Does God exist?

[moneyfaery]

I'm not sure I completely understand you here... could you please rephrase?

You said something along the lines of 'God doesn't exist because there's no evidence for him/her/it'. My point is that the evidence DOES exist... it just depends on how you look at it. I personally don't see it but Maha does, so good for her.

I'm not sure where you would want to go with this. But I'm assuming your argument is, just because we haven't found some of the deep sea creatures yet doesn't mean they don't exist. That's true.

Then you agree that just because we haven't discovered concrete evidence that God exists doesn't mean he/she/it doesn't exist.

However, I'm not going to postulate that there is another deep sea creature down there without evidence that one exists. The probability of there being more deep sea creatures than we have discovered is high, simply due to probability and history.

Existence is independent of postulates though. Whether God truly exists or not is independent from what we think. I mean, I can will you to disappear but that won't happen now, will it?

Well, I don't think love exists outside of a chemical reaction... so. I think your definition of love is something that exists outside of the brain's chemical reactions. Therefore, since your brain also creates chemical reactions when you think about God, God also exists outside of your brain's chemical reactions? @.@ I'm sorry, if I completely misinterpreted your argument. But I don't think love is a separate entity from human fabrication; it's simply an emotion we feel, similar to being happy or depressed.

Your phrasing confused me and made me forget what I was going to say. What I originally intended to point out was that what happens inside the brain does not dictate the existence (or lack thereof) of something. (Which is why I answered my question with 'no') I'll explain it tomorrow if I'm not sleepy.

There are several books written by neurosurgeons (my personal favorite is Another Day in the Frontal Lobe which are absolutely brilliant at giving anecdotes how in their experience, the brain affects the mind and behavior.

If the mind is indeed the brain and vice versa, it's kind of a moot point to say the brain affects the mind i.e. the brain affects the brain. Sorry, slightly nit-picky today.

I think what Maha was referring to was 'mind' as in 'human consciousness'. Arguably, this is what separates us from non-human animals... yet we can't see it, touch it, smell it, etc.

[purple]

You said something along the lines of 'God doesn't exist because there's no evidence for him/her/it'. My point is that the evidence DOES exist... it just depends on how you look at it. I personally don't see it but Maha does, so good for her.

What you're saying is that no matter what evidence is put out, people will always twist it to how they see it? I disagree - if this is true, why provide evidence at all? What's the point in providing evidence in criminal cases? "I'm not going to provide evidence because even if I did have evidence, it doesn't matter - you would just twist it to how you want to see it."

Then you agree that just because we haven't discovered concrete evidence that God exists doesn't mean he/she/it doesn't exist.

Well, of course. But it's in the same way that I would never be 100% sure of anything. I couldn't even be sure if you exist a la Solipsism. But there is probability in that the probability of God existing is next to nil. In the context of deep sea creatures, the probability is higher just because we already know that deep sea creatures exist down there. We're just not sure if we've found all of them.

Your phrasing confused me and made me forget what I was going to say. What I originally intended to point out was that what happens inside the brain does not dictate the existence (or lack thereof) of something. (Which is why I answered my question with 'no') I'll explain it tomorrow if I'm not sleepy.

Eh, sorry. =\ I'm not a very eloquent person. However, the original question was, I believe something to the effect of Love and Mind not being able to be seen or heard or felt, yet we know it exists. Since I equate love to chemical reactions and the mind to being the brain working, then I know it exists because we can observe the activity of the brain when feeling either love or my mind working.

If the mind is indeed the brain and vice versa, it's kind of a moot point to say the brain affects the mind i.e. the brain affects the brain. Sorry, slightly nit-picky today.

I think what Maha was referring to was 'mind' as in 'human consciousness'. Arguably, this is what separates us from non-human animals... yet we can't see it, touch it, smell it, etc.

You are entirely right. Sorry. But either way, in my opinion, 'human consciousness' is a machination of the brain, either as a by-product or a result of the evolutionary process. It's absolutely wonderful, but not separate from the brain.

[josephchoi]

That still boils the argument down to "because our mind might be messed up... God exists"

it's worse than the whole "I think therefore God exists" argument.

[helgacakes]

i think there is absolutely no point in arguing when it comes to religion.

i'm a believer and i think this is not about whether god exists or not. it's ultimately about 'faith.'

you can argue for hours and name all the proofs but that still would not change my belief on the one and only god.

[Eternalx]

That still boils the argument down to "because our mind might be messed up... God exists"

it's worse than the whole "I think therefore God exists" argument.

You can't prove that he doesn't exist though.

[SharkSpider]

i think there is absolutely no point in arguing when it comes to religion.

Without debate or argument, we'd be sheep. You can't accept everything you're told, even if you're meant to take it on faith. Yeah, I hate to bring moral absolutism in to any debate, but some things encouraged by some religions are too morally reprehensible to be considered appropriate. This means that through faith, it is possible to get people to do things that are very much inhuman. You say it isn't worth debating about, yet I can tell you straight up that the cruscades (and other religious genocides) were not caused by debate, they were caused by blind faith and obedience.

That being said, unless you can come to the point where you have rational and just reasons to have faith in something, there will be value in debate about it. I could take two people who believe exactly the same thing, and be rather justified in saying that only one of them is justified in believing it. If your rationale is "I was told to" then you need to clean the slate, and do some reading/debating before you can really call yourself a believer. Any group that tells you not to question your faith is telling you that they're afraid of philosophy, afraid of logic, and afraid of finding some truth that might break their bubble. Inciting people to fear philosophy is as great a crime as any other, considering the ramifications of it.

Anyways, I'm guessing that you're stating that there's no point in arguing about religion because you've never really argued about religion. If any person involved thinks that they know for sure whether or not god or consciousness exists then you aren't arguing, you're simply dealing with a fundementalist, and it's probably a waste of your time unless something changes. An educated debate about religion includes discussion of metaphysics, what we know for sure, what we think to know or what we need to know, how it affects religion, and then in turn, how our beliefs should affect us. If you go around in circles trying to prove whether or not god exists, you're getting nowhere. As many philosophers have said, there is only danger when you believe you have more knowledge than what you actually do have, and there is safety in rightfully admitting ignorance.

[Toffu-san]

I don't believe in the classical god (an antropomorphic figure that control us); but I think that there is something that helps (or ****s) us. The IB is a very good example, all of us when started thought: "I'm very lucky, I will have better studies". And now (at least me), every day I think: "Why? Why have I chosen it?".

I think that this energy is there and makes possible all the things around us (gravity, knowledge, life, love, feelings, ...). And I also think, that we have to be grateful to all the thinks in our life, good and bad things.

I have to apologize for my bad english, I'm from Spain and I usually speak in Catalan.

[purple]

You can't prove that he doesn't exist though.

You can't prove unicorns don't exist. Does that mean they do?

PS. SharkSpider, you're my new hero.

Edited February 21, 2009 by purple

[Chelleee]

you can't physically prove that god exists,

god only exists through faith, which is a strong belief that cannot be proved

personally as an atheist, i do not believe in god.

but, i believe that everyone is entitled to believe in whatever they wish to set their faith in.

as long as it does them good.

it really isn't something that you can argue about, especially not science vs. religon, they are just completely different things

[purple]

you can't physically prove that god exists,

god only exists through faith, which is a strong belief that cannot be proved

personally as an atheist, i do not believe in god.

but, i believe that everyone is entitled to believe in whatever they wish to set their faith in.

as long as it does them good.

it really isn't something that you can argue about, especially not science vs. religon, they are just completely different things

I don't understand - why are they completely different things? They are opposites, I agree, but that doesn't mean science can't disprove religion. The whole point of religion is asserting that certain facts are true without evidence - as you said, it's a strong belief that can't be proved. But the whole point of the scientific process is to get rid of those things that can't be proved. Science has already proven certain religions wrong on many counts - that the Earth was the center of the universe, that the Earth is flat, etc.

Edited February 21, 2009 by purple

[SharkSpider]

I don't understand - why are they completely different things? They are opposites, I agree, but that doesn't mean science can't disprove religion. The whole point of religion is asserting that certain facts are true without evidence - as you said, it's a strong belief that can't be proved. But the whole point of the scientific process is to get rid of those things that can't be proved. Science has already proven certain religions wrong on many counts - that the Earth was the center of the universe, that the Earth is flat, etc.

I tend to avoid telling people they're dead wrong in debates, but your analysis of the purpose of religion and science is completely off. Religion is meant to give people a philosophical view of life, not to make random facts true. This is why the common argument among atheists (See: Russel's Teapot) has absolutely no connection to debating unless someone else is claiming that God exists because they say so. That being said, if you think religious people are out to to assert that facts are true, and nothing else, then you probably shouldn't be debating without any more research. This means actually looking at things from a religious angle.

The things they believe aren't the part that matters, really, it's what those things make them do. If they make them kill people in the name of their god, then the religion has quite obviously been used as a tool for evil instead of good. If religion makes otherwise inconsiderate people start treating others well and evaluating their actions, then it's done a good thing. The basic principle, which is that what we do on earth actually matters and is judged pretty strictily, is actually a very positive thing to take in to your life. The idea that everyone has the same consciousness, or soul, and that it persists after our death is the core belief of religion. Those things that science has actually proven false have absolutely no bearing on this belief set, and in my opinion, never will.

In addition to this, science is purely inductive, and is all about believing things that can't be proved... literally the opposite to what you just said. This is because science is about disproving things which can be proven to be false, to the extent of creating laws that can't be disproven. A proof in science involves making tons of predictions, and trying every possible way of showing that you're wrong. If you're going to even mention the fact that science has shown some parts of the bible to be false, and use it as an argument, it had better be against someone who still believes those things. Otherwise, your commiting the fallacy of comparing modern knowledge to old knowledge. Guess what, religious people know just as much science as you do, now, and they skip the parts of the bible that were wrong due to human error 2000 years ago.

[Chelleee]

thanks for putting that into better words.

sharkspider clarified everything i wanted to say, they are different but it doesn't mean that you have to believe either one or the other. i remember learning that a few weeks after the origin of species by charles darwin was released, the leading catholic church at that time (correct me if i'm wrong here - my memory isn't the greatest) released a statement that they acknowledged that evolution existed but they believe that it was all god's doing. it was simply because the evidence was so overwhelming that it would be foolish to completely disregard evolution, this just shows that they can exist cohesively. it really is up to the individual and how they want to see it, whether it may be from a science or religion perspective.

and also do take into account that the bible is ancient and they obviously didn't have the knowledge that we have access to now (i'm referring to the earth is flat bit)

[purple]

I tend to avoid telling people they're dead wrong in debates, but your analysis of the purpose of religion and science is completely off. Religion is meant to give people a philosophical view of life, not to make random facts true. This is why the common argument among atheists (See: Russel's Teapot) has absolutely no connection to debating unless someone else is claiming that God exists because they say so. That being said, if you think religious people are out to to assert that facts are true, and nothing else, then you probably shouldn't be debating without any more research. This means actually looking at things from a religious angle.

Okay. You're completely right. I exaggerated a little by saying "the whole point" and it blew up in my face. I realize that religion is more of a way of life than just asserting that God is a real thing. I have a question: what is, in your opinion, the difference between someone saying, "God exists because I say so" and "I believe God exists because that's what I believe"? Apparently you think it's different, although I have always thought them to be the same. When someone says something without evidence, I take it as, "I just think so, therefore it is true."

The things they believe aren't the part that matters, really, it's what those things make them do. If they make them kill people in the name of their god, then the religion has quite obviously been used as a tool for evil instead of good. If religion makes otherwise inconsiderate people start treating others well and evaluating their actions, then it's done a good thing. The basic principle, which is that what we do on earth actually matters and is judged pretty strictily, is actually a very positive thing to take in to your life. The idea that everyone has the same consciousness, or soul, and that it persists after our death is the core belief of religion. Those things that science has actually proven false have absolutely no bearing on this belief set, and in my opinion, never will.

I actually agree with you a lot here... it's not as if evil could be eradicated if religion disappears - it's the people that do the deed, not religion. However, there is that very famous quote: "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion." ~ Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate in physics. Also, you say that being judged on what we do actually matters is a positive principle - is it really? What about the Islamic terrorists that use this 'positive' principle to fly planes into World Trade Centers so that they can get into paradise? Once again, it's not really a positive or a negative principle, instead, just like religion, it depends on the person who interprets it.

In addition to this, science is purely inductive, and is all about believing things that can't be proved... literally the opposite to what you just said. This is because science is about disproving things which can be proven to be false, to the extent of creating laws that can't be disproven. A proof in science involves making tons of predictions, and trying every possible way of showing that you're wrong. If you're going to even mention the fact that science has shown some parts of the bible to be false, and use it as an argument, it had better be against someone who still believes those things. Otherwise, your commiting the fallacy of comparing modern knowledge to old knowledge. Guess what, religious people know just as much science as you do, now, and they skip the parts of the bible that were wrong due to human error 2000 years ago.

When I said that the scientific process gets rid of things that can't be proven, I was thinking that it dismisses creationism, etc. Perhaps I was being unclear. But in saying that "a proof in science involved making tons of predictions", first there must be evidence that leads up to an assertion. Then you try to prove the assertion is wrong. You can't randomly think up a prediction without any evidence. And perhaps living in Texas has me surrounded by those who literally believe in the "Earth was created in seven days" thing. Although this has long been accepted in the scientific community, there are still those who accept the literal Bible over something that has been proven again and again. There are also flat-earth societies I have come across on the internet.

I have never, by the way, heard of that fallacy before. Do you mind expanding on it? Or give me a link? (I honestly would like to know. It's nice to know logical fallacies so I don't commit them again).

[Mahuta ♥]

I havent been on here for ages and I couldnt read all this. But by skimming through, I have a reply.

I just dont see it valid comparing unicorn existence to God's. We see the effect of God's existence but we dont see that of the unicorn.

You cant apply such things on 'religion/faith' issues. It's different.

Some people believe in what they call the "coincidence theory"..can this earth, universe, animals, planets, humans and animals be a result of mere coincidence? Well tell me, then. How come humans are made in the same way over and over and over. How come the plantes' orbiting around the sun has not ONCE gone out of track? Do you think this amount of preciceness amd detail like the mechanism of rain, our blood circulatory system is "coicidenece"? No way. So how come coincidence hasn't shown us the crashing of planets yet? Tell me. Coincidence should result in anything and everything, right?

(I know I said this before, but I'm saying it because it seems in context, mostly for the people who arent bothered to read the full thread before 'butting' in)

[purple]

I must confess, I don't see God's affect on the world. Prayer miracles: Why doesn't God heal amputees? I only see the affect of millions, no billions of people working towards a better future.

As for your other questions, why humans are created the same way over and over, or why planets don't crash into each other... I sincerely am at a loss. I have written many replies and ended up deleting them. Just... google them. Do some research. The answers are out there.

Seriously. Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and...he_Solar_System

Or even http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qi...10120908AAeNrIQ

Edited February 22, 2009 by purple

[GNRS]

I had to write about my concept of God two weeks ago. So here it is (translating and summarizing from Spanish):

My concept of God

Who or what is God?

This question has been created and answered by religions, and they described it as someone all-powerful and judge of all human acts done everyday.

Nevertheless, apart from these interpretations, the concept of God can be something more imprecise and general. We have lived a lot of centuries saying that the reason of all the inexplicable things is God, because we did not have a real answer. Nowadays, we know that most things that we previously explained with this concept of God, can be explained through science. My conclusion would be that God is science, is physics, is nature.

For example, when Albert Einstein said "God does not play dice with the universe" (it is not exactly what he said), he was saying that he believed in destiny (explained physically) and the physics laws could not be based on probabilities as quantum mechanics says.

[Mahuta ♥]

You made an argument, have ay evidence for it?

We all tried to give our evidence and exactly why we think so.

It would be enriching for the debate if you do so as well.

[GNRS]

Well, finding real evidences is very difficult (or impossible)...

What I'm saying is that science gives us a lot of answers about everything around us (actually science gives us provisional answers, relatively similar to the truth). So, if there is something like a god, it will contain the real laws of physics, mathematics, etc. I don't know if there is something more, but science must be inside this concept. I think that science is the only thing, but I don't have any evidences, is only a belief.

[Mahuta ♥]

Yeah, but when you say 'science' and 'real laws of physics'..remember there were put by human beings so they just go as far as our brains do. If we assumed that anything beyond the laws of physics and science is just not true, or doesnt exist or whatever, then I dont see how emotions exist. Not the scientific/chemical process behind it, but the emotion it self. I cant apply these laws on..say...'LOVE'..so no, it doesnt exist?

[Toffu-san]

Well, finding real evidences is very difficult (or impossible)...

What I'm saying is that science gives us a lot of answers about everything around us (actually science gives us provisional answers, relatively similar to the truth). So, if there is something like a god, it will contain the real laws of physics, mathematics, etc. I don't know if there is something more, but science must be inside this concept. I think that science is the only thing, but I don't have any evidences, is only a belief.

Related to this, here, you are saying "I don't know if exists a god or not, but, if there is one the science is part of him/her". This position is neutral. What do you think about the existence of god? Is he/she there looking after us? Or is there only the space over our heads?