Does God exist? (2 Viewers)

[dan964]

So others just turn to figments of their imagination and subjects derived from myths, lets say, for reassurance and consolation. If god did exist, why would they allow for the occurrences of cruelty in the world, such as religious warfare and genocide?

Apart from the fact that you presume that they must be mythological (implied is fiction even though myth does not imply always fiction) or figments of their imagination. Well I would argue in some cases, particularly pagan gods/goddess and some of the ancient religions. But I don't think it accounts for some religions where it is something so complicated, that it is almost unimaginable.

The question of suffering you ask. The question we have to ask is what is the cause of evil in this world? Does God have a purpose for evil still existing? Is God required to deal withe evil even?
Different faiths have different responses to this question. If I had a bit more time on my hands, which not quite this second, I'd be able to flesh that out. In fact it is a key question, what is God's response to evil? In Christianity, the answer is found in Christ, God coming down experiencing our pain & suffering in our place, so that through this, humanity and ultimately (at the end of the age), the whole of creation restored, free of evil & suffering.

(DrSoccerball should probably comment on Islam, although I will ask what their view is wrt the will of Allah). Buddhists from memory attribute suffering and pain to desire; Hindus attribute to a lack of balance etc. One of those two religions, say it is an illusion (cannot remember which one).

On religious warfare, an interesting observation comes from the fact that false religions do indeed cause a lot of wars but that comment can only come from within a faith perspective that asserts there is only one correct way. And as commented earlier, many ideologies, religious or non-religious (even atheistic) have been used for horrendous acts in the past and as we speak.

 

[Paradoxica]

Apart from the fact that you presume that they must be mythological (implied is fiction even though myth does not imply always fiction) or figments of their imagination. Well I would argue in some cases, particularly pagan gods/goddess and some of the ancient religions. But I don't think it accounts for some religions where it is something so complicated, that it is almost unimaginable.

The question of suffering you ask. The question we have to ask is what is the cause of evil in this world? Does God have a purpose for evil still existing? Is God required to deal withe evil even?
Different faiths have different responses to this question. If I had a bit more time on my hands, which not quite this second, I'd be able to flesh that out. In fact it is a key question, what is God's response to evil? In Christianity, the answer is found in Christ, God coming down experiencing our pain & suffering in our place, so that through this, humanity and ultimately (at the end of the age), the whole of creation restored, free of evil & suffering.

(DrSoccerball should probably comment on Islam, although I will ask what their view is wrt the will of Allah). Buddhists from memory attribute suffering and pain to desire; Hindus attribute to a lack of balance etc. One of those two religions, say it is an illusion (cannot remember which one).

On religious warfare, an interesting observation comes from the fact that false religions do indeed cause a lot of wars but that comment can only come from within a faith perspective that asserts there is only one correct way. And as commented earlier, many ideologies, religious or non-religious (even atheistic) have been used for horrendous acts in the past and as we speak.

It doesn't have to be unimaginable. It can be altered over time to suit the purposes of whomever is the dominant force to suit their ideological agenda, and the process repeated until it comes to the point where one single human mind couldn't conjure up the bizarre extension of ideas and beliefs.

 

[Drsoccerball]

Sociological arguments fail miserably, even in some religions, you don't follow God (or at least shouldn't) because he will fix your marriage.

And secondly, rather than end up in a whole which religion is better argument, which this statement is a play on (if you consider ideologies more broadly), then I'd rather not answer that question.

Now I'm adamant that you are trying to find faults in every little thing I say. I never said that it's a proof for god? He just claimed I don't benefit society so I showed him that I try my best to do it. It had nothing to do with the proofs of God? If you didn't read it I understand and am sorry in advanced.

 

[Drsoccerball]

Who is the 'us'? (more of a curiosity)

Me and a few school mates

I am sorry but there are many people who have done similar, who have been from different faiths, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, secular (atheists too). Contribution to society is not something that be easily measured, if at all; generally speaking.

I wasn't trying to say anything about any faiths I was just saying that a belief in God encourages that service.

I will comment that people do all sorts of things in the name of God and religion; or likewise in the name of other non-religious ideologies (e.g. communism, atheism, pragmatism), doesn't prove that the religion/ideology is true or worth following. All it proves is that you are somewhat consistent with your interpretation of what that religion teaches.

Never implied that.

I understand that you are trying to disprove the baseless claim implied; and show instead that one can have faith and have a positive impact on society, at least in a range of different opinions...

With the same measure you use it will be measured to you...

If it's baseless then why are you only replying to my posts about that topic and not the others... hmm I've been sensing a strange pattern lately...

 

[Drsoccerball]

If god did exist, why would they allow for the occurrences of cruelty in the world, such as religious warfare and genocide?

Quick answer is that God gave everyone freewill as this life is only a test. Stopping any such cruelty in the world made by humans would be taking someone's free will and it no longer becomes a test and defeats the purpose of this life. In regards to evil on Earth and self suffering; I can answer upon request.

 

[Paradoxica]

I wasn't trying to say anything about any faiths I was just saying that a belief in God encourages that service.

Religion... is not as powerful a force as you might think. Sociological and Psychological phenomena are more powerful driving forces of "ethical" behaviour.

 

[dan964]

Now I'm adamant that you are trying to find faults in every little thing I say. I never said that it's a proof for god? He just claimed I don't benefit society so I showed him that I try my best to do it. It had nothing to do with the proofs of God? If you didn't read it I understand and am sorry in advanced.

Nah, more so some constructive feedback. I know exactly why you posted it, I know he made the implied claim that someone of your faith has no benefit to society, which is false even if it wasn't your case. I don't think your argument proves anything though; one can still be a benefit to society even without doing the things that one like yourself has done.

 

[dan964]

Religion... is not as powerful a force as you might think. Sociological and Psychological phenomena are more powerful driving forces of "ethical" behaviour.

Well in some people's minds, religion is a psychological/sociological (more likely the latter) phenomena. Religion can be of benefit to society and it can be a detriment (in the case of extremism etc.), but the same can go from any ideology that comments on the existence or non-existence of a God or gods.

 

[dan964]

Me and a few school mates

I wasn't trying to say anything about any faiths I was just saying that a belief in God encourages that service.


Never implied that.

If it's baseless then why are you only replying to my posts about that topic and not the others... hmm I've been sensing a strange pattern lately...

Because I don't disagree with you always, take it more of a constructive feedback. I comment on things as I wish, some of them aren't necessarily things you have said/implied but just generally from the context.

 

[dan964]

It doesn't have to be unimaginable. It can be altered over time to suit the purposes of whomever is the dominant force to suit their ideological agenda, and the process repeated until it comes to the point where one single human mind couldn't conjure up the bizarre extension of ideas and beliefs.

True, but some religions have been too fairly consistent in their beliefs for this to be the case. Some religions (ahem liberal forms of religions) have evolved more so on ethical matters mainly rather than theological matters; although some liberals reject key tenants of what would be considered orthodox teaching. I do agree that religion or any ideology has been manipulated for political gain, but that does not comment on the actual religion, in most cases.

 

[dan964]

Well if there is no physical evidence nor mathematical proof - even if it does allow us to make predictions and create ideas, does this mean that god doesn't exist, or that we have yet to find evidence to prove of their existence?

Again as he mentioned, it depends on what you consider "evidence" or "proof" for instance. For my perspective, it revolves around things like the resurrection claims (of Jesus, which we celebrate every Easter), are they genuine or are they hoaxes, and does that fit the data we have?
You can probably determine mathematically certain aspects of God (certain parts to essence) and possible hints at existence. Physical evidence such as attributes of the universe and there are indeed arguments for the existence of God, from things, which some dispute, such as the beginning/cause of the universe, the universe being rational (and thus being explainable in theory, but certainly not necessarily in practice) and the like.

Or if you are like DrSoccerball, he has his 12 proofs for instance.

With God, he is mostly outside of the scope of a naturalistic framework of science.

 

[Drsoccerball]

Again as he mentioned, it depends on what you consider "evidence" or "proof" for instance. For my perspective, it revolves around things like the resurrection claims (of Jesus, which we celebrate every Easter), are they genuine or are they hoaxes, and does that fit the data we have?
You can probably determine mathematically certain aspects of God (certain parts to essence) and possible hints at existence. Physical evidence such as attributes of the universe and there are indeed arguments for the existence of God, from things, which some dispute, such as the beginning/cause of the universe, the universe being rational (and thus being explainable in theory, but certainly not necessarily in practice) and the like.

Or if you are like DrSoccerball, he has his 12 proofs for instance.

With God, he is mostly outside of the scope of a naturalistic framework of science.

Just want to clarify it is 12 proofs for that example this book and series has much much more.

 

[Paradoxica]

True, but some religions have been too fairly consistent in their beliefs for this to be the case. Some religions (ahem liberal forms of religions) have evolved more so on ethical matters mainly rather than theological matters; although some liberals reject key tenants of what would be considered orthodox teaching. I do agree that religion or any ideology has been manipulated for political gain, but that does not comment on the actual religion, in most cases.

no, most religions bounce back (mostly?) to their original agenda after the initial take over, but religions, being memes (the technical term, not the internet slang), evolve and diversify over time, and historical analysis can trace back religions into the religious tree of life (just borrowing biology's conceptual framework here, don't mind me.)

 

[nerdasdasd]

Just want to clarify it is 12 proofs for that example this book and series has much much more.

Who was the writer of the book? Post the book name up here.

 

[dan964]

no, most religions bounce back (mostly?) to their original agenda after the initial take over, but religions, being memes (the technical term, not the internet slang), evolve and diversify over time, and historical analysis can trace back religions into the religious tree of life (just borrowing biology's conceptual framework here, don't mind me.)

Yes, religions are related to each other in some ways, and in others they aren't. Some religions may even have virtually no connection except for maybe the belief in a deity.

Some religions are reactions to other religions for instance. Most religions return to their initial teachings and foundation things, i.e. the things that characterize a particular religion as distinct to another. I am thinking for instance of the Reformation which was at the time when everyone went back to the sources.

Your opinion seems to be lined with the assumption that religion is only linked with politics, with some it is or was; and some it became and no longer is at much. It is interesting you mention things like this though, because there are similar thoughts happening now, with shifting attitudes to an old religion to a new "religion" if you like (I raised this in another thread).

It also depends on what you mean by agenda: if you mean opium for the masses, or something along those lines, then some religions may function indeed function like that (I am thinking more so cults), but generally I would disagree on that in other cases.

 

[Paradoxica]

Yes, religions are related to each other in some ways, and in others they aren't. Some religions may even have virtually no connection except for maybe the belief in a deity.

Some religions are reactions to other religions for instance. Most religions return to their initial teachings and foundation things, i.e. the things that characterize a particular religion as distinct to another. I am thinking for instance of the Reformation which was at the time when everyone went back to the sources.

Your opinion seems to be lined with the assumption that religion is only linked with politics, with some it is or was; and some it became and no longer is at much. It is interesting you mention things like this though, because there are similar thoughts happening now, with shifting attitudes to an old religion to a new "religion" if you like (I raised this in another thread).

It also depends on what you mean by agenda: if you mean opium for the masses, or something along those lines, then some religions may function indeed function like that (I am thinking more so cults), but generally I would disagree on that in other cases.

Hmmm... maybe agenda is of the incorrect strength I am describing.

system of ideas would probably work better.

Religion in inevitably tangled with politics, because that's how humans work.

 

[dan964]

Hmmm... maybe agenda is of the incorrect strength I am describing.

system of ideas would probably work better.

Religion in inevitably tangled with politics, because that's how humans work.

Yeah in some sense. Hence why I tend to use the broader term ideology at some points, because a consensus of what religion can be classified is not really reached.

 

[Drsoccerball]

Who was the writer of the book? Post the book name up here.

I've already spoke about it in pm with you. The author's name is Bediuzzaman Said Nursi and the specific quotation was from "The Words."

 

[nerdasdasd]

I've already spoke about it in pm with you. The author's name is Bediuzzaman Said Nursi and the specific quotation was from "The Words."

whoops forgot ^^

 

[braintic]

Some religions are reactions to other religions for instance.

As in Christianity to Judaism.