General Discussions

What are your thoughts on god?

POSTED BY: christhecynic
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 29, 2024 07:06
VIEWED: 44171
PAGE 16 of 19

HOTPOINT

Friday, July 7, 2006 7:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Having just looked at that thread again what I've come across are only three ways cited to, "prove," that god exists, and none are possible even in the hypothetical.

You just haven't thought them through properly (and there were only three because you never came back to either refute those or ask for more).

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:

The first was:
Well one possible way to prove the existance of a God would be if science discovered that life required a creator. Or another might be if there was something intrinsic to the universe that required with certainty "divine intervention" or it could not take place.

The problems with this are several. First off being the creator of life does not make one a god, that has been done by scientists but Hotpoint does not believe them to be gods, otherwise Hotpoint would believe in gods.

Totally fallacious argument that completely misses the point. The issue is whether life in its original form can come into existance without a creator, whether life (an Intelligent Designer such as ourselves) can recreate life has nothing to do with our own existance one way or another.

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:

Also "divine intervention" is an undefined term, without definition it can not be considered but we do know something about it: if it could be proven then it is, by definition, part of nature.

Whether or not we can work with that I don't know. Perhaps there is some well defined version of "divine intervention" for which it is possible to hypothetically prove god. If there is such a thing I'll change my whole stance on this.

"Divine Intervention" in that something happens that violates the basic laws of physics. A Deus ex Machina as it were

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:

The second one was so much nicer:
Like I said. If there was a mechanism in the universe that required a creator that would be proof of "God".
It is simple, requires no undefined terms, and is just as much a way to prove something as saying:
"If there was a mechanism in the universe that prohibited a creator that would be proof of the nonexistance of 'God'."

It sounds nice when you hear it, but it is no more a way of proving god than what I said is a way of disproving god.

An example could be if it were demonstrated that matter could definitely not spontaneously appear by nothing more than random chance. This would mean the Universe would have to be created, it could not simply happen.

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
This one also mentioned evidence that falls short of proof:
Otherwise having the almighty appear one day and demonstrate "miracles" under laboratory conditions would be pretty strong evidence in my book.
Evidence for you perhaps, but hardly useful as proof.

I'd like to know which miracles that would convince for though.

Well for a start how about water into wine under full lab conditions

I'm sure you could think of something yourself if you really had an open mind.

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Everything, even god, could be created by random chance, that's what makes it RANDOM. Because anything can come out of it. If there were something that couldn't come out of it then it would not be random now would it? It would follow a pattern.

Irreducible Complexity is a perfectly logical way of proving the necessity of a creator since an irreducably complex lifeform could not, by definition, come into being by random chance or the evolutionary process. It would require an intelligent designer.

Random chance operates within probability, there are things that are so improbable that the universe simply isn't old enough for them to have happened by random chance anywhere but in any case please read up on Irreducable Complexity because you clearly need to understand it better.

Quote:
Orig

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

EXODUS

Friday, July 7, 2006 7:57 PM

This arguements will never be solved unless there is a unanimous group of Athiests/Agnostics present or a unanimous group of religious people present. If we look at the evidence on hand only, Agnosticism would be the wisest alignment. Seeing as I am a Christian and I have witnessed miracles performed by the grace of God first-hand, I believe that we were created. That being said, I believe Interventionism is also a plausible theory to an extent in the sense that God intervened in our evolution process and noone else. Other than that, I am a proud Creationist.

EXODUS

Friday, July 7, 2006 7:59 PM

CHRISTHECYNIC

Friday, July 7, 2006 9:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hotpoint:
You just haven't thought them through properly (and there were only three because you never came back to either refute those or ask for more).

I know, and I'm sorry, reading through that thread I felt so bad that I left. Unfortunately I had personal reasons for doing that which were more important to me than an online debate.

Quote:

Totally fallacious argument that completely misses the point. The issue is whether life in its original form can come into existance without a creator, whether life (an Intelligent Designer such as ourselves) can recreate life has nothing to do with our own existance one way or another.

My point is that if it was proved that life had to have a creator that would not mean that the creator was a god of any sort.

Unless you define god as, "Creator," in which case we could make a god if we want to, it wouldn't include most of the members of most of the pantheons of the world, and it says nothing as to the power or current existance of that god (could be long dead, might have only existed for thirty seconds.)

Most versions of god include some form of power besides sneezing life into existance.

Quote:
"Divine Intervention" in that something happens that violates the basic laws of physics. A Deus ex Machina as it were

Well that's happened often enough in the past. That's why the laws of physics CHANGE. Whenever something violates them that something is incorperated into them. In essence it is, by definition, impossible to observe such a thing because once it is observed it is no longer a violation.

It is a violation of the laws of physics as they were understood before the thing was obvserved, but considering how often it has happened and how many atheists there are on earth I hardly think it is proof of god.

Quote:
An example could be if it were demonstrated that matter could definitely not spontaneously appear by nothing more than random chance. This would mean the Universe would have to be created, it could not simply happen.

You're talking about proving the non-existance of something, an event rather than an entity, but none the less I thought your whole point was that that can't be done.

One might be able to prove that it can't happen now, but not that it couldn't have happened before. Again, it's impossible, even in the hypothetical.

Quote:
Well for a start how about water into wine under full lab conditions

Well that would only require us to reevaluate our understanding of matter. You know that. Nothing divine or godly about matter.

Its ability to be changed from one substance to another at a molecular level without apparent cause other than someone telling it to does not have anything I know of to do with god.

If Jesus himself showed up and did it in the lab all it would do was make the scientists of the world rethink the way the human mind interacts with the physical universe. The only people it would convert to the side of god would be agnostics waiting for a single sign, or people who believe that the magic tricks they see on TV are really defing the laws of physics.

Wouldn't have any bearing on god in terms of proof or disproof, for public relations it might be nice, but in terms of proof it's worthless.

Quote:
I'm sure you could think of something yourself if you really had an open mind.

If I were THAT open minded I'd worship the first con man to come by. And surely you're not advocating believing someone is god just because they've shown the current understanding of the laws of physics to be wrong.

(If you are I know god's name, well one of his many names: Einstein.)

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Random chance operates within probability, there are things that are so improbable that the universe simply isn't old enough for them to have happened by random chance anywhere but in any case please read up on Irreducable Complexity because you clearly ne

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

SLICKT0MMY

Friday, July 7, 2006 10:16 PM

I believe in God. Not religion.
What I mean is, I believe in God and that you
should have a personal relationship with him.

I'm not going to tell you how you should believe but this is what I believe.
God created the universe. And then created Joss Whedon so he could create the other 'verse. lol

But seriously, I believe that God created the universe and everything in it. He watches over us and helps us through life. And we should trust in Him to provide for us.

For instance, my youth pastor shared this with me...

He (my youth pastor) and his wife have been trying to have a baby for a while. 9 months ago (they had the baby a week ago), they found out that she was pregnant.

They told everyone and all was well. During the course of 8 months, he realised that to support the baby he was going to have to either work overtime or get a second job. He started to doubt God because they didn't have the money.

We believe in giving 10% back to God and he'll give back to you. My youth pastor gives 10% of any money he gets. He always has. So when he is in DESPERATE need of money, he was wondering, "Well, where's God? He says in the Bible that he'll provide for me!"

So basically, they needed $3000 dollars to have everything they needed in preparation for the baby.

About 2 weeks ago, my youth pastor was so frustrated with God that he prayed, "God, if I don't get this money, you don't exist. I've been believing in nothing all my life." (something along those lines)

Then that Sunday, he came to church like normal. Before church started, an elderly woman that never talks to anyone came up to him and handed him an envelope. He opened it and inside was a check for $4000 dollars. All the old lady said was, "I just felt you might need some help with the baby coming."

That same Sunday, he was asked to pray to dismiss the service. He went up and told us everything I just told you. He cried like a baby (I've never seen him cry before) as he shared all this.

Now, if that's not a sign of God, I don't know what is. I mean, you could call in coincidence but what are the chances of an old lady that never talks to or cares about anyone, thinking, "Babies are expensive. I should give them $4000."

That to me, is just one of many signs of God that I've witnessed throughout my life. You may call it chance but I believe it's God.

As for evolution, I think it's in no way true. I mean, there I times that I look at a beautiful sunset and think, "How can someone think that this just happened by chance?" I heard that if you took 1"x1" tiles and lined the US and Europe with them. But on one of them, you drew an X on it. Your chances of walking around those countries and picking up THAT tile is about the chance of evolution being true.

But, to each his own.
I have no interest in arguing with anyone over God. I'm just telling you my belief.

"Put Book front and center. He's our friend; we should honor him." -Mal

CHRISTHECYNIC

Friday, July 7, 2006 10:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by slickt0mmy:
I believe in God. Not religion.

If you read through this and the other two "What are your thoughts on god?" threads I think you'll find that you're not alone in that.

Quote:
But, to each his own.
I have no interest in arguing with anyone over God. I'm just telling you my belief.

That's more or less the point of these threads, argument is, for me at least, only to better understand the veiwpoints of others or unrelated to god, or both.

(Whether or not god can be proven, for example, is a question of logic and science more than god, after all if god can't be proven, as I argue, that doesn't effect whether god is real and the nature of god doesn't effect that. Same the other way round.)

HOTPOINT

Friday, July 7, 2006 10:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:

My point is that if it was proved that life had to have a creator that would not mean that the creator was a god of any sort.

It would unless you were being picky on how you defined "God"

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Unless you define god as, "Creator," in which case we could make a god if we want to, it wouldn't include most of the members of most of the pantheons of the world, and it says nothing as to the power or current existance of that god (could be long dead, might have only existed for thirty seconds.)

Whether or not the Creator God still exists or not is irrelevant. If there had to be a Creator it would demonstrate there had to be a "God" of some description even if they weren't necessarily the omnipotent, eternal Deity people tend to imagine.

If you want to prove a specific God that's another matter but still not impossible which makes it infinititely easier than proving their non-existance.

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Most versions of god include some form of power besides sneezing life into existance.

Yes but at least there's a hypothetical starting point to proving the basic existance of a God even if proving which one it is is trickier.

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:

Well that's happened often enough in the past. That's why the laws of physics CHANGE. Whenever something violates them that something is incorperated into them. In essence it is, by definition, impossible to observe such a thing because once it is observed it is no longer a violation.

The laws of physics never change, what we think those laws are sometimes changes

In any case you asked for a hypothetical and given that our grasp on science improves on an ongoing basis eventually we likely will have a full understanding of the Universe. If at the time we have a concrete theory of everything (Unified Relativity and Quantum Physics will be a big leap here) and we then find something that just defies everything we know that would be a decent clue to the "hand of God" at work.

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
You're talking about proving the non-existance of something, an event rather than an entity, but none the less I thought your whole point was that that can't be done.

One might be able to prove that it can't happen now, but not that it couldn't have happened before. Again, it's impossible, even in the hypothetical.

You're not grasping it I'm afraid. It's not trying to prove non-existance at all it's showing that something requires a "supernatural" causation.

For example. As our physics improves we are getting closer and closer to understanding the conditions and physics of the Big Bang. If when we get there we find it had to be started by something, and could not just happen on its own, that would indicate creation and/or design. Again a hypothetical but certainly a possibility.

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Well that would only require us to reevaluate our understanding of matter. You know that. Nothing divine or godly about matter.

Its ability to be changed from one substance to another at a molecular level without apparent cause other than someone telling it to does not have anything I know of to do with god.

What is your definition of God then? Omnipotence would be pretty high on most peoples lists surely. If you don't like the classics like water into wine how about "can you turn Jupiter into a star for a few minutes then turn it back"?

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
If Jesus himself showed up and did it in the lab all it would do was make the scientists of the world rethink the way the human mind interacts with the physical universe. The only people it would convert to the side of god would be agnostics waiting for a single sign, or people who believe that the magic tricks they see on TV are really de

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

HOTPOINT

Friday, July 7, 2006 11:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Quote:
It's certainly better than the utter lack of possible proof for the non-existance of God.

How so? You are arguing that the way to prove there is a god is to prove that the universe, as we know it, can not exist without one. You're arguing that god can be proved by proving the nonexistance of a godless universe.

I'm simply arguing that evidence for the existance of "God" is hypothetically possible whereas evidence for their non-existance isn't.

Even if some might argue the evidence might not be conclusive (although certain types of evidence would really have the odds overwhelmingly on their side) the fact remains that something, no matter how small, is always infintely more than nothing at all.

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
It's still an issue of nonexistance and the examples you give of how to do it don't stack up, because even if I am wrong about irreducable complexity, and even if you could prove that life required a creator and that something that somehow couldn't evolve came into being anyway it doesn't even imply a consciousness at work, just another force mixed in with all of the other non-god related forces of nature.

So you want possible proofs of the existance of your conception of God?

Regardless of whether it would meet your criteria of what a God should be the fact remains that a primal creator intelligence, of whatever level, would be that which bought the Universe into being and therefore "God". The fact we could not know how smart or powerful this demonstrable God actually is is irrelevant to the fact that we could hypothetically prove they existed.

Even if the possible evidence would not be proof positive (nothing could be in any argument if you set the bar too high) the fact that such evidence is possible means that you cannot equate Atheism and Theism as similiar faith positions. Even a miniscule amount of something (proof/evidence) is still infinitely more than absolutely nothing.

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
If consciousness is not a facet of god I concede that god can be proven, and I shall do it:

Okay now moving on how about you think about how an omniscienct, omnipotent being might choose to demonstrate their existance. If they are truly all-knowing and all-powerful they can surely find a way right?

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Many religions say, "God is everything," and if you look around you can see that everything that does exist really does exist. It's nice how that works.

Thus god exists.

Assuming they're right. Of course how could you back that assumption?

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:

What's more since god comprises all things god must have all of the power in existance, and furthermore god must know all that is known because every brain is a part of god.

Again assuming the initial unfounded premise is correct.

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:

Of course I can't prove that there is some overarching consciousness connecting those things, but there need not be one, consciousness is not assumed to be a facet of god.

Well there's certainly plenty of assumption

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
The argument is valid, if I didn't type it incorrectly, but also completely pointless. There are a lot of different versions of god and it does make the question of falsiablility harder, but I think if you want to say that god can be proven you need to come up with a hypothetically possible situation in which the consciousness of whatever god you're trying to prove is included.

The argument relies on a leap that God really is "all things" so it's not that valid.

As regards "you need to come up with a hypothetically possible situation in which the consciousness of whatever god you're trying to prove is included" that would assume I'

ALLHAILJOSSWHEDON

Friday, July 7, 2006 11:37 PM

I used to be a steadfast Catholic...when I was in elementary. Then I strayed toward agnosticism in high school. I even joined some religious groups then because god was sort of my blankie and a part of me didn't want to let go(plus the meetings always served great food). But still after a while a lot of what they used to feed me(the doctrine, not the food) just didn't make sense anymore. It had an odd feel to it. Also, they started serving fastfood.

I was confused so I did some research. I even tried talking to a priest but I was afraid I would offend him with my heathen views so I didn't get much from that. Plus news of priests molesting little boys didn't help much either. Discussions with some of the religious people I knew tend to devolve quickly into a fist-fight or mud-slinging at the very least so that didn't work either.

So I stuck to my one true friend, the internet. Here I came upon http://www.iidb.org. Very informative site as far as my limited mental capacity allows me to understand. Now I lean more towards atheism. I reject all the gods described by the major religions. A lesser deity could perhaps exist. No one can really know. But I ain't worshipping him/her, that's for sure.

"The General has given me the pick of all the men that can be spared and ordered me to defend the Pass. I realize what a terrible task has been given me. And yet I feel that this is the most glorious moment of my life. What I do is done for my beloved country. No sacrifice can be too great." -- Gen. Gregorio del Pilar, Battle of Tirad Pass(Dec. 2,1899)

CHRISTHECYNIC

Saturday, July 8, 2006 12:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hotpoint:
It would unless you were being picky on how you defined "God"

So if I believed in Zeus (who did not create life according to any myth or legend I know of) I would not be believing in a god?

I mean if proving a creator proves a god then we'll need to reevaluate the idea of god quite a bit, obviously many religions worship things that are not gods, and since a creator need not be an intellegent or even sentient creator and certainly not powerful no religion or belief system I know of worships or advocates the existance of such a thing.

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Whether or not the Creator God still exists or not is irrelevant. If there had to be a Creator it would demonstrate there had to be a "God" of some description even if they weren't necessarily the omnipotent, eternal Deity people tend to imagine.

Only by a very narrow definition of god which would include no god I know of from any religion or school of thought. Just like I can prove a pantheistic god by saying, "Look there is something, god is everything, and thus that something, and that something exists, so god exists." Yeah, I proved a very slim version of god, and I can do it as often as you want to as many people as you want, but most don't consider that a good reason to give up atheism. The reason is that I picked of a real and widely used defintion of god, "God is everything," that on its own, without any qualifiers, does not cover what atheists say doesn't exist.

Of course I can do that with many defintions of god:
"God is everything." Well then god exists and that is easily proved.
"God is that which created man," Well then god is the process known as evolution, which I'm fairly sure exists.
"God is the creator," well then god is the big bang or whatever else caused everything.
"God is the supernatural." Well then god does not exist and furthermore can be proved to not exist because, by definition, everything that does exist is part of nature.

If you define god simply as, The Creator, then of course god exists. God is, probably, the big bang, a natural process that has no conciousness to it. Even if not god still exists and the reason is obvious, EVERYTHING is natural, if god did show up and, as you requested, turn water to wine under lab conditions that wouldn't be unnatural, it would go against our current understanding of the laws of physics, but it wouldn't be unnatural. It would simply be a natural force being demonstrated for the first time.

So if god created the universe that would, by defintion of, "natural," in terms of the laws of physics, be the creation of the universe by natural forces alone. Well we already believe that happened.

There are few things that apply to all versions of god out there, being the creator is not one of them, being a sentient being is. You'd have to prove a sentient creator, and unless you've got something up your sleve that I've never heard of that can't be done because any actions undertaken by a sentient being could also have been done by a non sentient thing that merely appeared to be sentient, any extra intervention needed implying a creator could and would be explained as another of the many coincidences needed for the universe to turn out as it did.

If you did that that still wouldn't cover things like all powerful, which you yourself put forth as an atribute of god.

Quote:
The laws of physics never change, what we think those laws are sometimes changes

Which is my point because:

Quote:
If at the time we have a concrete theory of everything (Unified Relativity and Quantum Physics will be a big leap here) and we then find something that just defies everything we know that would be a decent clue to the "hand of God" at work.

That would mean that our theory of everything was wrong and our understanding of the laws of physics would change. Even if they changed to include the concept of a god (imagine that) they would not be v