Does God exist?

[Katiebee]

It's an unnatural time, flaunting Gods will.

[watasch]

What could have been a nice, thinking type of philosophical discussion has devolved into a less than honorable process.  Folks tend to forget the "times" when the Bible was written and the culture of the time.  I wonder if people in the future will be as intolerant of us and our "esteemed" ideas?

[Katiebee]

I am fully cognizant of the time and culture that Christianity and Judaism
evolved. More so than many. A degree in cultural anthropology does that to you.

Belief in a higher order requires no logic, and certainly no proof. If you require proof to believe in God, then you are not a believer.

What people fail to understand is that religion is concerned with how people behave, it codifies that behavior. It is proto government. It is not a coincidence that the early states were governed by priest kings, and then later by those who claimed either Devine descent, or Devine will legitimizing their rule.

[watasch]

I am fully cognizant of the time and culture that Christianity and Judaism
evolved. More so than many. A degree in cultural anthropology does that to you.

Belief in a higher order requires no logic, and certainly no proof. If you require proof to believe in God, then you are not a believer.

What people fail to understand is that religion is concerned with how people behave, it codifies that behavior. It is proto government. It is not a coincidence that the early states were governed by priest kings, and then later by those who claimed either Devine descent, or Devine will legitimizing their rule.

I disagree with your position on proof versus belief in "God".  Having parachuted a number of times I needed proof that the canopy would do its job before I trusted stepping out of the aircraft.  Why do people think that belief in anything, especially religion, is "blind".  If you take the time to read what the New Testament says, and honestly evaluate it you will find there are numerous references to "proof" as to the workings of Jesus.  If one also takes the time to read the writings of those who were antagonistic towards the early Christians you will also find their writings do give them credit for their actions.  Hard to think someone would allow themselves to be tortured and killed over creating a lie and then living it to their death (speaking of the "normal person") However I have found many simply come across with the tired old saws they have heard or read about before instead of simply going and doing the "research" themselves.  

Regardless of your level of education, even the "learned" do make decisions based on bias.  If one decides to take that bias as their own, that doesn't make the original information false "in my opinion" it just tells me the party line is being followed.

[Katiebee]

The very nature of religion requires belief, not proof. Prove that God exists.'prove that any Diety exists. It is not a doable exercise.

You do not prove that a Diety exists.

Faith requires no proof, only belief.

[MissBarbara]

What could have been a nice, thinking type of philosophical discussion has devolved into a less than honorable process.  Folks tend to forget the "times" when the Bible was written and the culture of the time.  I wonder if people in the future will be as intolerant of us and our "esteemed" ideas?

I agree with you, though that devolution has proven to be the norm, and not the exception, for this thread.

Sigh...

[watasch]

Kaläm argument:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
or, alternatively,
1´. If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

So try to answer that argument.  Science has evidence of the "big bang" and before then matter, time and space did not exist.  Logic dictates that "nothing cannot make something".  For example no one worries that a hippo will suddenly appear on your bed and defecate on your pillow.  Logic dictates that hippo had to have come from somewhere; so where did matter, time and space come from if it wasn't from a "supernatural" source?

Next one will use all the "theories" of "multiverse" and such but it still begs the question:  how did it all begin?  Begin is the key point which one has to still go to a supernatural cause or else rely on the already existence of matter and such. Yet still if matter exists, it had to be "caused" (see argument above)  Otherwise one just keeps "kicking the can down the road".  That is along the lines of the "taxi cab fallacy" where one decides to get out of the taxi when they feel their destination has been reached yet the road continues!

The comment "The very nature of religion requires belief, not proof" is a false argument.  As I mentioned, some belief is informed, not blind (well except for atheism which is a blind argument against any form of belief which is really contrary to an "ism"). And as science has shown, the apparent "absence" of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  To state something doesn't exist because it can't be proven?  Completely contrary to a scientific and philosophical way of thinking!

[Lois]

Huh? 

[Katiebee]

Ah, but you ignore the one thing that science also uses, we do not know everything. Religion is not based upon proof.. certainly not scientific proof, which requires that others be able to replicate your proof to the same conclusion. If only one person can provide the proof then it is not replicable, and is therefore suspect as a reliable proof. If multiple people can bring mana from heaven, walk upon water, bring the dead back to life, heal the sick, then you have replicable proof.

You are still requiring faith to be your proof, which is a circular route of logic. You either believe God exists and have faith without proof, or you don't. All religions require that.

Likewise, having faith in something doesn't negate science. Nor does science negate faith.

However if you believe that your faith will protect you from lions, then when you walk into the arena you may find yourself promoted to the ranks of martyrs, which doesn't negate your faith. It just means that the lions were hungry.

[watasch]

What could have been a nice, thinking type of philosophical discussion has devolved into a less than honorable process.  Folks tend to forget the "times" when the Bible was written and the culture of the time.  I wonder if people in the future will be as intolerant of us and our "esteemed" ideas?

I agree with you, though that devolution has proven to be the norm, and not the exception, for this thread.

Sigh...

It is a shame.  One wonders if this is truly an indication of "evolution" in practice?  Look how even a "porn site" has divided folks with rancor and disdain!

[watasch]

Ah, but you ignore the one thing that science also uses, we do not know everything.

That my friend is what is known as a straw man argument.  You did not address the subject as posed but decided to set up something else and get off the track!

[Katiebee]

Ah, but you ignore the one thing that science also uses, we do not know everything.

That my friend is what is known as a straw man argument.  You did not address the subject as posed but decided to set up something else and get off the track!

the finished post is two responses above, sorry for the disjointed reply.

[Katiebee]

What could have been a nice, thinking type of philosophical discussion has devolved into a less than honorable process.  Folks tend to forget the "times" when the Bible was written and the culture of the time.  I wonder if people in the future will be as intolerant of us and our "esteemed" ideas?

I agree with you, though that devolution has proven to be the norm, and not the exception, for this thread.

Sigh...

It is a shame.  One wonders if this is truly an indication of "evolution" in practice?  Look how even a "porn site" has divided folks with rancor and disdain!

You lost that because the allowed content here is not solely porn. If it were you would not have the "disdain" etc. political discussion and religious discussion are not particularly uniting when opposing views are stated.

[watasch]

Ah, but you ignore the one thing that science also uses, we do not know everything. Religion is not based upon proof.. certainly not scientific proof, which requires that others be able to replicate your proof to the same conclusion. If only one person can provide the proof then it is not replicable, and is therefore suspect as a reliable proof. If multiple people can bring mana from heaven, walk upon water, bring the dead back to life, heal the sick, then you have replicable proof.

You are still requiring faith to be your proof, which is a circular route of logic. You either believe God exists and have faith without proof, or you don't. All religions require that.

Likewise, having faith in something doesn't negate science. Nor does science negate faith.


However if you believe that your faith will protect you from lions, then when you walk into the arena you may find yourself promoted to the ranks of martyrs, which doesn't negate your faith. It just means that the lions were hungry.

You did not address the points I listed about how it all began.  Again a straw man argument as you built up a scenario/story that did not address my points  re:  Kalam's argument.  Where did it all come from?  How did it all come into existence? What does it all mean?  These questions science has not been able to answer and philosophers have been debating through the millennia.

Also kind of ironic is the idea how science tries to separate itself from philosophy when the initials behind most every "scientist" is "PhD" which is "Philosophiae Doctor" or Doctor of Philosophy.  (Just threw that in, not meant as a distractor from the Kalam Argument)

[Katiebee]

How ironic that you presuppose a rational basis for religion and ignore the historical and cultural underpinnings of religion.

So far you have conflated trust with faith, and really not detailed any clear points.

We are basically talking along separate and non-convergent thoughts. You are discussing philosophy and I am talking about cultural anthropology.

[watasch]

And yet you still have not addressed the argument I posted.  There are three distinct statements, each of which is a very well defined statement.  All lead to a conclusion which, I repeat myself here, you have not addressed.  You keep trying to get away from Kalam's argument towards the start of the universe, and as a result you are consciously avoiding the position of a supernatural start to everything.

And in case you missed the argument I have reposted it:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
or, alternatively,
1´. If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

And no where, to allow the distraction to take shape, no where is reason contrary to faith.  There are differing kinds of faith but a reasoned faith is even expected in the Bible, especially highlighted in the New Testament.  But again I am allowing you to divert from the main points I have printed again. 

Statement 3, "The universe has a cause."  That cause has to be supernatural. 

Supernatural isn't materialistic.  Supernatural, by definition is beyond the natural process.  Supernatural refers to the question of this conversation:  Does God Exist. 

So please, address Kalam's argument and tell me that doesn't imply a supernatural "start" to the universe.....God!

[MissBarbara]

And in case you missed the argument I have reposted it:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
or, alternatively,
1´. If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

The logic of these statements, taken by themselves, is undeniable. They closely echo Thomas Aquinas's "Second Way."

The problem arises when you move beyond the third statement. The conclusion, "Therefore, the universe has a cause," does not logically lead to the statement, "Therefore, that cause is God." More to the point, it does not "prove" that God exists, nor does it prove that God is an Uncaused Cause.

Science has posited the "Big Bang Theory" as an explanation of how the universe came into existence (and, for the record, I subscribe to this theory). I can understand how someone could respond to that Theory with, "If the universe was created by the Big Bang, then what caused the Big Bang?" That is, of course, a fascinating scientific discussion, but it's not a religious discussion.

Here's the most important point: Science and Religion involve themselves with two entirely different and entirely separate spheres of knowledge. They have, from a teleological standpoint, nothing to do with each other, and equating or conflating the two is, at best, a waste of time.

I believe that God exists. I believe that God created the Universe (in one way or another), and is, in fact, the uncaused cause of everything. However, I know that I cannot prove that, nor, for that matter, do I feel the slightest need to even try to prove that. Religion can never prove that God exists; and Science can never prove that God does not exist.

[IdleBoast]

Those who believe in a god often present the Big Bang as "something from nothing".

It wasn't. The energy that comprises the Universe did not come into existence at the BB. It already existed before* BB in the form of the primordial Singularity, but during BB the infinitely-dense and infinitely-energetic Singularity expanded and cooled, so that the pre-existing energy cooled and condensed to form matter.

So, BB was not actually a beginning, it was just a phase-change.  It is perfectly accurate, within the limits of human language, to state that the Universe has always existed, just not always in the form we currently experience.


^{*Before is a clumsy term when the dimension we experience as Time did not actually exist until the Singularity had expended enough for dimensions to exist at all. It is hard to discuss something happening during a period when the words "before" and "during" could have no meaning.}

[Billygan503]

Mine does.

[_priapism]

Those who believe in a god often present the Big Bang as "something from nothing".

It wasn't. The energy that comprises the Universe did not come into existence at the BB. It already existed before* BB in the form of the primordial Singularity, but during BB the infinitely-dense and infinitely-energetic Singularity expanded and cooled, so that the pre-existing energy cooled and condensed to form matter.

So, BB was not actually a beginning, it was just a phase-change.  It is perfectly accurate, within the limits of human language, to state that the Universe has always existed, just not always in the form we currently experience.


^{*Before is a clumsy term when the dimension we experience as Time did not actually exist until the Singularity had expended enough for dimensions to exist at all. It is hard to discuss something happening during a period when the words "before" and "during" could have no meaning.}

The 986 *Billion* Year Old "Big Bang" Is Merely The Most Recent Of Many