• Best of luck to the class of 2024 for their HSC exams. You got this!
    Let us know your thoughts on the HSC exams here
  • YOU can help the next generation of students in the community!
    Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
MedVision ad

Does God exist? (9 Viewers)

do you believe in god?


  • Total voters
    1,568

dan964

what
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
3,479
Location
South of here
Gender
Male
HSC
2014
Uni Grad
2019
"you can't explain where the universe came from therefore a the claims of a pedophile warlord slave-trader from the sixth century about the nature of god are correct"
you can explain that the universe had a beginning though?
the question with that kind of evidence*[1] is then, if God exists, what is he like?
Is the Christian right? Or is Islam right?*[2] Or is the atheist right in saying that they all wrong? etc.

And no I don't necessary disagree nor agree with the statement. It just seemed like it wasn't really in response to anything. I am more likely to agree to some extent that said.

*[1] evidence pertaining to the universe's origins/complexity of life.
*[2] I can guess your response to that q by your sig so no need to respond.
 
Last edited:

dan964

what
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
3,479
Location
South of here
Gender
Male
HSC
2014
Uni Grad
2019
You can't use the bible as proof of God's existence [1] , because it assumes that to be true in the first place.

As for our environment, most things have a scientific explanation that doesn't involve a God at all. While many things, such as the origin of life, do not, this does not mean we can say 'God did it' [2] unless there is proof of that - which there's not [3] , or scientists wouldn't still be trying to understand these things.
in response to
[1] well then you have prove it [bible or other text] to be true (or not) e.g. historically predominately or other proofs.
[2] well, it does not rule it out as a possible explanation either, so we still scratch our heads.

[3] This is the real question I guess of this thread. Whether there is conclusive proof/evidence for God? The atheist will say no, while others will disagree. There is indeed evidence, but is it conclusive/sufficient enough, for a person to conclude that God exists, that is where it becomes REALLY subjective. How much evidence is needed?


Is one of the essential beliefs of science to explain everything without reference to the existence of God?
Or is the essential belief or dogma (doctrine) of atheism, don't confuse the two. (that is science and atheism)

And finally, why do some people hate God, so much if they claim he doesn't exist?
 
Last edited:

dan964

what
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
3,479
Location
South of here
Gender
Male
HSC
2014
Uni Grad
2019
an interesting question to consider
if God defined himself which by definition should be able of doing, would you be listening?
 
Last edited:

braintic

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
2,137
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
can't originate from a causeless or random chaotic cause
That is a mere assertion. You have stated that with no evidence based only on a disbelief that the opposite can be true.

a beginning to space and time, implies directly something beyond space and time. It also implies a creator
Another jump in logic. Why does a beginning to space in time imply any of that?

Absolutely morality. The idea of what is right and wrong, becomes subjective if God does not exist. In fact the strongest piece of evidence for God's existence is the very fact we have a consciousness and have the ability to distinguish between right and wrong.
Who says there is an absolute morality? Morality IS subjective. Morality is defined BY people. Morality has always been extremely malleable, and is constantly changing with time. Even murder is acceptable in times of war. Morality concerning monogamous sex is historically not even the norm outside christendom. The overarching moral concept of 'do unto others ... blah blah' is merely an evolutionary construct designed to protect the individual by protecting the group, and vice versa.


Even if a god had created us, why would it demand our absolute subservience unless it was some kind of petty control freak? If ever I was to discover there was a god (and I won't) I would say 'that is an interesting piece of trivia, now excuse me while I get on with life'.
 

Sy123

This too shall pass
Joined
Nov 6, 2011
Messages
3,730
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
That is a mere assertion. You have stated that with no evidence based only on a disbelief that the opposite can be true.
Obviously, something can't come into being without a cause implies that if something comes into being, it must have a cause.
This is known self-evidently to be true, if you deny this then you require proof

Another jump in logic. Why does a beginning to space in time imply any of that?
Obviously since if all of space and time had a cause, then the cause cannot be itself of space and time for then it would result in something causing itself. i.e. if A is made of space and time, and the Universe contains A, then A would cause itself, and that is impossible for in order to cause oneself, one has to exist before existing, which is a contradiction.

It's really quite simple


Even if a god had created us, why would it demand our absolute subservience unless it was some kind of petty control freak? If ever I was to discover there was a god (and I won't) I would say 'that is an interesting piece of trivia, now excuse me while I get on with life'.
It's spelled "God" not 'god', barely anyone believes in a 'god'. Calling it a "petty control freak" is not an argument against religion, it is simply name calling
 

Sy123

This too shall pass
Joined
Nov 6, 2011
Messages
3,730
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
Ugh, i don't know if this has been asked yet, but even if you do happen to die/meet God, whatever you may believe he would look like. How could you confirm that this person was actually God and not just something/one that claimed to be God. (Assuming your definition of God represents him as something with a mind).
God is not a person

God is not a big old man in the sky with a white beard

This needs to be understood, because quite a lot of people are really ignorant with regards to this fact.
 

dan964

what
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
3,479
Location
South of here
Gender
Male
HSC
2014
Uni Grad
2019
Its long, you may not want to read all. But answer whatever you want.

That is a mere assertion. You have stated that with no evidence based only on a disbelief that the opposite can be true.
(1) well, its actually a law in science, I have heard it used before called the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It states something very similar to the statement you were claiming was an assertion.
So I wasn't just assuming it, there is proper scientific evidence for it.

(2) There is either God or chance (e.g. a multiverse). The only two explanations.
Some opt for the latter. Others, like myself opt for the first - because of (1)
You probably very familiar (hopefuly you are) with the fine tuning of the universe and the arguments that go for both sides.

Another jump in logic. Why does a beginning to space in time imply any of that?
Well then explain with evidence, how something can come out of nothing in off itself?
But it is a beginning.

Who says there is an absolute morality? Morality IS subjective. Morality is defined BY people. Morality has always been extremely malleable, and is constantly changing with time. Even murder is acceptable in times of war[1]. Morality concerning monogamous sex is historically not even the norm outside christendom. The overarching moral concept of 'do unto others ... blah blah' is merely an evolutionary construct[2]designed to protect the individual by protecting the group, and vice versa.

Even if a god had created us, why would it demand our absolute subservience unless it was some kind of petty control freak? If ever I was to discover there was a god (and I won't) I would say 'that is an interesting piece of trivia, now excuse me while I get on with life'.
If morality is subjective, why does society as whole (corporately) think that murder is wrong?
If it is purely subjective, then the means of administrating justice and law, becoming meaningless or even questionable? If I can justify why I am doing is right, by my own definition. There needs to be a standard. Why can people even agree on a standard of morality?

Why were there so many protests against starting wars? Why should we stand up for the unprivileged if the only reason is to benefit ourselves?


[1] What justifies one side for example in war being better than the other, particular if in bold, murder is acceptable.
(what you really need to say if that if 'I murder less people, am I better than that person over there?' - the answer is no in case you were wondering).
Under what circumstances would you justify the murder of another human being?
If you value your life, you would surely values others.

[2] If absolute morality did not exist, then how would justify yourself as being right'er than anyone else. How does then subjective standards become comparable, based on the majority, but what if the majority is bent on doing wrong, while a few are not? What about the people being persecuted, their persecutors obviously think it is okay, we obviously think it is okay because we don't speak against injustice.

Really the reason to do good then can become reduced to 'selfish reasons' to protect YOURSELF rather than to protect OTHERS, even if harms you.


The reality is there is a god* But what is that god*? (*I am questioning whether 'g' is appropriate here)
For some people, it is money.
For other people, it is scientific reason
For others still it is chance.
Yet still for others, its God, a being that is way beyond ourselves, and that is outside of time and space and yet created time and space. Some who believe that his being is the one who determines what is right and wrong.
Even still others, who know only believe (the line above) but also believe that this God came down and interact with his creation, to experience the sufferings they were going through, to die (and then only to rise again), to restore the broken relationship with God and man (because of man's arrogance and rejection of God).

Lets consider a controversial example: abortion.
Scientifically, at what point is a baby considered an individual, is it
(A) When conception, when in the womb. Then it is a human life, and the "evolutionary construct" would not be to kill the baby, since murder is wrong, and you value life (I hope you do)
(B) When exit the womb. Then it is DEPENDENT on the mother, and your overaching moral of 'do unto others ... concept applies. Therefore you would not kill the baby.

(But who exactly said that? 'Do unto others...' - thats rhetorical)

Second example: what makes your life more valuable than anyone elses? What right then do you have to end anyone else's

If there was no standard by which to judge morality, then how to pursue justice?
Who then is right in a court of law if someone is being accused. Do then say, I had good motives? Sometimes, you can't prove that.

No of course not, if someone does something wrong, then justice is needed.
Now how is justice served, if the world/universe is subject to chance? What reason then is to have hope in humanity, we all live and we all die. We don't benefit the labours of our works, and we have no assurance that those who are still here when we die, will even appreciate our labour.

What about the futility of so many things? We just worked up over many little things e.g. someone cut us off when driving etc.
Or the fact that really your schooling for an ATAR, people don't bother remembering what ATAR they got 10 years down the track. What about the fact, that people indulge, binge etc.? They are not satisfied with the world that is there.

What about people who are grieving and suffering? Their pain will never die out. Is the purpose of life, just to live and die, to experience pain?

I am telling you that life would suck if the only reason we are living is to work the sweat of our brow and then die?

Thirdly, if morality was subjective, then who is right and who is wrong. Truth is certainly not subjective. How do what therefore that was is true is good, and was is false is wrong (in the moral sense)?
I could presuppose that I am always right (which is not true), and that I never do an immoral thing, but when someone else looks at your life, they would think I am a liar.

4. If morality is subjective, then why do people talk about the "greater good of society? or "make the world a better place?". If morality is subjective, then even the idea to advance the human race, benefit the species becomes subjective.

5. Why are we so forgetful of the past? We say the worlds becoming a better place, but is it really. Natural disasters and suffering are pretty objective proof that this life sucks, if the world is really becoming a better place, why have we not fulfilled our goals to halve poverty by 2015? Why do people live in such suffering and poverty, and everyone
just continues on with their lives? Why ironically are they (the poor) seem happier than us, who have every reason to be happy?

----
Quotations are attributed to a wise man, a teacher, who was also very wealthy and had the most glorious life. (His name is Solomon in case you were wondering)

“Meaningless! Meaningless!”
says the Teacher.
“Utterly meaningless!
Everything is meaningless.”

"What do people gain from all their labors
at which they toil under the sun?

Generations come and generations go,
but the earth remains forever."
What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.

Is there anything of which one can say,
“Look! This is something new”?
It was here already, long ago;
it was here before our time...
No one remembers the former generations,
and even those yet to come
will not be remembered
by those who follow them...
I have seen all the things that are done under the sun; all of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind"

[2]
"I said to myself, “Come now, I will test you with pleasure to find out what is good.” But that also proved to be meaningless. “Laughter,” I said, “is madness. And what does pleasure accomplish?” I tried cheering myself with wine, and embracing folly—my mind still guiding me with wisdom. I wanted to see what was good for people to do under the heavens during the few days of their lives...

I undertook great projects: I built houses for myself and planted vineyards. I made gardens and parks and planted all kinds of fruit trees in them. I made reservoirs to water groves of flourishing trees. I bought male and female slaves and had other slaves who were born in my house. I also owned more herds and flocks than anyone in Jerusalem before me. I amassed silver and gold for myself, and the treasure of kings and provinces. I acquired male and female singers, and a harem as well—the delights of a man’s heart. I became greater by far than anyone in Jerusalem before me. In all this my wisdom stayed with me...

I denied myself nothing my eyes desired;
I refused my heart no pleasure.
My heart took delight in all my labor,
and this was the reward for all my toil...

Yet when I surveyed all that my hands had done
and what I had toiled to achieve,
everything was meaningless, a chasing after the wind;
nothing was gained under the sun."

[3]
"Then I turned my thoughts to consider wisdom,
and also madness and folly.
What more can the king’s successor do
than what has already been done?

I saw that wisdom is better than folly,
just as light is better than darkness.

The wise have eyes in their heads,
while the fool walks in the darkness;
but I came to realize
that the same fate overtakes them both."

[4]
"So I hated life, because the work that is done under the sun was grievous to me. All of it is meaningless, a chasing after the wind. I hated all the things I had toiled for under the sun, because I must leave them to the one who comes after me. And who knows whether that person will be wise or foolish? Yet they will have control over all the fruit of my toil into which I have poured my effort and skill under the sun. This too is meaningless. So my heart began to despair over all my toilsome labor under the sun. For a person may labor with wisdom, knowledge and skill, and then they must leave all they own to another who has not toiled for it. This too is meaningless and a great misfortune. What do people get for all the toil and anxious striving with which they labor under the sun? All their days their work is grief and pain; even at night their minds do not rest. This too is meaningless."

[5]
" Surely the fate of human beings is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; humans have no advantage over animals. Everything is meaningless. All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return."

[6]
" Whoever loves money never has enough;
whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with their income.
This too is meaningless.

As goods increase,
so do those who consume them.
And what benefit are they to the owners
except to feast their eyes on them?

The sleep of a laborer is sweet,
whether they eat little or much,
but as for the rich, their abundance
permits them no sleep.

I have seen a grievous evil under the sun:
wealth hoarded to the harm of its owners,
or wealth lost through some misfortune,
so that when they have children
there is nothing left for them to inherit.

Everyone comes naked from their mother’s womb,
and as everyone comes, so they depart.
They take nothing from their toil
that they can carry in their hands.

This too is a grievous evil:

As everyone comes, so they depart,
and what do they gain,
since they toil for the wind?

All their days they eat in darkness,
with great frustration, affliction and anger."

I will leave it there with the quotes

But two last thing, why should it matter if God exist, it doesn't mean you are going to approve of his existence, let alone listen to him, if he spoke to you (through a written record of his words)?

And finally just a slightly random question from your subjectivity, what determines whether sometime is objective? Is truth subjective?
 
Last edited:

braintic

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
2,137
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Obviously, something can't come into being without a cause implies that if something comes into being, it must have a cause. This is known self-evidently to be true, if you deny this then you require proof
And yet somehow, apparently, a god can exist without first coming into being, and hence not have a cause.
You don't find that somewhat of a conundrum?
Every time I ask someone to explain why their god is free from the creation/cause clause, they simply define their god that way and say that's just how it is.

Obviously since if all of space and time had a cause, then the cause cannot be itself of space and time for then it would result in something causing itself.
See previous argument. Did a god cause itself? Or was this god created by a higher god? - read Isaac Asimov's "Job" for a great spoof on a hierarchy of gods.

It's spelled "God" not 'god'
When did you become a spelling Nazi? "God" is the convention amongst christians, "god" is the convention amongst atheists.

In a similar vein, I have always wondered why christians capitalize 'Christian', but not 'atheist'. But I wouldn't go criticizing them as though I regarded it as some kind of insult. Its just a shrug of the shoulders and move on.

Calling it a "petty control freak" is not an argument against religion, it is simply name calling
'Name calling' refers to calling someone something like a 'prick', where the name gives no indication as to the issue you have.
The 'name' I used was a precise description of how this god is portrayed in the bible, so is not "simply" name calling.
 
Last edited:

braintic

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
2,137
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
God is not a person

God is not a big old man in the sky with a white beard

This needs to be understood, because quite a lot of people are really ignorant with regards to this fact.
Why did you stop short of explaining what god IS ?
 
Last edited:

AAEldar

Premium Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
2,246
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
For example the human brain is one of the complex things in the universe, it is able to understand profound concepts such as quantum physics or higher level mechanics, it is able to reason, rationalise, think, stimulate etc.
This, along with the whole debate here, depends on how you look at it. Mathematics to me is a tool that we use to understand the universe. Is it the right tool? Who knows, but it's a tool that we have grasped and developed to understand it in our own rudimentary way. I'd like to think there are other forms of life out there who understand the universe using a different tool.
 

Librah

Not_the_pad
Joined
Oct 28, 2013
Messages
912
Location
Sydney Australia
Gender
Male
HSC
2014
God is not a person

God is not a big old man in the sky with a white beard

This needs to be understood, because quite a lot of people are really ignorant with regards to this fact.
wutislife wutisGod. I've taken the assumption that he is a person, since he is referred to many as "he," by many people.
 
Last edited:

Amundies

Commander-in-Chief
Joined
Jul 29, 2011
Messages
689
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
Uni Grad
2018
Just because you refer to something as a "he", it doesn't make the thing a person. For example, if I had a male dog I would refer to the dog as "he" if I was talking to anyone about him. "He caught a mouse today" or "We took him to the vet". Does that make the dog a person? No.
 

braintic

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
2,137
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Just because you refer to something as a "he", it doesn't make the thing a person. For example, if I had a male dog I would refer to the dog as "he" if I was talking to anyone about him. "He caught a mouse today" or "We took him to the vet". Does that make the dog a person? No.
Ahhhh .... you do realise that dogs have gender too, don't you? They are referred to as he or she based on whether they plug in, or are plugged in to.

Which does god do?
 

Amundies

Commander-in-Chief
Joined
Jul 29, 2011
Messages
689
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
Uni Grad
2018
Ahhhh .... you do realise that dogs have gender too, don't you? They are referred to as he or she based on whether they plug in, or are plugged in to.

Which does god do?
Did you even read my post? Of course dogs have gender. My whole post was based on that assumption.
 

Librah

Not_the_pad
Joined
Oct 28, 2013
Messages
912
Location
Sydney Australia
Gender
Male
HSC
2014
Just because you refer to something as a "he", it doesn't make the thing a person. For example, if I had a male dog I would refer to the dog as "he" if I was talking to anyone about him. "He caught a mouse today" or "We took him to the vet". Does that make the dog a person? No.
... Well the point was missed again, what i meant was something living (able to be given a gender rather), not specifically an actual person...
 

Sy123

This too shall pass
Joined
Nov 6, 2011
Messages
3,730
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
And yet somehow, apparently, a god can exist without first coming into being, and hence not have a cause.
You don't find that somewhat of a conundrum?
Every time I ask someone to explain why their god is free from the creation/cause clause, they simply define their god that way and say that's just how it is.
Yeah, God is eternal, it is not a conundrum, the fact that you are bringing it up shows you have zero understanding about anything remotely theological
So since God is eternal, it doesn't make sense to ask "who caused God if God came into being" since God didn't come into being.

Obviously that is how God is defined, God is the most perfect of all Beings, and as such His existence is not dependent on anything else, He has "Necessary existence". So a proof for the existence of God is a proof that there is a Being that is Necessary (along with other attributes).


See previous argument. Did a god cause itself? Or was this god created by a higher god? - read Isaac Asimov's "Job" for a great spoof on a hierarchy of gods.
No, God did not cause itself, God doesn't have a cause since God is eternal. The Universe has a cause since the Universe is not eternal but came into being, this is very basic.

You call yourself an atheist yet you don't even have the slightest clue of who God is.

When did you become a spelling Nazi? "God" is the convention amongst christians, "god" is the convention amongst atheists.

In a similar vein, I have always wondered why christians capitalize 'Christian', but not 'atheist'. But I wouldn't go criticizing them as though I regarded it as some kind of insult. Its just a shrug of the shoulders and move on.
"God" is a convetion among those who know how to write in the English language, "god" refers to a finite being and is used by atheists out of spite and out of ignorance.

And about you bringing up "Christians", it doesn't really phase me, I'm not a Christian


'Name calling' refers to calling someone something like a 'prick', where the name gives no indication as to the issue you have.
The 'name' I used was a precise description of how this god is portrayed in the bible, so is not "simply" name calling.
It is name calling if you don't back up your name and give it any substance, what does it even mean to say he is a "petty control freak", what does it mean to give the name "petty" to a perfect Being? Without giving any substance behind this name, and not giving any defense as to why you use this name, then the only conclusion is that you are using it to call names.

Even if you did not mean to do any "name-calling", you still have no argument, you just called God a "petty control freak" and said nothing else.
 

braintic

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
2,137
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Firstly, I have zero ACCEPTANCE of anything theological. I understand perfectly what you are trying to assert; it just has no connection with our observable reality.

As with all attempts to use logic to justify the existence of a god, this has devolved into assertions without proof that god exists, is eternal and is perfect, and that its existence is somehow necessary. They are all statements of personal belief .... they are your axioms, not your deductions.

you just called God a "petty control freak" and said nothing else
If you'll check again, that statement was based on a question ... "why would it demand our absolute subservience?"

I would have thought it was obvious that I was implying that it is the fact that it does (supposedly) demand our subservience that makes it a control freak. What other reason could it possibly have for asking us to get on our knees before it, other than the the feeling of power it derives from that?



OK, so you're not christian .... you don't believe that Jesus is the son of god or that he performed miracles. That is refreshing. What do you think of people who do believe that nonsense?

What is even more refreshing is the figure of 50% atheists in the poll. Religious belief is clearly on the wane.

An even more encouraging statistic ... in 2012 (the most recent stats available), 72% of marriages were by civil ceremony.
The crossover year (50%) was only 14 years before that.
So the malignant religious meme (even gene?) is most definitely well on the way to being eradicated.
Unfortunately there will be millions more infected by this most deleterious of mind viruses before before society is finally liberated from its clutches.
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 9)

Top