Is there a GOD?

[bullsvsbears]

The explanation Science offers concerning the formation of the universe, earth and mankind’s apparent explosive grandeur appearance is an obvious source of frustration for Atheists which manifests into anger and hostility by its followers. You just have to look at the common theme on this thread by its worshippers.

 

[MS+Tradesim]

Lol. I find it very amusing that believers of any kind are castigated for asserting things as true, yet non-believers are just as dogmatic in their assertions of what they think are true.

 

[Sean K]

Lol. I find it very amusing that believers of any kind are castigated for asserting things as true, yet non-believers are just as dogmatic in their assertions of what they think are true.

LOL It is quite ironic isn't it.

 

[gav]

OK I have an idea. It requires being open minded and being able to consider both scenarios - that God exists or that he doesn't (no matter what your current beliefs are).

1. What if God were proved to be real?
Let's say we wake up tomorrow and some scientist has undeniable proof that God is in fact real. The proof is so sufficient that it cannot be debated by anyone. All that is proven is that God is real. Nothing more. Not 'what religion is correct' or that 'everything in the bible is correct' or if we are meant to 'pray 5 times per day'. Just that 'God is proven as being real'.

How would this affect our daily lives? Would people behave differently? Would people start flocking to churches? Which church would they flock to? (seeing as no religion, religious story or particular set or religious rules is deemed "correct", just that God exists) Would this change the way people treat each other? Would it change the way our country is ran, and our laws? Would this cause our head religious figures to have more power, in which the way our lives are lived and country is run? How would people who were already religious cope? Would they continue living the way they do, or sacrifice more now that they have proof he exists? More importantly, how would atheists react? Would they feel guilty for the way they have lived their lives? Would some scientists blindly devote their lives trying to prove that God didn't exist, even though the proof of his existance was undeniable?

Then on the flip side....

2. What if it were proved that God does not exist?
Let's say we wake up tomorrow and a scientist has undeniable proof that God does not exist at all, and never has existed. The proof is so sufficient that it cannot be debated at all.

What would happen to religious institutions and their billions of followers? Would church leaders try to continue their hold over people and turn their religions into cults with their own rules, dispite everyone knowing there is no God? (kind of like the non-accepting scientists in the other scenario above) Would people riot? Would people sue churches for psychological damages caused? Would people commit every sin they could without fear? Would this tempt people to break the law, as in the past they thought God would judge them? (they no longer have this fear). If God didn't exist, does that mean there is no such thing as the after-life? Or would people still hold their own beliefs about alternative things such as reincarnation, etc. Would people be more selfish, or selfless?

It would be interesting to hear peoples theories if either of the above scenarios were to happen...

 

[wayneL]

OK I have an idea. It requires being open minded and being able to consider both scenarios - that God exists or that he doesn't (no matter what your current beliefs are).

Great questions, I like this sort of thinking.

**going to sleep on it**

 

[Wysiwyg]

OK I have an idea. It requires being open minded and being able to consider both scenarios - that God exists or that he doesn't (no matter what your current beliefs are).

There is a repetition to universal acts. A constant and repetitive flow of life and death, creation and destruction. What more is there to know and why a general label (god)? There is nothing to prove or disprove.

 

[Cartman]

1. What if God were proved to be real?


2. What if it were proved that God does not exist?

the questions are good Gav ---- but unfortunately humans being humans, the responses would most likely be along the lines of --

if you were on the "correct" team --- "Ha ha, i told you so!" :


or if on the "incorrect" team --- "I still dont believe you!"


Perhaps you could take the question a step further and ask --- What would it actually take to make an atheist admit there is a god, or a godder to admit there isnt one?

i'd suggest even if god appeared in an atheists corn flakes over breakfast, the atheist would still not believe he was real ---- if god offered the atheist a million bucks, he would pretend to believe ---- but once he got the cash in the bank, he would start telling everyone some 'looney" just gave him a million bucks !!

on the flip side, is it actually possible to disprove god/s exist? ----- :dunno:

people tell me i had a great great granma ---- but i've never seen her; no one has any pics of her --- does the fact that i exist prove that she did??

 

[gav]

the questions are good Gav ---- but unfortunately humans being humans, the responses would most likely be along the lines of --

if you were on the "correct" team --- "Ha ha, i told you so!" :

or if on the "incorrect" team --- "I still dont believe you!"

on the flip side, is it actually possible to disprove god/s exist? ----- :dunno:

LOL I see your point, and I'm sure that is how most would react. Hence my question is only hypothetical - with proof being so sufficient it could not be debated. I wonder how our world would change...To truly consider either of these hypothetical situations you'd need an open mind - which is something a few on this thread seem to lack...

 

[MS+Tradesim]

Gav, they are very interesting scenarios. I can contemplate them in an abstract way, but concretizing them is problematic.

C'man says:

Perhaps you could take the question a step further and ask --- What would it actually take to make an atheist admit there is a god, or a godder to admit there isnt one? <snip> on the flip side, is it actually possible to disprove god/s exist? ----- :dunno:

The fact of the matter is, I don't know what it would take for me to embrace atheism again. Minimally, it is impossible to prove no gods exist. Only certain conceptions of God can be disproven, and even then there are very few slam dunk disproofs, only arguments from improbability against some known background factor. A few concepts of God can be rejected outright -for instance there is no God sitting on a throne above a physical dome enclosing the earth. People have been into space and sent machines into the deep beyond and we know that no such God exists. I cannot envisage what a proof would look like that can disprove any and all Gods. Maximally, I would relinquish my position as a Christian if a number of things relating to Jesus could be falsified. But there's just way too much to explain away to reject theism outright - probably I could be convinced to hold a weaker position somewhere between theism and panentheism.

This is, I think, where WayneL is in a superior position to atheists. It may be the case that no good evidence exists for any of the major views about God, but at best, that only justifies soft agnosticism ("I don't know if a god exists"). Incidentally, some atheists have been vocal in arguing that atheism is not "the belief that there are no gods" but "the lack of belief in any gods". It's a semantic shift but it is not sufficient to justify defining itself as atheism. It still reduces to agnosticism. Interestingly, some atheists have gone a step further to reject the label of atheism altogether and identify themselves as naturalists ie. that only nature exists. One wonders how long till they clue in that such a position shoulders an impossible burden of proof.

Snake Pliskin asks:

Is the concept of god a proven fact? If not why do we believe that which is not proven?

As I pointed out to Mr J, humans believe many things that cannot be proven, but we are not less than reasonable for doing so. For instance, it is impossible to prove other minds exist, but everyone believes in them anyway. We cannot prove that we are not just brains in a vat being fed sensory input by some mad scientist, but nobody thinks this is the case. Also, "proof" is notoriously hard to qualify as we each have our own subjective frameworks by which we judge between conflicting ideas and what we will or won't allow to qualify as evidence. I think we can all hold a healthy level of skepticism and a healthy level of open-mindedness, but these are opposite ends of a spectrum too and each end is as irrational as the other.

As to the question of proofs of god, no I don't think there are any slam-dunk proofs and no philosopher worth their salt would claim there are. My own position is a cumulative case and the falsification of any individual factor would not call into question the integrity of the whole. Perhaps my own position is analogous to evolutionary theory. New information sheds new light on some areas or disproves some sub-theory but it would take something pretty impressive to collapse the whole super-structure.

 

[Cartman]

The fact of the matter is, I don't know what it would take for me to embrace atheism again.

g'day MS --- may i say that even though we probably have tangental perceptions of "god" as such (then again maybe not , your logical and educated points are refreshing ---

just curious when you say "again" as highlighted above ---- i'm interested in peoples experiences that were pivotal in there beliefs (either for or against) a higher power/life form/being/god/ or whatever

you indicate you could "not go back" to atheism ----- interested in any specific moments in your life where you "realised" a higher force at work ---

 

[MS+Tradesim]

Hey C'man, I'm always open (time dependent) for a friendly discussion.

There was no single experience or idea that was primary in my deconversion from atheism. It was a range of factors that put together, just made it impossible for me to not be a Christian. I was a fairly reluctant convert and remain skeptical of much within Christianity, but then I'm not a convert to Christianity, but a convert to Jesus.

There was a lot of philosophical contemplation. In that respect one fairly important piece of the puzzle was coming to be convinced that there is a necessary being behind all the contingent ones. Two lines of thought were reinforcing in that respect. In one of his/her posts $20Shoes refers to the cosmological question. From that perspective, I realised the incoherence of an actually infinite past. We are in the present. The past can be divided into a set of equal units of time (however arbitrarily measured). But there is no way through successive addition (traversal) of those units of time that we can reach the present from an infinite past. However construed, the past is finite and that begs the question of beginning. (Some critics have attempted an analogy with Zeno's paradox. Suffice to say since motion exists and we do cross finite distances, we intuitively know that Zeno's paradox is only a thought experiment and does not say something about reality.) Some pretty impressive ideas have been raised to try and avoid a beginning in the finite past.

On the other line of thought, our experience is filled with contingent (caused) entities. Each one may be said to be causally explicable by a prior totality of necessary and sufficient conditions. So whether or not the past is finite, we know that time itself among nearly everything else, is contingent ie. time as we know it is the dimension in which movement occurs. Without time, everything would be frozen, like a photograph captures one point of an unfolding journey. Not to get bogged down in time, but simply to say even an infinite past remains contingent. Thus, the total set of contingent entities needs an explanation.

Once again, some ingenius ideas have been proffered to avoid the implication but no purely contingent explanation is sufficient to ground the whole set of contingents. Necessarily, there is an entity that is not contingent itself and that is the ground of existence for all caused entities. Here are two of the many, many variations of how this has been logically argued:

1) There are only two ways for any thing to exist: dependently, or independently
2) Not everything can be dependent
3) Therefore, something exists independently

---

1) If it is possible that a necessary being exists, then a necessary being exists
2) It is possible that a necessary being exists
3) Therefore, a necessary being exists

These two are no more or less convincing than other versions, and a lot of ink has been used in explaining, defending and criticising them. We all weigh various factors differently and reach our own conclusions.

A number of properties can be derived from the nature of a necessary being such as eternality, non-physicality, non-timebound and so on. Some philosophers, and I am convinced as well, would add that this entity must be intelligent and conscious as to make the decision to initiate the universe at point X, rather than at any other point. Needless to say, this is controversial and avoiding this conclusion has lead to cosmologists positing an infinite multiverse. But applying Occam's razor of not multiplying entities beyond that which is sufficient to explain, it is simpler and more elegant to posit a single necessary intelligent entity than an infinite multiverse that still remains contingent and in need of explanation itself (adding up contingent entities never yields a necessary and sufficient ground for any given caused entity let alone an infinite set of them). Interestingly, the multiverse itself is a kind of god-of-the-gaps invocation that cannot be proven by people bound within this universe bound by its laws of physics. There is simply no way for us to get outside of our physical laws and continue to exist as we do, yet observe other universes with different laws: unless of course, consciousness is basic and transcends nature itself.

On the topic of consciousness, I've been studying philosophy of mind and looking into the NDE phenomenon. I haven't found a single physical theory that satisfactorily explains all aspects of the many reports of the experience. I've read the main literature, the clinical studies, a great number of reports and various proposed theories. The simplest view that explains it best is that consciousness survives body death. Note to "death-is-the-enders": I'm not going to argue about it. The NDE phenomenon is not an argument for theism as such, but it is certainly a problem for materialist worldviews.

I am rambling here and have not done justice to the ideas themselves or my own thought process. I have not given any tight formulations or defense of any arguments and trucks could be driven through the loose wording I've employed. I guess this is just to give you an idea of the kind of things I contemplated as I moved away from atheism.

 

[stocksontheblock]

Do you believe in god.

No! Dont think that needs any explanation.

 

[stocksontheblock]

all religions are essentiallly ideological and linguistic viruses which infect people who are vulnerable to accepting easy answers to unanswerable questions.

the church and the bible are manipulative tools for ensuring the flock don't stray too far.

Wow, this is pretty cool!!! Can I use this sometime?

 

[stocksontheblock]

I don’t have the time to read through all 55 pages, and maybe someone has already raised this, yet why must it be defined in the guise of GOD? Why must there be a god? I make a BIG generalisation here, yet there would appear to me more 'evidence' to dispel the notion of GOD or a GOD, and so why?

GOD or a GOD is always tainted with the heavy burden of religion and those who try to hi-jack a particular thread of the religion to push the 'views' of GOD or their GOD, e.g. Fundamentalists.

GOD or a GOD is a belief, of sorts, or put another way, a faith. A faith or belief you have in 'something', no matter what it is, whether it is as simple as a football team, or as complex as the notion of GOD.

Why is your (general term) GOD not just the means of a belief or faith. Why must GOD come with all the baggage - Jesus, Church, Religion etc. Sorry, just using Christian religion as the example, insert your own GOD like definitions if you believe in another GOD.

GOD can never live up to his or her expectations - those that we have imposed on him or her or it ... For the record, I am atheist. GOD, or a GOD, or the One True GOD is just that. Many forms, from many meanings to many peoples of the world. Hence, how can there be a GOD which defines and meets the expectations of all? I assume some group have to be wrong? You can’t all be right considering the number of fundamental differences between many of the religions that 'represent' GOD, or a GOD.

To have a faith or belief to give us hope, or something to hold onto in times of trouble, or just to have a faith to makes us feel not alone is what a GOD gives - in real-terms, to many people. It’s a faith that he or she will help in someway, yet doesn’t.

So why not have faith or belief in a tree, or your favourite pencil. This is not to belittle your idea of GOD, yet in the end it can, and will more than likely offer as much in return as GOD, or a GOD.

And, as some have pointed out, GOD or a GOD has a lot to answer for if he or she does exist. Bloody hell, look around at all this mess. Whether manmade [sic] or not, there is just a little too much going on, has gone on, and will go on for GOD, or a GOD to just sit back drinking a long black and watching the show.

Sure, the religious doctrine can talk all about we made 'our' bed when we took the apple from the tree etc., yet I think the more fanciful ideas of the bible/religion or 'start of it all' need to be looked at a little more openly.

So, I come back to my question, why do you not have faith, or belief in yourself, your own thoughts, your tree, your pencil, or just a faith that it will be all OK, or not OK, whichever you want. Why dress it up in religion and then tag an omnipotent GOD to the CEO position?

 

[stocksontheblock]

The explanation Science offers concerning the formation of the universe, earth and mankind’s apparent explosive grandeur appearance is an obvious source of frustration for Atheists which manifests into anger and hostility by its followers. You just have to look at the common theme on this thread by its worshippers.

lol ... now that is truly funny!!!

Why would the "explanation science offers ..." be a source of "frustration for Atheists ..."

 

[Mofra]

Lol. I find it very amusing that believers of any kind are castigated for asserting things as true, yet non-believers are just as dogmatic in their assertions of what they think are true.

MS, I'd suggest it is the force at which assertions are made (on either side) that determines the castigations reflected back upon those believers/non-believers as the case may be.

I think most people, face to face, are quite accepting of the beliefs of others and simple discussions would rarely degenerate into a mission to convert the other side to a particular belief system (or non-belief system as the case may be). Perhaps some discussion-type form of Newton's laws of opposing force?

In short, fundamentalism almost always results in some form of aggression ragardless of the belief attached to it.

 

[$20shoes]

Two lines of thought were reinforcing in that respect. In one of his/her posts $20Shoes refers to the cosmological question. From that perspective, I realised the incoherence of an actually infinite past. We are in the present. The past can be divided into a set of equal units of time (however arbitrarily measured). But there is no way through successive addition (traversal) of those units of time that we can reach the present from an infinite past. However construed, the past is finite and that begs the question of beginning.

Nice post Tradesim. It is quite logical to dismiss the notion of an infnite past, but I just wanted to expand upon this a little more.
In my construct, I purport that time is infinite. There are two reasons why I reached this conclusion:

i) my hypothesis accepts that all of time and all universal matter was there in the beginning. It was far more dense than it is today but you and I and dinaosaurs and the year 3500 were already in existence. As the universe stretches into infinity so does time, much like a bungee cord being stretched. However its end points are unreachable - that is, if i wanted to traverse time to reach an end point, it would be impossible because you are trying to reach the end point of infinity. The counter argument here is that if there was a beginning then there must be a starting point in time. But, we only draw this conclusion, not because its provable, but because it seems logical and we base this supposition on the creation date of the universe. Did time exist before our universe existed? Or is time something that has always been? If it has always been then you might conceive that as infinity stretches into infinity, more of what exists is revealed, as the bungee cord expands. In this sense, time is not elapsing but is being revealed.


ii) If you accept our current understanding of the universe - that is, at some finite point in time, a universe was created, then before that point there must logically have been "no" time. However, if there was no time, prior to this major event, time could obviously not have elapsed to even allow that very first germination of our universe - there was no time!
If there was a point of no time, to take the concept a step further, then you must concede that it is possible for something to "live" outside of time, or come into being without time, for our universe came into existence from somewhere where time did not exist.
If you accept this, then it is logical to accept that some force was able to penetrate a continuum of nothingness to create time and somethingness held within the nothingness.

 

[bullsvsbears]

lol ... now that is truly funny!!!

Why would the "explanation science offers ..." be a source of "frustration for Atheists ..."

Because Science cannot provide an answer to dispel God's existence.

I'm not trying to disrespect science because I have a science background myself. However I have noticed a common theme amongst atheists on this site is to question ones intelligence because of their belief in God's existence.

All instruction, all teaching, all training comes with intent. Someone who writes an instruction manual does so with purpose. Did you know that in every cell of our bodies there exists a very detailed instruction code, much like a miniature computer program? As you may know, a computer program is made up of ones and zeros, like this: 110010101011000. The way they are arranged tell the computer program what to do. The DNA code in each of our cells is very similar. It's made up of four chemicals that scientists abbreviate as A, T, G, and C. These are arranged in the human cell like this: CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT and so on. There are three billions of these letters in every human cell!!

Well, just like you can program your phone to beep for specific reasons, DNA instructs the cell. DNA is a three-billion-lettered program telling the cell to act in a certain way. It is a full instruction manual.14

Why is this so amazing? One has to ask....how did this information program wind up in each human cell? These are not just chemicals. These are chemicals that instruct, that code in a very detailed way exactly how the person's body should develop.

Natural, biological causes are completely lacking as an explanation when programmed information is involved. You cannot find instruction, precise information like this, without someone intentionally constructing it.

 

[Mr J]

bullyvsbears - does the complexity of biology suggest that a god was likely, or is it just something that currently impresses us, like tv, radio, electricity and flight once did. I know they're not quite the same, but I'm suggesting that those who come to the conclusion that biology could not have developed unassisted are perhaps underestimating biology, and overestimating their own knowledge and calculations.

 

[MS+Tradesim]

Perhaps some discussion-type form of Newton's laws of opposing force?

That has merit!

In short, fundamentalism almost always results in some form of aggression ragardless of the belief attached to it.

I agree. Looking behind it, I would suggest that the things that people draw their identity from are the things they are most sensitive about. The more tightly the ideas are held, the more sensitivity experienced when one perceives the idea as under attack because to them, it is their very identity that is perceived as under threat.