Does God exist?

[MissBarbara]

Prove to me that god does not exist.

Prove to me that Unicorns and ghosts do not exist.

None of these things can be proven. You can not prove a negative.

     If I am reading your statements accurately then you, by default agree that God "can" exist along with Unicorns and ghosts? 

     Usually when one has a question about a particular belief or event they ask if it is possible then pursue along that line (the current drive for exploring space for signs of life as an example).  If one believes it is impossible for it to exist then why waste your time and energy pursuing what you believe is impossible to exist? 

     And there is a philosophical argument that's reasoning is to prove the "opposite"  One term for that argument is "Reductio ad absurdum".

     Now to see if the serious discussion can begin....

My interpretation of Lois's comment -- and the reason why I woo'd her -- is that the existence of God can neither be proved nor disproved.

As Farmer Miles has astutely pointed out several times in this thread, Science and Religion -- Reason and Faith -- operate in two distinct and separate spheres. As a result, Science will never prove that God does not exist, nor will Religion ever "prove" that God does exist. And those who insist on conflating the two -- on BOTH sides of the debate -- are merely spinning their wheels.
 
Nor should the words "proved" nor "disproved" even be employed in a discussion of God, other than in a strictly metaphorical sense.

I agree with your assertion, "If one believes it is impossible for it to exist then why waste your time and energy pursuing what you believe is impossible to exist?" This is something that puzzles me as well. And, most of the time, this pursuit -- again, on BOTH sides of the debate -- devolves to straw-man arguments.

I believe that God exists. I can't "prove" it, nor do I have any desire to "prove" it, nor, for that matter, do I have the slightest problem with those who believe that God does not exists, or who doubt God's existence.   

[Elizabeth]

I believe that God exists for me.  But this is a purely subjective conclusion on my part.  Therefore, the fact that I experience God in my life does not make Gos's existence any more or less likely from your perspective.  This my point is the ridiculous notion that, because God is real for me, God must be real for *everyone*, and anyone who experiences or perceives God differently than I (if at all) is an ingrate heathen.

And so starts the "religious wars" between the different religious groups.

Love,
Liz

[Katiebee]

"Kill them all,  God wiil know his own." Richard Couer d' Lion before the walls of Acre.

[watasch]

Now a discussion is actually happening versus trivial comments (well for most of them anyway). 

I agree with the comments "I believe" because it is a very personal thing for one to be able to state that in regards to their view on a supernatural being.  Also science and religion have very different roles in our lives and answer very different questions. And I mean that in a most inclusive way yet still I have to allow for my faith and belief which may be contrary to what someone else believes.

Why is it folks have to draw battle lines when it comes to this simple yet complex question about God's existence.  If God is a fairy tale, then why the very strong and often demeaning language from those who think so?  Do they exhibit the same venom when discussing the tooth fairy or Santa Claus?  And then who do they blame for the wrongs in the world?  Does claiming right or wrong rely on some kind of moral standard and who sets the standard?  And then what is the meaning of life if there is no eternity to contemplate your role in it all if your life events result in "nothing"?  Just some things I contemplated with that question.

I also had to chuckle as one comment about ingrate heathens reminded me of a quote from the movie "We Were Soldiers" when Lt Col Moore was praying with one of his troops before deployment to View Nam.  In short....."Oh, yes, and one more thing, dear Lord, about our enemies, ignore their heathen prayers and help us blow those little bastards straight to Hell. Amen."

[Elizabeth]

In very few words:  Religion is what "you" make of it, or don't make of it. No one twist your arm to believe (or not) but the very idea of "my religion" is better than your religion is exactly what causes religious wars (same with the idea of my god is the only (correct) god). Everything you have posted (above me) to date is actually unanswerable by any side (the believers and the non-believers). So my question to you is simple, how (why) do you persist in asking question's about something not only unanswerable but so volatile? If it hasn't been answered in the past 4,000 years, why do you think it will be answered here in KB?

Love,
Liz
   

[Katiebee]

I took one too many comparative religion courses in obtaining my degree in Anthropology. What that taught me is that the similarities between religions is on a very high order. One of which is the need to trash the other and force compliance with your beliefs, for most of the bureaucratically organized religions. The more organized and monolithic they are, the more closely aligned with governing people that they are, the more likely they are going to be authoritarian, and strive to eliminate dissent and unbelievers.

[MissBarbara]

I believe that God exists for me.  But this is a purely subjective conclusion on my part.  Therefore, the fact that I experience God in my life does not make God's existence any more or less likely from your perspective.  This my point is the ridiculous notion that, because God is real for me, God must be real for *everyone*, and anyone who experiences or perceives God differently than I (if at all) is an ingrate heathen.

And so starts the "religious wars" between the different religious groups.

Love,
Liz

I find it fascinating that virtually every time their is a discussion of God or Religion, someone will invariably introduce the topic of "religious wars."

And, here it is (and many, many times before in this thread).

Religious wars are not about doctrinal difference, or conflicts between moral codes, or even theism vs. atheism. They're about politics and power, and virtually nothing else.

Take the most influential and consequential religious war of them all, the Thirty Years War. Though it was, on its surface, a conflict between Catholics and Protestants, that "conflict" was merely an excuse, or a starting point. Armies didn't rush into battle with one side crying "Sola Scritura!" and the other "Sola Fide!" They were wars of conquest, a grab for power, territory, and influence.

And the same can be said for most "religious wars" fought throughout human history -- up to and including the religious wars being fought right now as I type this.

[MissBarbara]

In very few words:  Religion is what "you" make of it, or don't make of it. No one twist your arm to believe (or not) but the very idea of "my religion" is better than your religion is exactly what causes religious wars (same with the idea of my god is the only (correct) god). Everything you have posted (above me) to date is actually unanswerable by any side (the believers and the non-believers). So my question to you is simple, how (why) do you persist in asking question's about something not only unanswerable but so volatile? If it hasn't been answered in the past 4,000 years, why do you think it will be answered here in KB?

Love,
Liz
   

I know your questions are addressed to watasch, there you go again with the "religious wars" and deeming a discussion about religion as "volatile."

Why do you think a discussion of religion or the existence/non-existence of God -- especially in a forum like this -- is "volatile"? Should the topic not be discussed because of its potential "volatility"? Should no topic that is potentially "volatile" be discussed?

If you've been following this thread with any regularity, you'll have found that virtually nowhere here has a debate/argument/volatile proclamation that ""my religion is better than your religion" come up. Not, to my recollection, even once.

To answer your main question, just because none of this can be proved does not mean that it is "unanswerable" -- nor that it should not be discussed. Nor, more to the point, are users reading this discussion looking for "answers."

Add to that, discussions -- even discussions for discussion's sake -- have many potential benefits, starting with deepening our personal understanding; expanding our knowledge about the world, its history, and the people who have and who continue to inhabit it; and, most important, helping us to understand other people, to learn about them and from them, to see them as multi-dimensional, and not neatly fitting under whatever label we chose to apply to them.

[watasch]

Ms B....I could not have put it any more succinctly.

Discussion, as far as I see the term, encourages an open conversation about the subject as opposed to argument.  You present your views, I present my views, we talk about the differences "AND THE SIMILARITIES" and enjoy enriching each others viewpoints.  We often forget the similarities in our discussions and that is why things devolve into argument and insults.

No, the question as far as I see it will not be solved on KB nor did I think the original posting of it was meant to solve it.  However as I see it, by asking the question and getting folks to discuss it, without rancor or insults or demeaning "cartoons" then we can all learn a bit more about diversity in our society (yes, KB is a society of sorts). 

Now with that said, if someone decided to approach me on the streets and wanted to engage me in a conversation and was truly interested in the subject...well it would well be worth a few cups of coffee to discuss my beliefs and what their questions are.  A shame, not only that political forces can't go that route as they are directed by those in control of them to not "discuss" but to force their points.  That, in my humble opinion, is what gave us the mess we have now in the world.

And as an aside, there are many other subjects that have been addressed on KB...why should one in particular be viewed as "volatile" when many of them also include a matter of viewpoint, a matter of opinion, a matter of taste.  Isn't that what living around other people involves?

[Katiebee]

Well, one point that can be brought up as to why not, belief is integral to persons valuation of themselves. Which is why religion has been used as the pretext to justify killing and subjugating others.

There is no room for discussion in belief systems, since there is no room for compromise.

And that is why discussing religion is usually done by those in professions like anthropology and sociology. There they are not discussing their own beliefs but in the dispassionate setting of their discipline that of others in context of a study.

[MissBarbara]

No, the question as far as I see it will not be solved on KB nor did I think the original posting of it was meant to solve it.  However as I see it, by asking the question and getting folks to discuss it, without rancor or insults or demeaning "cartoons" then we can all learn a bit more about diversity in our society (yes, KB is a society of sorts). 

I agree with you in general.

In context, however, the Freedom of Speech that is KB's hallmark INCLUDES the freedom (with very few exceptions) to post whatever one wants, wherever one wants, and however one wants. And that includes "rancor or insults or demeaning cartoons."

As I mentioned above, yes, ideally, it would be great if every discussion here was civil, cordial, intelligent, heartfelt, and respectful. So, those of us who wish/hope discussions are as I described MUST also respect the rights of others to post as they like, even if it means "rancor or insults or demeaning cartoons." This is part of respecting the diversity of KB as a society.

And as an aside, there are many other subjects that have been addressed on KB...why should one in particular be viewed as "volatile" when many of them also include a matter of viewpoint, a matter of opinion, a matter of taste.  Isn't that what living around other people involves?

Spend some time perusing the other discussion threads here -- especially in the 1408 sub-boards, and you'll find there's hardly a one is free from volatility or rancor or belittlement or snideness or whatever. That's what people DO on boards like this, and if you want to be a participating member and poster, you have to accept that.

In other words, yes, that's exactly "what living around other people involves." But this isn't the real world...

[MissBarbara]

Well, one point that can be brought up as to why not, belief is integral to persons valuation of themselves. Which is why religion has been used as the pretext to justify killing and subjugating others.

I'll never tire of pointing out that religion has also been the inspiration for countless acts of love and charity and, more to the point, a sense of service to others, especially those in one kind of need or another. Throughout history, and up to today, religion has been responsible for incomparably more acts of service than it has for "killing and subjugating."

And my tirelessness in pointing this out flows from the fact that for far too many people today, "religion" seems to mean and tiny subset or religious believers who engage "killing and subjugating," and not the overwhelming majority of believers who are inspired by their religion to strive to be decent people and serve others.

There is no room for discussion in belief systems, since there is no room for compromise.

You err in diametrically opposing "belief" and "compromise." Again, you seem to be judging all religious believers by the actions of a tiny minority. Yes ISIL, for example, is absolutely uncompromising -- and believes "killing and subjugating" to be a requirement of allegiance to their "belief system." But ISIL is the exception, not the norm.

One can have discussions about beliefs without compromising one's own beliefs. In real life, people do it all the time. 

And that is why discussing religion is usually done by those in professions like anthropology and sociology. There they are not discussing their own beliefs but in the dispassionate setting of their discipline that of others in context of a study.

Yes, that's certainly one context in which religion is discussed, and it's certainly a very fruitful context for non-specialists (like me) who wish to grow in their knowledge and understanding of religion and religious beliefs, past and present.

But it's just one context out of many....

[Katiebee]

Belief systems, specifically religions, tend to take absolutes as the given. Compromise in such a setting is not possible. For instance, homosexuality and gay marriage are not accepted by many churches and religions unless they redefine sin away from cultural and societal views against those topics. When the redinition removes them as prohibited by the values and precepts of that religion then compromise is possible.

One cannot compromise on one's values.

[watasch]

which also includes Nazi Germany, The Soviet Union (communism), murderous reigns of Pol Pot, The Khmer Rouge....their own brand of "religion".  But again we digress from the question, not that mankind can subvert any well intended practice but again:  Does God exist?  So easy to get off track with the distractions that abound.

And again if God doesn't exist, then what is the basis of any "moral" decision or action that is eventually doomed to extinction along with the human race?  Wouldn't one then tend to think of any action as merely "without merit" in the long run without the idea of God?  An example of this:  if all life is mere chemistry then any chemical reaction (read that as any physical or mental process) is no better than those we determine as "evil or good". 

[MissBarbara]

Belief systems, specifically religions, tend to take absolutes as the given. Compromise in such a setting is not possible. For instance, homosexuality and gay marriage are not accepted by many churches and religions unless they redefine sin away from cultural and societal views against those topics. When the redinition removes them as prohibited by the values and precepts of that religion then compromise is possible.

One cannot compromise on one's values.

We're not really disagreeing here, we're just exploring this topic from different viewpoints.

And, as above, I think it involves falsely juxtaposing "compromise" and "discussion."

To use your example, if someone believes that homosexual acts (or, I suppose, any sex act engaged in outside of marriage) are an absolute evil, or a sin in the eyes of God(s), then you're right, there is no compromising.

Nor, for that matter, should there be compromise in any strongly held value, be it religious, ethical, social, etc. One should hold to one's values, be they religious or completely secular.

But all of that does not preclude discussion. I have had discussions with people who hold widely different than I, on the aforementioned topic, and many others. And these discussions have proven fruitful if for no other reason than it helped me understand their views and positions, and they mine. Neither they nor I compromised our values or beliefs, but we nonetheless benefited from the discussion.

Of course, if the person holds their values like a shield protecting themselves from the world (and its many evils), then discussion will always prove unfruitful -- and a complete waste of time.

[MissBarbara]

But again we digress from the question, not that mankind can subvert any well intended practice but again:  Does God exist?  So easy to get off track with the distractions that abound.

I say yes. Others say maybe. Others say probably not. Others say certainly not.

In other words, the specific answer to that specific question is, in the end, a matter of
personal outlook. And limiting the discussion to that one question produces a fruitless (and, frankly, rather boring) discussion.

And again if God doesn't exist, then what is the basis of any "moral" decision or action that is eventually doomed to extinction along with the human race?  Wouldn't one then tend to think of any action as merely "without merit" in the long run without the idea of God?  An example of this:  if all life is mere chemistry then any chemical reaction (read that as any physical or mental process) is no better than those we determine as "evil or good". 

For many, moral decisions -- and, more important, moral actions -- flow from a belief in God and recognition of his existence, and an application of that belief and recognition in one's personal life, and in one's personal dealings with others.

But for many others, moral decisions and moral actions flow from a recognition of one's humanity, and the parallel humanity of those around one, with that serving as a basis for living a moral life, acting in a moral way, and, in some cases, leading or legislating in a moral manner.

As a history of humanity plainly shows, acting morally/ethically can result from belief in God, and it can also result from a recognition of humanity and one's role in the human race, with, in these instances, a belief in God playing no role.

More to the point, judgement of others -- in general and in particular -- should flow from neither their belief in God nor their lack thereof. And the history of humanity -- very much including the present day -- demonstrates the error in viewing the world and one's fellow humans in this manner.

[watasch]

Actually I never thought just answering that question to be a "boring" exercise for this one reason.  When someone expresses an opinion, typically they add on why they feel that way, their "proofs" as it may be said.  Then the discussion becomes even more interesting as then "tell me about the basis for your decision" is a response I would expect from any such conversation I may have. 

And is the idea of humanity really a "construct" some use to describe their behaviors in a "moral" sense without really having a basis for their behavior, especially if as some believe we are simply going to be an extinct species at some point in the future?  Which then leads to why do we see someone participate in an action and say it is bad yet in another culture that action could be acceptable?  If we, as a human society are "evolving" I wonder just where this "evolution" could take us?  And again, if we are changing, who or what is driving the change?  Is it God or a god like power or ..... ?  Oh man the possibilities for conversation remind me of the heady days of the 60s...

Just this am I was reviewing material "cosmology stuff" around the time of the "Big Bang" where the physicists have had to break down time into "Plank time" to use smaller and smaller bits of time.  Still when it comes down to the "cause" of the "Big Bang" there is a collective shrug and speculation....mystery was what one called it.  If each thing has a cause (for example reproduction) and science is going about finding that cause, when is it acceptable for them to change the term "mystery" to "transient, supernatural event"? 

Hey, but what does it matter in the long run?  Are we just mentally masturbating or are we really willing to dig into the meanings of life? 

[Lois]

I do not believe in God, or gods, but I do believe in the Golden Rule.

I don't run around killing people, or doing non-consensual things to others, because I do not want to live in a world where this is ok.

[ChirpingGirl]

I do not believe in God, or gods, but I do believe in the Golden Rule.

I don't run around killing people, or doing non-consensual things to others, because I do not want to live in a world where this is ok.

 

[Freemont]

Okay so first of I am pagan so for me it is  Gods and Goddesses.

Second I BELIEVE they do. I think I have felt their impact in real, tangible ways. By that I mean events lining up in such a way as to preclude other logical explanation. The burden of proof for me has been satisfied....but I still say believe because I have not yet met one as far as I am aware.

Third I do not think any Deity is needed for Morality to exist. Darwin takes care of that. So here is my logic...any extreme action by an individual to the detriment of society at large...murder, rape, personal isolation, extremist ideological drive to dominate another group, etc has ALWAYS led to the individuals death. This principle applies to whole groups as well. Even whole societies fall to this rule. Take Rome, unbeatable in its time ()to an arguable degree) eventually ate itself alive. This shows that any such action runs into an immutable natural law. Survival of the fittest applies. From Pirates to Romans to Cults to entire empires. If they impinge to strongly on others will eventually fall. The longest surviving are also the most peaceful.

I see this as being because at the end of the day our survival as a species relies on multiple different experiments in lifestyle, political and even religious styles. We need these to endure an ever changing environment.

All this is summed up for me in the mantra "As it harms none, do as you will."