis. Only Christianity, which paradoxically combined the temporal and the infinite in the God-man Jesus Christ, bridges this gap. But embracing Christianity requires leaving rationality behind and taking a bold leap of faith." __________________ less I say, smarter I am

11-14-2003, 04:58 PM	#69 (permalink)
Mantus lascivious	tecoyah I must be really bad at explaining things. I have refuted the “feeling”. You say: “Proof of god is not forthcoming”. Then you contradict yourself by saying that it is in the human mind. So the concept of god is there, otherwise we would not be talking about it. So the question is, where did it come from? You say a “feeling” put it there. Okay, and I say that this feeling means nothing and I offer my arguments (see above). Meembo I loved that. Will defiantly read some Kierkegaard tonight. Its really to bad that he coped out by throwing god in there. Much like Descartes did. One really has to wonder whether those are his actual thoughts or weather the strict social standard set by the Church forced him to add god in there. Kierkegaard really seems like a skeptic with lines like: “What characterizes a leap of faith is the absolute uncertainty that underlies it”. Then decided to bring forth god, who is characterized as a certainty. Which seems to be a contradiction to everything he said before as the concept of god is just as uncertain as anything else. But of course I am judging a book by its cover.

11-14-2003, 05:14 PM	#70 (permalink)
Paeder Upright Location: Hell???	Christians that accuse others of being "insane and delusional" for simply not seeing on the same plane as them spiritualy are contradicting many of the beliefs and creeds that Chirstianity embraces. Faith is a blend of that which cannot be explained and that which can. __________________ "If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away."----Henry David Thoreau

11-17-2003, 09:12 PM	#71 (permalink)
taliendo Insane Location: an indelible crawl through the gutters	I read through this a couple of days ago, and declined to add my opinion (especially since its very hard to express my 'proof' of God's existence,) but the more I think about it -- what makes you think that God doesn't exist? We live in an amazing place. Even disregarding the universe or even the planet and looking at the human body. We have come so far (from living in caves and throwing our feces at one another) to a structured and somewhat 'free' society. Also we have been given the gift of conceptual thought - we as a people have the ability to experience beauty, love, hate, envy, wonderment. Where do those things come from if not from your spirit? Don't you feel and underlying connection with every human being that you meet on the street, not to mention the special connections that we experience in family, friends and lovers? I'm not saying that this constitutes irrefutable proof of the existence of God, but doesn't it beg the reasoning that something greater than ourselves exists somewhere, holding this rolling ball of rock together? I guess that I just refuse to accept that life was created by a great chain of wonderful coincidence. just a thought. . . __________________ -LIFE IS ABSURD- Last edited by taliendo; 11-17-2003 at 09:15 PM..

11-18-2003, 08:27 PM	#73 (permalink)
saltfish !?!No hay pantalones!?! Location: Indian-no-place	Something funny from a discussion at the coffee house: If I tell a group of christians that I had a personal conversation with christ, I am applauded. If I tell a group of christians (or most anyone else for that matter) that I had a personal conversation with Umbeke my wolf-like spirit guide, I am obviously deemed crazy. -SF

11-20-2003, 01:55 PM	#78 (permalink)
Someguy280 Upright Location: Miami Florida	The thing wrong with the world these days, is that people just can't seem to fathom the accepting of others ideas. Just let people believe what they want, once a person is set on an idea it's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to pry them from that idea. It's the fault of the fundamentalists I tell you. ::sigh::