On March 24 2013 23:54 docvoc wrote: I find it ironic that the people in here who say that not only is there no god, but also that no rational person would ever rationally believe there could ever possibly believe there is a god, and how could someone ever be so stupid to do such a thing, sound just like door to door evangelists. Kind of funny. I don't believe in god based on evidence, I don't KNOW of him, I believe of him. Some people say this is stupid, but I don't think so. It isn't about empirical proof, there is none. This is a thread about god from an atheistic perspective that can only yield atheistic results.
Fair enough... so why do you believe in a god if you readily admit that there's no proof of his/ her/ its existence? Is it because the idea is comforting? Do you consider this to be more of a defense mechanism?
Those might be some of the elementary values behind belief. Worth nothing that the beauty of it is that you can, in the end, believe in whatever you want and however you want it.
Also on this point, I remember reading (think it was Jung) something in the lines of:
The author was visiting a ward for terminally ill patients, where he noticed a clear distinction between the state of mind of two patients. One was calm and serene, knowing that his afterlife was about to begin, while the other was absorbed in a sense of fear and desperation.
Outside of any other implications, he underlines clear positives in that moment alone.
The same can be said of people with hallucination, or in love, or people who get their high from other sources. God then is just another source of comfort or pleasure. This feeling however is not proof of his existence.
On March 24 2013 23:54 docvoc wrote: I find it ironic that the people in here who say that not only is there no god, but also that no rational person would ever rationally believe there could ever possibly believe there is a god, and how could someone ever be so stupid to do such a thing, sound just like door to door evangelists. Kind of funny. I don't believe in god based on evidence, I don't KNOW of him, I believe of him. Some people say this is stupid, but I don't think so. It isn't about empirical proof, there is none. This is a thread about god from an atheistic perspective that can only yield atheistic results.
Fair enough... so why do you believe in a god if you readily admit that there's no proof of his/ her/ its existence? Is it because the idea is comforting? Do you consider this to be more of a defense mechanism?
There are somethings in the universe that we can't explain yet, we say that science can explain everything, but there is a lot that we don't know yet. That is an answer given to me by a lot of people, but that isn't my reason. I believe because there is beauty in the world that doesn't submit to the randomness that a lot of atheists attribute to it. Being atheist to me is self-defeating in the same way belief in god is (according to some atheists), they chalk things up to randomness of the universe and how no one actually matters (like a neo-existentialist kind of thing), I chalk it up to people do matter and that some things happen in a way that just pan out, like someone was watching over. It can be a defense mechanism, though I try to not make it be, but sometimes when I'm in need and there is no where else to turn, it is comforting that I can look up and plead from the bottom of my heart.
On March 24 2013 23:54 docvoc wrote: I find it ironic that the people in here who say that not only is there no god, but also that no rational person would ever rationally believe there could ever possibly believe there is a god, and how could someone ever be so stupid to do such a thing, sound just like door to door evangelists. Kind of funny. I don't believe in god based on evidence, I don't KNOW of him, I believe of him. Some people say this is stupid, but I don't think so. It isn't about empirical proof, there is none. This is a thread about god from an atheistic perspective that can only yield atheistic results.
Fair enough... so why do you believe in a god if you readily admit that there's no proof of his/ her/ its existence? Is it because the idea is comforting? Do you consider this to be more of a defense mechanism?
Those might be some of the elementary values behind belief. Worth nothing that the beauty of it is that you can, in the end, believe in whatever you want and however you want it.
I'm not entirely sure I agree with your claim that someone can believe in anything at all. I think people have certain standards for belief or disbelief, and it's very hard to overcome certain absurd ideas (what is "absurd" is relative to each person's need and wants and experiences). I do think that, in times of crisis, people will be more willing to believe in something fake or use blind faith just because it provides comfort. But of course, that doesn't mean that guardian angels or afterlives or anything else is necessarily true. Believing something doesn't make it actually real (I don't think you're actually saying it does, but it's a point worth mentioning), and I think that many people have trouble understanding others' perspectives when unfamiliar defense mechanisms or faith-based beliefs are employed. Some beliefs may provide comfort in the short term, but unless you have a "good" reason to believe in something fake (again, subjective), I would think that most of the time it's more important to know and recognize the truth about something, so that we can properly design our lives and missions around real goals that are helpful to ourselves and others, rather than living a lie.
On March 24 2013 20:00 fight_or_flight wrote: I'm an ignostic. Until you can define what the word "god" means, discussion about his existence is pointless.
I am a theist.
The definition of God is existence. A better understanding is that God is essentially everything. Nothing is separate from God, you're God, experiencing God, living in God, worshiping and denying him.
It's simple to say that God is the source of the universe. But in theology God is explained as something that has no beginning or end. In otherwords negative infinite to positive infinite. Something that is unchanging, as it was, as it is, as it will be...because it isn't limited to time or space. Technically speaking you're experiencing God at this very moment.
However, as a theist...I can tell you that there is no empirical evidence of God. You cannot scientifically study God objectively and prove it's existence. And no where in any religion I am aware of is it stated that you can do this. Spirituality is subjective. It's something you personally experience or fail to experience. It's first person and can not truly be shared with others for validation.
The human body is the temple of God. Meaning that God cannot be experience externally, he can only be found within one self. And until one experiences this enlightenment. One's belief is simply hope.
Religions....most popular Religions are the same. Because they can only be one path to God, meaning that all religions are talking about the same exact thing. Contradictions are caused by the failure of doctrine to survive the test of time. But religions are built on the experiences of those that have traversed to the highest levels of personal enlightenment, and through them we have come to understand spiritual concepts.
So how do we go about proving God's existence? The simple answer is we don't. As a theist I see no need to do this. Because my belief in God has to do with my personal experiences, and how He has factored in each critical time in my life. I can't share that.
Rationally speaking I am perfectly fine with atheist taking the standard they do. Again there is no empirical evidence of God. And as far as I know in theology, that is intended. Spirituality afterall is built on faith.
On March 24 2013 23:59 FeUerFlieGe wrote: Faith is faith. Empirical evidence is outside of it's realm. So long as science doesn't discover everything (It probably won't), there will be room for faith. Many great scientists actually used faith as a motive for their practice, so the two can exists simultaneously. I personally don't see science as a reason to denounce faith, or faith as a reason to denounce science.
This is not really about science and faith though. Even many mainstream theologians now believe in evolution and the big bang. Whatever the scientists believe is out of the question.
This is about empirical proof of gods existence.
Let me also comment on the faith and science thing. The thing is, even if science does not and may not know anything, it does so with care to factual verifiable methods and deals with physical reality. For example, human knowledge, through science, has leapt so much in terms of particle physics that we can predict the life of a star, in quantum mechanics that we practically know the foundations of the universe, and can even retromap the unknowns in the universe based on scientific assumptions (see Higgs boson). All these knowledge are based on reality. What is faith in god based on? Feelings?
I would normally say there is no widely available empirical evidence for the existence of God, much less proof; as the evidence would depend upon sensory input. Fatima can qualify, I suppose, as could other miracles; but those definitely don't qualify as proof, being that they don't absolutely prove that a miracle did occur. And it makes sense in a way, from the Christian point of view, that such miracles would be limited to smaller groups or individually. One really shouldn't believe only because of miracles, nor should one disbelieve because one does not experience miracles. Faith should be a personal decision.
I love the internet though, where any random person can call Aquinas an idiot... lol.
On March 24 2013 20:00 fight_or_flight wrote: I'm an ignostic. Until you can define what the word "god" means, discussion about his existence is pointless.
I am a theist.
The definition of God is existence. A better understanding is that God is essentially everything. Nothing is separate from God, you're God, experiencing God, living in God, worshiping and denying him.
It's simple to say that God is the source of the universe. But in theology God is explained as something that has no beginning or end. In otherwords negative infinite to positive infinite. Something that is unchanging, as it was, as it is, as it will be...because it isn't limited to time or space. Technically speaking you're experiencing God at this very moment.
An ignostic would reject this defintion as empty sophistry. "God is God, God is everything, etc." isn't satisfying because it doesn't have any explanatory power. If you made the common claim, for example, that God is infinite and exists beyond time and space, you would need to offer a precise explanation of what exactly that means in order for an ignostic to be satisfied.
On March 24 2013 20:00 fight_or_flight wrote: I'm an ignostic. Until you can define what the word "god" means, discussion about his existence is pointless.
I am a theist.
The definition of God is existence. A better understanding is that God is essentially everything. Nothing is separate from God, you're God, experiencing God, living in God, worshiping and denying him.
It's simple to say that God is the source of the universe. But in theology God is explained as something that has no beginning or end. In otherwords negative infinite to positive infinite. Something that is unchanging, as it was, as it is, as it will be...because it isn't limited to time or space. Technically speaking you're experiencing God at this very moment.
However, as a theist...I can tell you that there is no empirical evidence of God. You cannot scientifically study God objectively and prove it's existence. And no where in any religion I am aware of is it stated that you can do this. Spirituality is subjective. It's something you personally experience or fail to experience. It's first person and can not truly be shared with others for validation.
The human body is the temple of God. Meaning that God cannot be experience externally, he can only be found within one self. And until one experiences this enlightenment. One's belief is simply hope.
Religions....most popular Religions are the same. Because they can only be one path to God, meaning that all religions are talking about the same exact thing. Contradictions are caused by the failure of doctrine to survive the test of time. But religions are built on the experiences of those that have traversed to the highest levels of personal enlightenment, and through them we have come to understand spiritual concepts.
So how do we go about proving God's existence? The simple answer is we don't. As a theist I see no need to do this. Because my belief in God has to do with my personal experiences, and how He has factored in each critical time in my life. I can't share that.
Rationally speaking I am perfectly fine with atheist taking the standard they do. Again there is no empirical evidence of God. And as far as I know in theology, that is intended. Spirituality afterall is built on faith.
Finally someone brave enough to admit his faith.
Ok, and this is not an attack, but an attempt to discuss with you. If there is no basis for your belief other than personal experience, is this not the same as, say imagination? What is the point of considering as truth something that cannot even be proved to exist.
On March 24 2013 23:54 docvoc wrote: I find it ironic that the people in here who say that not only is there no god, but also that no rational person would ever rationally believe there could ever possibly believe there is a god, and how could someone ever be so stupid to do such a thing, sound just like door to door evangelists. Kind of funny. I don't believe in god based on evidence, I don't KNOW of him, I believe of him. Some people say this is stupid, but I don't think so. It isn't about empirical proof, there is none. This is a thread about god from an atheistic perspective that can only yield atheistic results.
Fair enough... so why do you believe in a god if you readily admit that there's no proof of his/ her/ its existence? Is it because the idea is comforting? Do you consider this to be more of a defense mechanism?
There are somethings in the universe that we can't explain yet, we say that science can explain everything, but there is a lot that we don't know yet. That is an answer given to me by a lot of people, but that isn't my reason. I believe because there is beauty in the world that doesn't submit to the randomness that a lot of atheists attribute to it. Being atheist to me is self-defeating in the same way belief in god is (according to some atheists), they chalk things up to randomness of the universe and how no one actually matters (like a neo-existentialist kind of thing), I chalk it up to people do matter and that some things happen in a way that just pan out, like someone was watching over. It can be a defense mechanism, though I try to not make it be, but sometimes when I'm in need and there is no where else to turn, it is comforting that I can look up and plead from the bottom of my heart.
That's a really interesting perspective.
First, I'd like to note that just because science hasn't explained *everything* (nor may it ever), that doesn't mean that there exists positive evidence for a supernatural explanation. This is the stereotypical "god of the gaps" argument, where it's (illogically) assumed that evidence for a deity is implied whenever a natural explanation doesn't exist yet. And then as science and mathematics eventually come up with the actual reasons for phenomena (natural disasters, evolutionary theory, the big bang theory, etc.), then the "god" excuse is no longer relevant for that specific question (but still exists to answer all other unexplained questions). It's an ever-receding argument that never actually provides a reason why god exists, besides "we don't know x yet, so let's assume god did it".
As an atheist, I fully recognize that importance and value that each person in this world has... and not believing in an afterlife makes this life all the more important for me Also, listening to some of the things that Neil deGrasse Tyson and other famous atheists say about our appreciation of ourselves, biological evolution, and the universe makes it all the more motivating!
On March 24 2013 23:54 docvoc wrote: I find it ironic that the people in here who say that not only is there no god, but also that no rational person would ever rationally believe there could ever possibly believe there is a god, and how could someone ever be so stupid to do such a thing, sound just like door to door evangelists. Kind of funny. I don't believe in god based on evidence, I don't KNOW of him, I believe of him. Some people say this is stupid, but I don't think so. It isn't about empirical proof, there is none. This is a thread about god from an atheistic perspective that can only yield atheistic results.
Fair enough... so why do you believe in a god if you readily admit that there's no proof of his/ her/ its existence? Is it because the idea is comforting? Do you consider this to be more of a defense mechanism?
There are somethings in the universe that we can't explain yet, we say that science can explain everything, but there is a lot that we don't know yet. That is an answer given to me by a lot of people, but that isn't my reason. I believe because there is beauty in the world that doesn't submit to the randomness that a lot of atheists attribute to it. Being atheist to me is self-defeating in the same way belief in god is (according to some atheists), they chalk things up to randomness of the universe and how no one actually matters (like a neo-existentialist kind of thing), I chalk it up to people do matter and that some things happen in a way that just pan out, like someone was watching over. It can be a defense mechanism, though I try to not make it be, but sometimes when I'm in need and there is no where else to turn, it is comforting that I can look up and plead from the bottom of my heart.
So your belief is basically:
-Self-centered (I want people to mean something, so I'll believe in something which puts humanity at the centre of the universe when really we are but a drop in the ocean) -Some things seem to work as if they have been planned -It's nice and comforting for you.
Doesn't seem like enough for religious belief in my eyes.
On March 25 2013 00:33 evilfatsh1t wrote: this thread is gonna turn to shit so quick, no matter how hard we try to be civil about this.
Posts like this are the ones who deserve an instant 90 day ban. Did you even make an attempt to read the OP and the discussion. Seems like you just came here to stir shit up. If only I had a report button.
On March 24 2013 23:59 FeUerFlieGe wrote: Faith is faith. Empirical evidence is outside of it's realm. So long as science doesn't discover everything (It probably won't), there will be room for faith. Many great scientists actually used faith as a motive for their practice, so the two can exists simultaneously. I personally don't see science as a reason to denounce faith, or faith as a reason to denounce science.
Well, seeing how the question we're supposed to discuss is not if faith exists or there is room for it, but rather
On March 24 2013 19:50 AUFKLARUNG wrote:
FOR DISCUSSION (PHASE 1): PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD? Is there any empirical proof that God exists?
I fail to grasp you point. The question is not one of science disproving god, bur rather wether science can prove god.
On March 24 2013 23:49 S:klogW wrote: why pointless? i dont follow that leap...
if there's an old dude who created the world etc actually in the world, then worshipping this thing is dumb. you'd want to study it and poke its nose.
I want to understand what you are saying but I cant. Language barrier maybe since im not american. Make it simpler please. I dont follow how having a physical god makes religion pointless.
let's say you think jesus is god. then i found jesus the guy and got him before you. is that empirical proof of the claim that 'jesus is god'?
god at best it's a fictitious object that is conjured up before any empirical investigation. cosmic origin questions of the religious sort are teleological (give meaning to existing events) and not causal scientific.
On March 24 2013 23:17 oneofthem wrote: it's not about semantics. it's about how you would be able to tell you've found god once you see it. what god correspond to etc.
that this verification seems to be different for god as opposed to say, a tree, shows something about the concept
thats exactly the point isnt it. is there any physical evidence to prove something that religious people would consider god. it seems straight forward to me, I dont know why you people would insist on this "define" god bullshit. This is one reason why philosophy and linguistics achieve nothing, unlike science.
it is not straightforward when you can't establish that any given piece of evidence is evidence for god.
Why the f*** do you insist on this philosophical nonesense. Lets substitute it this way. Prove to me that a unicorn exists? You know, white horse with horn on its forehead, wings, flies on rainbows, etc.
God = all knowing, all present, all powerful being who created the universe.
What is there that needs to be defined?!!??? You people are disgustingly impossible.
You're pretty dense, aren't you? You just defined the word "God". Otherwise you wouldn't be able to discuss the concept. There are many, many versions of deities, they don't all have the same characteristics. E.g. the Christian/Aristotelean God is atemporal and has always existed, He's a male, is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, while ancient Greek deities came into existence, were not omnipotent (but had various supernatural powers), definitely not omnipresent, usually not omniscient, and were temporal, but immortal. Then you have your average deistic God that doesn't meddle into our business and usually has no human-like personality. Or Yahweh, a vengeful sadist from the Old Testament.
Frankly, I think it would be awesome if a God did exist.
I am a moral, caring and respectful person. I do not believe God exists. Some people would say I am doomed for eternal pain and suffering because of my lack of belief. I would hope that if God does and is the way so many of you describe him, an "ignorant" lack of belief would not wipe away my obviously Heaven worthy traits.
On another note; I just find so many inconsistencies in "God."
For example: Can God create a rock he cannot lift? He is all powerful after all...
On March 24 2013 23:59 FeUerFlieGe wrote: Faith is faith. Empirical evidence is outside of it's realm. So long as science doesn't discover everything (It probably won't), there will be room for faith. Many great scientists actually used faith as a motive for their practice, so the two can exists simultaneously. I personally don't see science as a reason to denounce faith, or faith as a reason to denounce science.
Well, seeing how the question we're supposed to discuss is not if faith exists or there is room for it, but rather
FOR DISCUSSION (PHASE 1): PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD? Is there any empirical proof that God exists?
I fail to grasp you point. The question is not one of science disproving god, bur rather wether science can prove god.
Well I think I answered that, but let me elaborate. Science is likely to never be able to prove any existence in God because science will probably always have unanswered questions. And even in they do find everything, faith cannot be disproved. The religious scientists use faith as a motive to discover more about "God's universe", but I don't think it's likely, nor do they expect, they will every discover God. This is because, God is above the physical realm, in a realm of faith, where one can choose to believe or not.
Why is it so important to provide empirical proof for the existence of God? The dogmatic approach to 'truth' that science frequently spouts is rather uninteresting when it's applied to every facet of human existence. One cannot simply believe that God exists; God's existence must be proven via rigorous empirical research otherwise it must be cast aside as worthless! While we're at it, let us burn our works of fiction, cast aside our leisure activities, cease our philosophising and instead dedicate our lives to the pursuit of scientific empiricism!
Science makes a category mistake by telling the theist their belief ought to be grounded by empirical research. Theists will generally not operate under providing proof for the existence of God. Belief in God is a matter of faith, not of evidence. Now belief in God can be justified to greater or lesser extents, with weaker or stronger argumentation. But why should it be a necessary feature of that belief that it be proven in accordance with scientific standards? There seems to be a bizarre normative prescription from scientists that people now ought to hold only beliefs which are rooted in empiricism. Of course, this approach is crucial in terms of scientific knowledge, but many theists quite clearly do not hold that their belief in God is a form of scientific knowledge. They might believe that God exists, but this does not belief does not constitute a knowledge of science because it is not justified in accordance with scientific standards.
On March 24 2013 23:54 docvoc wrote: I find it ironic that the people in here who say that not only is there no god, but also that no rational person would ever rationally believe there could ever possibly believe there is a god, and how could someone ever be so stupid to do such a thing, sound just like door to door evangelists. Kind of funny. I don't believe in god based on evidence, I don't KNOW of him, I believe of him. Some people say this is stupid, but I don't think so. It isn't about empirical proof, there is none. This is a thread about god from an atheistic perspective that can only yield atheistic results.
Fair enough... so why do you believe in a god if you readily admit that there's no proof of his/ her/ its existence? Is it because the idea is comforting? Do you consider this to be more of a defense mechanism?
There are somethings in the universe that we can't explain yet, we say that science can explain everything, but there is a lot that we don't know yet. That is an answer given to me by a lot of people, but that isn't my reason. I believe because there is beauty in the world that doesn't submit to the randomness that a lot of atheists attribute to it. Being atheist to me is self-defeating in the same way belief in god is (according to some atheists), they chalk things up to randomness of the universe and how no one actually matters (like a neo-existentialist kind of thing), I chalk it up to people do matter and that some things happen in a way that just pan out, like someone was watching over. It can be a defense mechanism, though I try to not make it be, but sometimes when I'm in need and there is no where else to turn, it is comforting that I can look up and plead from the bottom of my heart.
That's a really interesting perspective.
First, I'd like to note that just because science hasn't explained *everything* (nor may it ever), that doesn't mean that there exists positive evidence for a supernatural explanation. This is the stereotypical "god of the gaps" argument, where it's (illogically) assumed that evidence for a deity is implied whenever a natural explanation doesn't exist yet. And then as science and mathematics eventually come up with the actual reasons for phenomena (natural disasters, evolutionary theory, the big bang theory, etc.), then the "god" excuse is no longer relevant for that specific question (but still exists to answer all other unexplained questions). It's an ever-receding argument that never actually provides a reason why god exists, besides "we don't know x yet, so let's assume god did it".
As an atheist, I fully recognize that importance and value that each person in this world has... and not believing in an afterlife makes this life all the more important for me Also, listening to some of the things that Neil deGrasse Tyson and other famous atheists say about our appreciation of ourselves, biological evolution, and the universe makes it all the more motivating!
neil degrasse tyson isnt an atheist. he said he looked up his own wikipedia page and saw it said atheist, so he changed it to agnostic, checked again later and someone edited it back to atheist. LOL!
EPT
Also, listening to some of the things that Neil deGrasse Tyson and other famous atheists say about our appreciation of ourselves, biological evolution, and the universe makes it all the more motivating! ![[image loading]](http://spydersden.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/epicurus_religion_atheism_desktop_1595x895_wallpaper-3172.jpg?w=640&h=359)
