Does God Exist? (1 Viewer)

[Pace Setter]

They ought to be dealt with at some point, moreover arguments against beliefs of God that assert an "all-good" creator can still be refuted on logical terms, not necessarily on substance (variable ideas of good and bad).

When "that" kind of argument has started, you can start refuting it based on some kind of logic. But when you say "all-good," you open up a whole box of potential definitions for what "all-good" is. I.E. It's something that is defined by humans, through human experience.

Really, when you say something is "good," it refers to something that helps either

1. You, or
2. Someone/something else

in their many goals. So when you someone says god is "all-good," they basically mean that god has helped everyone and everything in every single part of their every goal. (goals include everything from taking the next breat-to a long term career or lifelong ambition.) Would you agree with that definition of "good?"

If so, then how is anyone CERTAIN that the achievement of each tiny little goal is what a creator "should" be doing? How is a creator "good?" People in many religious circles have agreed with that, without considering the possibility that god/the essence may have ANOTHER or many other "ideas" of how the universe(s) "should" be.

The point is, how can this argument take place in the first place; when it is foolhardy to compare a concept that has been invented by humans to describe actions and occurrences relating to humans, to a supposedly divine being who probably does not speak the same language, and who has transgressed the whole concept of ambition which this word has been designed for?

 

[budj]

TThere exists no GOD. Period...
There does not hae to exist a god...Period...

 

[biggles04]

after the 177 pages of arguments and opinions, all you have to say is

TThere exists no GOD. Period...
There does not hae to exist a god...Period...

Grow up.

 

[Kierkegaard]

The existence of this aforementioned "perfect" entity cannot be proven or disproven. Revelation is anecdotal and so called "logical" arguments are merely poorly constructed ontological arguments, with their axioms that rely on the conclusions, thus creating a pathetic, circular argument that makes me quite annoyed.

I beleive in God, but take the Sartrean existential approach; either way, it doesn't really matter. Who cares. We live, we die. Make the most of it and stop arguing about whether or not benevolence and a God with free-will contradicts the world we see and an omniscient God. Don't bother.

 

[Pace Setter]

either way, it doesn't really matter. Who cares. We live, we die. Make the most of it and stop arguing about whether or not benevolence and a God with free-will contradicts the world we see and an omniscient God. Don't bother.

Except you can replace the phrase in bold with anything else you do/say/think in life(other than maybe eat/sleep/drink) and it'd still make the same point.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Make the most of it and stop arguing about whether or not benevolence and a God with free-will contradicts the world we see and an omniscient God. Don't bother.

If you do not wish to discuss it, you are perfectly free to ignore this thread.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Really, when you say something is "good," it refers to something that helps either

1. You, or
2. Someone/something else

in their many goals. So when you someone says god is "all-good," they basically mean that god has helped everyone and everything in every single part of their every goal. (goals include everything from taking the next breat-to a long term career or lifelong ambition.) Would you agree with that definition of "good?"

No that is not my definition of good. You could help a murderer achieve the goal of killing thousands of people, but I would hardly consider this "good."

 

[Kierkegaard]

I'm just saying that it's absurdly false to even proclaim that any new ground can be made on this issue. It just comes down to one group of people saying "Yes" and another group saying "No." Ok, maybe I should start a new thread, "Does it really matter whether God exists or not?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kierkegaard
either way, it doesn't really matter. Who cares. We live, we die. Make the most of it and stop arguing about whether or not benevolence and a God with free-will contradicts the world we see and an omniscient God. Don't bother.


Except you can replace the phrase in bold with anything else you do/say/think in life(other than maybe eat/sleep/drink) and it'd still make the same point.

Well, no. The whole point is that the issue of God does not matter, as the issue of God has no bearing on the world of phenomena: consciousness of being. As opposed to the noumena, which is entirely predetermined and beyond human control. All other acts create your essence (thus making them important), but thinking about God is utterly frivolous. I guess I can afford to be a little frivolous, so I'll entreat you and engage in some form of debate on the issue of God.

 

[biggles04]

Listen, this thread has already been argued enough.

In conclusion: Make your own decision/judgement. It's entirely up to you, but don't criticise anyone else.
I know that almost everybody on this thread that is not a Christian has criticised those who are. But, unfortunately, there are many, many Christians who don't respect non-christian's choice, when I know that their God tells them that they are not to.

So, please, Everybody - Christian or Not, let us just forget this thread and interact with each other like normal people.

 

[Pace Setter]

No that is not my definition of good. You could help a murderer achieve the goal of killing thousands of people, but I would hardly consider this "good."

Well it comes down to whether you would say the word "good" is either

a. relative to experience
b. a universal constant

A murderer who kills a million people has a reason. Perhaps those million people were the murderers of millions of his countrymen. Perhaps they burned down his home. Perhaps the leader of the million people were responsible for torturing him to unimaginable lengths. Either way, the murderer has a reason, and for him/her, relative to his/her experience, the death of the million people would have been "good." There are many other examples. A population of antelope will consider lions, their predators, as "not good." For their own sake, the only "good" thing that can happen is that they find a shelter in the desert where they are protected against lions. However, the good of the antelope directly conflicts with the lion, as the complete safety of antelope also leads to no food for the lions, and consequently, starvation.

A newspaper firm would find it "good" for plain paper to be cheaper, in order to increase the amount of capital within the company. That of course, is virtually impossible unless there is more paper available-i.e more trees are cut down-which isn't the best option for the animals within the forests and perhaps the health of the planet. So I would say the use of the word "good" is relative to experience, which is directly related to goals and ambition. The question I've raised is, how could any of these versions of "good" be the one that god has preferred, assuming that there is one.

This to me all comes down to the mistaken definition of god. If there is a god, then any human being's version of "good," any human's "plan," would exist after the existence of god's plan. The phrases "evil god," "arrogant god," "graceful god" are oxymorons. Again, the use of any of these phrases were only ever designed to be used to described entities that have been sensed or experienced. Apologies for the repetition, but would you agree with that last sentence?

Well, no. The whole point is that the issue of God does not matter, as the issue of God has no bearing on the world of phenomena: consciousness of being. As opposed to the noumena, which is entirely predetermined and beyond human control. All other acts create your essence (thus making them important), but thinking about God is utterly frivolous. I guess I can afford to be a little frivolous, so I'll entreat you and engage in some form of debate on the issue of God.

Taking this as an example, "thinking/arguing about god" requires looking at a monitor, touching your keyboard (and touching any of the rubbish that gets on there-which include germs, bacteria, water, etc) utilising/improving typing technique, as well as the the movement of at least a couple of million electrons around your head at an astonishing speed. How does that differ from washing your clothes?

Why, if "who cares, we live, we die," does the act of keeping your clothes clean matter, when the every action you've taken in the process of washing your clothes is vastly similar to having this discussion on god, barring a relative increase or decrease in the number of these actions that have been performed, and stimuli that have been encountered?

Hopefully that last paragraph made sense.

Listen, this thread has already been argued enough.

I believe that Moonlightsonata posted an adequate reply to that kind of complaint 3 posts ago.

 

[budj]

Pace Setter, the diferance of thinking about go, and washing ones clothes is simply due to necessity. I agree with Keikergaard, the presence f the omnipresent does not have a bearing on the world of phenomena, and thus is utterly frivolous.

And in addition, any physical movement forms another dimension towards the process of learning, thereby rendering each action equivalent to a sene (is that what your trying to put through? if not i am sorry)...but then does the act of murder seem equivalent to the act of ewashing ones self, even so, the act of commiting a murder is highly polished towards the advanced cognitive function of the brain...being well thought out...

Rather, I think the arguement theat Keirkergaard is trying to put out is pretty much identical to mine. That is, there is no need for god.

 

[Pace Setter]

Pace Setter, the diferance of thinking about go, and washing ones clothes is simply due to necessity.

Elaborate on what is a necessity and why, based on that criteria, that keeping clothes clean is more of a necessity. It can be argued that the participation in a debate on god allows the participant to gain knowledge/insights into various niches in many skills/activities/occurences in the world.

And in addition, any physical movement forms another dimension towards the process of learning, thereby rendering each action equivalent to a sene (is that what your trying to put through? if not i am sorry)...but then does the act of murder seem equivalent to the act of ewashing ones self, even so, the act of commiting a murder is highly polished towards the advanced cognitive function of the brain...being well thought out...

Which actually supports the notion that having an argument on god is not too different from any other activity-the only difference being the number/degree of actions/learning. Which raises the question-Where do you draw the line on when you start calling something frivolous? When the total number of bounces from a neutron totals less than 5 trillion? When the total amount of time required to process the thoughts for the action(s) totals less than 0.000004 of a second? When?

Rather, I think the arguement theat Keirkergaard is trying to put out is pretty much identical to mine. That is, there is no need for god.

That's an opinion most can appreciate, if not respect. It by itself, however, does not rule out the possibility of the existence of a god-especially with our limited knowledge on...everything.

 

[budj]

And that being said, I really support Xayma's point in the bid that if there was a god, his actions would be arrogant.

A necessity is something we wish for to keep us alive, a bear commodity. Washing clothes, which maynot be the best exampe of an absolute necessity, does bear down upon the fact that it is a more justified an action, rather than me sitting hear debating this contenscious issue.

For me, it is ever clear that a god does not exist. However, if he exists, his function ismore or less like the aether, non required and subordinated to the physics of society.

In response to biggles: dude i think u should grow up, if u have read the following 177 pages with closeness and rigour, you shall see that I have argued a distinct negative point towards the existance of a god.

 

[Pace Setter]

And that being said, I really support Xayma's point in the bid that if there was a god, his actions would be arrogant.

Again, the confusion over the definition of god has surfaced in an entirely separate debate regarding god. But that's another discussion.

A necessity is something we wish for to keep us alive, a bear commodity. Washing clothes, which maynot be the best exampe of an absolute necessity, does bear down upon the fact that it is a more justified an action, rather than me sitting hear debating this contenscious issue.

I have agreed in one of my previous posts that having food/water/shelter might be more justified than a debate about god. However, any other act, like washing clothes, is a different can of worms. Justification of an action requires the necessity of it's outcome. Where is the necessity of keeping clean clothes? You may not consider any necessity of a "does god exist" debate. However, some others, including myself, have realised the insights over many intricacies of the world that have transpired from such debates. It's like learning first aid. It might not be of any use now, but such knowledge that is gained in these debates will probably be applicable some time in the future.

For me, it is ever clear that a god does not exist. However, if he exists, his function ismore or less like the aether, non required and subordinated to the physics of society.

I take it you either disagreed or missed the day when physicists said that out of the 11 or so dimensions in the universe(s), humans can only detect 4( I think).

If you do not disagree with what the physicists have said, I find it amazing that you've conclusively proven the self-controlled, self-contained, self-serving, "nothing more to it" and obvious nature/physics of society. Mind elaborating?

 

[kelboo]

There exists no GOD. Period...
There does not hae to exist a god...Period...

HEAR HEAR..

Oh but sir! I hear a sane person! How excellent -- Another atheist! Welcome my friend, as people grow a brain, our ranks grow stronger every day

 

[kelboo]

Oh, and let me quote my father (Who is both a never ending and inspirational source of information).

RELIGION IS ORGANISED SUPERSTITION. THE HUMAN RACE HAS THE UTIMATE FATAL FLAW TO BELIEVE UTTER IMPOSSIBLE BULLSHIT BECAUSE THEY FEEL THE NEED TO JUSTIFY THEIR EXISTENCE BECAUSE THE SCIENTIFIC (rational and sane) EXPLANATION IS TOO MUCH FOR THEM TO ADEQUATELY COMPREHEND.

 

[feelin_good]

The real deal

but here's a little section from an e-mail i got from the actual atheist foundation of australia. Hope it helps ya'll out.

"No thinking person accepts the make-believe of the religious elements. Stars are far distant from earth and do not come close and hover over a particular spot. No god deposits sperm into the egg of a teenage girl. Angels do not sing in the sky and Father Christmas does not come down chimneys to provide gifts for children."

 

[Kierkegaard]

Atheism is a dogma initself. At the fundamental level, atheists are at odds with the gnosticism of theism, yet they themselves profess to hold this same gnosticism, but in a converse manner. It's utter hypocrisy. I would have you all recognise that it is necessary for any (non-omniscient) entity with free-will to be agnostic. To profess gnosticism is to deny having doubts, and to doubt is to think. An imperfect, rational being doubts.

Pace Setter, I refer you to Jean-Paul Sartre's 'Being and Nothingness'. I think you'll find that if you are willing to accept that your existence precedes your essence, you are willing to accept that this debate is unnecessary. Not pointless, just unnecessary.

 

[Pace Setter]

Oh, and let me quote my father (Who is both a never ending and inspirational source of information).

RELIGION IS ORGANISED SUPERSTITION. THE HUMAN RACE HAS THE UTIMATE FATAL FLAW TO BELIEVE UTTER IMPOSSIBLE BULLSHIT BECAUSE THEY FEEL THE NEED TO JUSTIFY THEIR EXISTENCE BECAUSE THE SCIENTIFIC (rational and sane) EXPLANATION IS TOO MUCH FOR THEM TO ADEQUATELY COMPREHEND.

Of course, there's absolutely no possibility that any of that scientific evidence is incorrect. And definitely no comparison between the testing methods of science in relation to religion. Not to mention the absurd idea of both practices (religion and science) basing a significant amount of "fact" on earlier assumptions. Clearly, whilst one is a superstition, the other is irrefutable fact based on grounds that have been proven beyond any trace of doubt to anyone willing to "see the truth."

The irony is extraordinary...

 

[Pace Setter]

Pace Setter, I refer you to Jean-Paul Sartre's 'Being and Nothingness'. I think you'll find that if you are willing to accept that your existence precedes your essence, you are willing to accept that this debate is unnecessary. Not pointless, just unnecessary.

Fair enough. Ultimately it's unnecessary, but relative to a lot of other activities, still equally as necessary I would say.