Does God exist?

[Elizabeth]

hey Now.....I watched the A&E Special (an old rerun).
"Chariots Of The Gods" <---------That has to be the answer to all our questions!
 

Love,
Liz

[Elizabeth]

Hey GB....
Question for you......
Do you hold science in any regard??
Or do you believe that mankind is just sort of stumbling along without a clue?
Just asking...

Love,
Liz

[Lostforkate]

I really like the questions Fish brings up, and as a "God" person, I do not find his post offensive, but I thought provoking.

I alos like GBs posts too, and I think you two should call a truce. IJS

[Elizabeth]

BY THE WAY "BOYS"......."Heads up here it comes".
WHO SAID GOD WAS A MALE?....YOU HAVE NO PROOF OF SUCH.
Oopppsssss.

Love,
Liz

[Gina Marie]

I'll go one better...

WHO SAID GOD WAS? YOU HAVE NO PROOF OF SUCH.

[Elizabeth]

I'll go one better...

WHO SAID GOD WAS? YOU HAVE NO PROOF OF SUCH.

"ppsssttt"....Damn Gia, I wasn't gonna go that far!!

Love Ya...
Liz

[Katiebee]

I said before in this thread, belief isn't dependent upon reason, and reason is not dependent upon belief.

Just don't require me to believe as you do, nor should you expect me to support your beliefs economically or philosophically.

[Lostforkate]

I like the Aphrodite model for the female God platform. Where can I worship?

[Lostforkate]

I am at point, where this thread is has become a joke, been a joke. There is some serious discussion, but there is also people posting on this thread who truly have no interest, and they only post to mock someone else. You already have your meme thread for that crap. I feel Braden's fuck-off strip tease is appropriate share my sentiment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oyxLFD2IIw

[Elizabeth]

Lost....
As angry as you may get.
you really need to understand this simple point.
"Does God Exist"?....is truely one of those questions that CAN NEVER be answered.
No matter what you read and from what side it comes from....THERE IS NO ANSWER!
The only thing you need to do is to take hold of "yourself" and believe what "you" want to believe (there in is your answer, but only yours and no one else's).
______________________________________________________________________
 as for the comedy and the hi-jacking after so much of he said, she said, they said (over and over and over again)...it get's to a point where the comedy is just as good as the unanswerable question.

Love,
Liz

[Fish]

Use absolutely no standards to judge something... hmmm, doesn't sound like a judgment to me. I am confounded by the pretzel-twisted logic of the ultimate answer: god is mysterious, man. So be it, I give up.

You're not getting the point. There should be no judgement. You're just one person. Who are you to pass judgement on the net worth of all of history? And if there is a god it is mysterious and it will remain mysterious.

How can you help but judge? Even if you do not take your own judgment as fact (I certainly don't), judgment is reflexive, not some action I can avoid taking. I can avoid expressing my judgment, not having a judgment.

If reason departs, so does all reasonable discussion. And yeah, it is a massively complex universe... if that makes the systems behind that creation god to you, then god they are.

Of course there isn't room for reasonable debate. How can there be when there are no facts to support either side?

Aha, there are facts to support the lack of a god, not prove the lack of a god.

Expecting reasonable debate from humans about divine matters is like asking a brick what it thinks of the state of politics these days and expecting an informed answer. The debate is a philosophical one, not a reasoned one. That's what makes it so fun. There are no right answers (which is what makes all those people laughing at others behind their hands look so ridiculous).

At one time, Sir Isaac Newton found the movement of the planets to be a mystery, and so he attributed it to god (a divine matter), then along came Einstein and explained it. Reasonable men experimenting with science have taken god away from everything we put him in so far, including mount Olympus, the sky, the center of the Earth... every time someone says "Who knows? Maybe it's god?" it turns out to be just science we didn't understand yet. So the reason that the philosophical debate ranges so far is precisely that it is tough for some to reason this one.

I don't assume the intelligence is there at all, let alone higher. I would guess it is a non-sentient force, but that is a guess... based upon observable evidence.

What observable evidence? As in concrete, factual evidence, not your own feelings.

Have you observed any intelligence behind creation? Because science has observed many non-sentient forces: Gravity, Strong Nuclear, Weak Nuclear, and Electromagnetism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction

I presumed nothing of the sort. If god created Earth as art, then either god is a complete fucking asshole, or the Holocaust was a fraud, and Hitler was the Easter bunny in disguise. Remember the "uncaring force" part of my last argument? That's where that comes in.

Call me pretentious all you want, you believe in god all you want, I'll freely admit you could be right, and take my chances laughing at the idea.

Are you a complete fucking asshole when you take a shower and kill millions of micro organisms?

From their perspective? Probably.

It's ironic that you would laugh at a believer because they believe in a white haired man sitting in the clouds when it seems it's the only image of god you can even imagine. If there is a god then that he's some kind of superhuman but basically human is just as unlikely as every other possibility. Even if that is the case, there is no reason to arbitrarily assume that the only point of misery is the misery itself.[/quote]

I can assume nothing else- I've no more information. When someone says "maybe it's for the best," it is because they can't see a sunny side either.
 

We don't have the luxury of viewing our petty little lives on a larger scale, as any supreme being would. Can you see how much you have to assume to draw the conclusions you have?

No, there's the difference- believers assume, I simply observe.

You are pretentious. There. That's as much as I want to say it. I don't believe in god though (and if you paid attention to the posts I make, particularly in this thread, that much is obvious). I just am not convinced there is no god either

Neither am I.

...and I'm completely sick of idiot atheists telling me that belief in god is irrational

It is.

...when disbelief is based on exactly the same amount of evidence (ie. zero).

Wrong, it is based on observation.

Believe what you want but please don't try to tell me your beliefs are any more intelligent than a Christian or a Jew or Muslim, etc.

So believing in a being that sent itself to sacrifice himself to save humanity from himself though he is all-powerful and all-knowing is somehow just as rational as believing in the theory of relativity? Please.

I don't give a shit what people believe and I don't give a shit if they share it with me. I get annoyed when people want to force others to live like them or even just look at them with a shit-eating, condescending smirk because they don't.

I couldn't agree more. This is the one place I actively voice my beliefs, as this is the correct forum for it.

A good friend of mine shared this video with me a few months ago and it more or less explains my thoughts on the subject, if what I believe bothers you that much. It's an interesting video and well worth a watch either way.

I'll watch it tomorrow. Thanks for debating this with me, it has been really fun. Did you happen to watch the video I posted yesterday? He is a little more vehement in his disbelief than I am, but it is roughly the way I feel about it.

[Fish]

How can you help but judge? Even if you do not take your own judgment as fact (I certainly don't), judgment is reflexive, not some action I can avoid taking. I can avoid expressing my judgment, not having a judgment.

How can I help it? Humility, obviously. I'm not so important nor so smart that I could comfortably make that call. No human is.

No, every human is- it just doesn't mean we're right. We judge (and prejudge) as a system of staying alive: when you see a fire, you prejudge it to be hot, as you have seen it to be so before. You don't need to investigate every fire to figure it out, you prejudge it. Judgment works the same way regardless of the level of experience in some circumstances- one can look at a poorly built bridge and assume that the designer wasn't very smart... if one bothers to assess the bridge... or admit he assessed the bridge.

Aha, there are facts to support the lack of a god, not prove the lack of a god.

No, there are not. I take it from your lack of examples that you are not so confident in your proclamation either.

Debunked theories of god: Zoroastrianism, Norse Odin myths, Greek pantheon, Roman pantheon, Hindu pantheon (sorry, some of the Baghavad Gita has indeed been debunked), Noah's ark, Jonah's odyssey, Adam and Eve, half of the Exodus, Samson and Delilah, Sodom and Gomorrah... but the next one is right, right?

There are some stories from the Bible that are clearly based on a true story: this is why I like Jesus so much. But all-in-all, the facts support the trend with religious tales: sooner or later, we learn it was all just some cute stories to make us feel better, and to separate fools from their money. Stories to make us feel better are hit-and-miss, but separating fools from their money is just awful.

At one time, Sir Isaac Newton found the movement of the planets to be a mystery, and so he attributed it to god (a divine matter), then along came Einstein and explained it. Reasonable men experimenting with science have taken god away from everything we put him in so far, including mount Olympus, the sky, the center of the Earth... every time someone says "Who knows? Maybe it's god?" it turns out to be just science we didn't understand yet. So the reason that the philosophical debate ranges so far is precisely that it is tough for some to reason this one.

Sir Isaac Newton was an arrogant asshole as well as a genius.

Because he believed in god?

That reaction was only natural to him. The question of "what purpose does life have" is a far more complex and abstract question anyway. Mostly though, the idea that science and theism are mutually exclusive is incorrect as I have explained exhaustively previously in this thread.

Evidence and belief are mutually exclusive, and the scientific method requires you remove this garbage from your hypothesis.

Have you observed any intelligence behind creation? Because science has observed many non-sentient forces: Gravity, Strong Nuclear, Weak Nuclear, and Electromagnetism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction

You answered my question with a question and have effectively confirmed what I was suggesting.

Except I presented evidence.

There is no concrete evidence either way. You cannot determine the existence and nature of god scientifically.

Couldn't agree more. There is, however, evidence to suggest there is no sentient creative force, which I have repeatedly demonstrated. It just isn't any more conclusive than the theories for god's existence.

From their perspective? Probably.

I was asking about your perspective.

I turned your analog inside out, and you completely missed it. From god's perspective, is he an asshole for all the genocide? It really doesn't matter, if he created the system, then the inhabitants of said system should have every right to contemplate their place in said system.

I can assume nothing else

That much is obvious.

When one is given evidence which leads to a conclusion, one follows it.

No, there's the difference- believers assume, I simply observe.

Observe what? That bad things happen? That prayers aren't always answered? Do you think these miniscule things prove conclusively that there is no god?

Absolutely not! Stop trying to make that the benchmark! I never said anything of the sort.

Ok, let's be scientific. My hypothesis is "there is a god". Good luck trying to test that one (hint: it's a worthless hypothesis because it can't be scientifically tested, just like "there is no god").

You can test either, they just won't yield a valid conclusion. We test these hypotheses often- not scientists in a lab, but scientifically-minded people. There is a precipitous lack of evidence to form a valid conclusion- but an extrapolation of given data (debunked religious theories) leads to compelling postulation- all theories involving god will eventually be debunked. Perhaps that one will go tits-up too, you never know.

Neither am I.

You are a wonderful impression artist.[/quote]

...and I'm completely sick of idiot atheists telling me that belief in god is irrational

It is.[/quote]

Strictly speaking, you're right. What I meant to say was that I'm sick of those morons trying to tell me that rejecting the idea that there is a god is any more rational.

So believing in a being that god sent itself to sacrifice himself to save humanity from himself though he is all-powerful and all-knowing is somehow just as rational as believing in the theory of relativity? Please.

Science and faith. Apples and oranges. Explained too many times before already.

I couldn't agree more. This is the one place I actively voice my beliefs, as this is the correct forum for it.

This is the one place you actively voice your ridicule of those with different faiths. It's not the same thing.

I ridicule faith in general, not any specific faith, and even then, I'll be the first to admit I can't prove it wrong. I can, however, demonstrate that it isn't congruous with the logic behind things like the computers we are typing on. If the religious texts people love so much were truly 100% right, I'd be typing on a piece of clay with a chisel, and there would be like 200 species of animals.

I'll watch it tomorrow. Thanks for debating this with me, it has been really fun. Did you happen to watch the video I posted yesterday? He is a little more vehement in his disbelief than I am, but it is roughly the way I feel about it.

I didn't and it's late now and I don't know where you posted it so I won't be tonight.
[/quote]

Cool, take your time. This has been fun, but really exhausting as well, and I have shit to do. The video starts slow, but before he drifts off too far toward trying to be cheeky, he makes some really good points.

[phtlc]

At this stage in my life I certainly hope that God doesn't exist, at least not in the traditional Christian version. Not sure I would enjoy that whole eternity in hell bit.

[MissBarbara]

Fish, there is one very basic point that you seem to fail to grasp: You can neither prove nor disprove something that is per se unprovable.

You make constant comparisons with and invocations of Science. Science can, indeed, prove things, within its own sphere. And acceptance or denial, belief or disbelief, confirmation or rejection, of a scientific proof is utterly beside the point. The personal belief/disbelief or acceptance/rejection of a given proof in no way reflects on the truth of the given proof.

But science and religion address to entirely different spheres, and their epistemologies are incomparably different. There's no relation between the two, no overlap between the two, no correlation between the two. And your insistence on comparing and contrasting them weakens your otherwise cogent points on this topic.

[Elizabeth]

Lost....
As angry as you may get.
you really need to understand this simple point.
"Does God Exist"?....is truely one of those questions that CAN NEVER be answered.
No matter what you read and from what side it comes from....THERE IS NO ANSWER!
The only thing you need to do is to take hold of "yourself" and believe what "you" want to believe (there in is your answer, but only yours and no one else's).
______________________________________________________________________
 as for the comedy and the hi-jacking after so much of he said, she said, they said (over and over and over again)...it get's to a point where the comedy is just as good as the unanswerable question.

Love,
Liz

Ahem...I all ready said that.
See.....

Love,
Liz

[Katiebee]

Lost....
As angry as you may get.
you really need to understand this simple point.
"Does God Exist"?....is truely one of those questions that CAN NEVER be answered.
No matter what you read and from what side it comes from....THERE IS NO ANSWER!
The only thing you need to do is to take hold of "yourself" and believe what "you" want to believe (there in is your answer, but only yours and no one else's).
______________________________________________________________________
 as for the comedy and the hi-jacking after so much of he said, she said, they said (over and over and over again)...it get's to a point where the comedy is just as good as the unanswerable question.

Love,
Liz

Ahem...I all ready said that.
See.....

Love,
Liz

Heretic!

I will get you for that.

[Elizabeth]

Wait!!!....I'm No Heretic!!!
I Believe in Joan de Arc.

"giggles"....how's that for thread stealing??

Love Ya...Girlie...
Liz

[Elizabeth]

Toe,
I read the article you posted (above).
Can I call "BULLSHIT"?
First off lets forget the dinosaurs for a minute.
The Ark was supposedly built in what was called Judea or there abouts.
Given that Noah could only know about the "known world " during his life time.
The only animals that possibly could be put onto a "boat" (there is no way he built an ARK). were the animals that he knew.
So, given the article above, the author needs to explain, HOW do a pair of Kangroo's get from Australia? How did a pair of North American Buffalo get from North America?
Too many holes in the story.
And what's worse?....Noah was most likely Jewish, There is absolutely no way he put a pair of pigs on his boat (he would have violated his own religion and it's practices.

Love Ya.....
Liz
PS: Thanks for letting me call "bullshit" on this one.
 

[Lois]

Religious People Branded As Less Intelligent Than Atheists In Provocative New Study

Are religious people less intelligent than atheists?



That's the provocative conclusion of a new review of 63 studies of intelligence and religion that span the past century. The meta-analysis showed that in 53 of the studies, conducted between 1928 to 2012, there was an inverse relation between religiosity -- having religious beliefs, or performing religious rituals -- and intelligence. That is, on average, non-believers scored higher than religious people on intelligence tests.

What might explain the effect?

Scientists behind studies included in the review most often suggested that "religious beliefs are irrational, not anchored in science, not testable and, therefore, unappealing to intelligent people who 'know better.'”

But the researchers who conducted the new meta-analysis say the answer is a bit more complicated. They suspect intelligent people might have less of a "need" for religion.

"Intelligence may also lead to greater self-control ability, self-esteem, perceived control over life events, and supportive relationships, obviating some of the benefits that religion sometimes provides," study co-author Jordan Silberman, a graduate student of neuroeconomics at the University of Rochester, told The Huffington Post in an email.

So if you're a believer, does this mean you're a dope?

"I'm sure there are intelligent religious people and unintelligent atheists out there," Silberman said in the email. "The findings pertain to the average intelligence of religious and non-religious people, but they don't necessarily apply to any single person. Knowing that a person is religious would not lead me to bet any money on whether or not the person is intelligent."

The researchers acknowledge the limitations of the meta-analysis. It did not look at type of religion, for example, or at the role culture might play in the interaction between religiosity and intelligence.

In addition, The Independent pointed out that the researchers used a narrow definition of intelligence. In the paper, intelligence is defined as “the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly, and learn from experience." This excludes other forms of intelligence, like creative and emotional intelligence.

The meta-analysis was published in Personality and Social Psychology Review.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/14/religious-people-less-intelligent-atheists_n_3750096.html[

[Gina Marie]

I don't know about "smarter or dumber", but it shows that some people show a greater acceptance for reality based on facts, not faith (and visa-versa).