Does God Exist? Evidence & Arguments For & Against

  • Thread starter Thread starter Alex
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on skepticism towards the belief in God, particularly within the context of Christianity and its rejection of evolution. The original poster expresses frustration over the persistence of creationist views, highlighting a specific example of a Christian advocating for the teaching of creationism in schools instead of evolution. They criticize the use of science fairs to promote religious beliefs, citing projects that reflect anti-evolutionary sentiments and sexist views. The conversation touches on the perceived conflict between faith and scientific evidence, with participants debating the existence of God, the implications of evolution, and the role of morality without a divine framework. The discourse also explores the idea that belief in God may stem from a need for control or understanding in a complex world, while emphasizing the importance of education and critical thinking in addressing these issues. Overall, the thread reflects a deep concern about the impact of religious dogma on scientific education and societal progress.
  • #91


Originally posted by Iacchus32
This I think is the danger with science today, in its attempts to "objectify" everything and "cancel out" any notion of a "life within" (which to most of us is represented by God). :wink:

It seems as if this is an anthropomorphizing of science. Science is a means to determine information about the objective, the internal (as in subjective) is outside the domain of science in that it cannot be deemed repeatable by others, it doesn't seem to be something which theories can be created and falsifiable predictions made.

It could also be said that the study of navel lint "objectify" navel lint and "cancel out" any notion of a "life within". Given the "life within" would be outside the domain of navel lint, is perhaps, an important consideration.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92
Originally posted by radagast
It seems as if this is an anthropomorphizing of science. Science is a means to determine information about the objective, the internal (as in subjective) is outside the domain of science in that it cannot be deemed repeatable by others, it doesn't seem to be something which theories can be created and falsifiable predictions made.
If, by and large science is a result of the "human endeavor," and by and large effects its outcome, then what can I say? Are you saying science is a non-human agency, run by non-humans? Then hey, why don't we just pass a law, saying only monkeys can be scientists?


It could also be said that the study of navel lint "objectify" navel lint and "cancel out" any notion of a "life within". Given the "life within" would be outside the domain of navel lint, is perhaps, an important consideration.
The subjective reality is "you" man. The subjective reality is "me." If you wish to cancel out your own existence, then I guess that's your choice. Of course if you believe in determinism then I suppose that means there is no choice. Too bad.

See what I mean by "canceling out?"

And by the way, the "objective reality" is only the aftermath, of a lot of "internal things" at work which, have come and gone. In which case I would say you're living in the past. Aren't we all? This is why we can't find God, because He only exists in The Present.
 
  • #93
First of all HELLO to all. I am new here. I didn't know where to begin. So I post my opinion about god. English is not my mother language, so I am sorry for mistakes and everybody welcome for any correction.

In my opinion god is simply created by human beings for control. Of course by the help of holly books, surely they served some good purposes in the past as law...(!) They look different in the surface and in practice but all the books are telling the same thing. There is a god and he is unquestionably the creator... Honestly I have to say that it makes me sick. With all respect to believers...
The idea of a mighty god is simply pointing the arrogance of human being. "God created us and gave us our most precious abilities to worship himself" Well, everything about the god and the religions today serve for money and a domination fight over the planet. It is a very good basic to force people to murder and do horrible things also.
Of course there are lots of things to discuss about the god thing. In the terms of philosophy or science... But in my opinion the most important thing about god and the religion that they are the most dangerous socialogical problems. Social drugs. They provide the needed adrenaline and anger for war, peace and harmony for an ordered social life, which are infact only a kind of a mental terrorism practised on countless people.
By religion I mean all of them...
 
  • #94
Originally posted by Iacchus32


Does God exist? Yes. Is the means by which we understand God mystical? Yes. If this is true and always has been true, then is there another means by which I can explain it? No.

So you can't explain or justify it at all. We knew this, of course, since your mode of debate is a hallmark of religious thought. Intellectual laziness combined with a desire for pretty ideas to be true combine to form most religious and philisophical thought. 'God exists, therefore God exists' should be your sig line.
 
  • #95
Originally posted by Zero
So you can't explain or justify it at all. We knew this, of course, since your mode of debate is a hallmark of religious thought. Intellectual laziness combined with a desire for pretty ideas to be true combine to form most religious and philisophical thought. 'God exists, therefore God exists' should be your sig line.
Are you trying to tell me God doesn't exist? It's like I said it's either yes or no.


Originally posted by Iacchus32
If on the other hand God didn't exist, then the only answer could be 'no.'
And yet neither you nor anyone else has been able to demonstrate that He doesn't exist. So who or "what" am I supposed to believe?
 
  • #96
Yes, God exists. No, it does not take a mystical experience to know that he exist or to know or talk with him. Can I prove it? Yes and have to myself nearly every day. Can I prove it to you? No.
That is something that only you can do for yourself. Even if I could you wouldn't accept it and would be right not to.

"If you see the Buddha walking down the street, kill it."
 
  • #97
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Are you trying to tell me God doesn't exist? It's like I said it's either yes or no.


And yet neither you nor anyone else has been able to demonstrate that He doesn't exist. So who or "what" am I supposed to believe?

Believe as little as possible...that will get you farther than your current 'believe in the pretty lies' attitude.
 
  • #98
Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet neither you nor anyone else has been able to demonstrate that He doesn't exist. So who or "what" am I supposed to believe?

Assuming this was a debating point, this would be considered a "Shifting the Burden of Proof" argument flaw.

With regards to debating the point:
The default position, with regards to existence of a god, where god doesn't have characteristics that allow for a simple, straightforward demonstration of her/his existence, is the negative. The reason for this is basic common sense. To prove her/his existence, only requires demonstrating unequivocal and unambiguious evidence of said existence, yet the proof that he/her doesn't exist requires the searching of all possible places of said existence [simultaneously] - which is both impractical and blatently impossible.

Just as with the question of the existence of Unicorns - the default is that they don't. It would only take one to prove such, but the searching of all possible places, in the universe, simultaneously, to prove they didn't.

If you have proven to yourself that god exists, fine, but in an argument where the evidence isn't unambiguous and unequivocal by all parties, then the rational default position for god existence has to be the negative. The argument for his existence would be require the debator to provide evidence for said argument.

This only pertains to debate. As to what you believe, the criteria for what you believe is strickly up to you.


Originally posted by Royce
If you meet the Buddha walking down the street, kill it

Picky point: The quote is 'If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him'.

I know very few in the west that understand the intent of this quote, though you may.
 
Last edited:
  • #99
I stand corrected. I obviously westernized unintentionally. Yes I understand its full meaning. BTW, years ago I read a book of that title. That's where I got the quote. It's one of my favorites. If I need to say it, we can only find the Buddha (or God) within ourselves, which we all have within us. If we encounter a/the Buddha outside of ourselves "it" is an imposter and probably in their words a demon or evil spirit bent on deceiving us. That was my point.

This is completely off topic, but everytime I think of that quote, I think that that is exactly what we (the Jews and Romans at least) did to Jesus. I don't yet know what to think of that or what the connection is other than the obvious. There is some deeper meaning or connection there or at least I feel there is. Any thoughts on that one?
 
  • #100
Originally posted by Ejderha
In my opinion god is simply created by human beings for control. Of course by the help of holly books, surely they served some good purposes in the past as law...(!) They look different in the surface and in practice but all the books are telling the same thing. There is a god and he is unquestionably the creator... Honestly I have to say that it makes me sick. With all respect to believers...
The idea of a mighty god is simply pointing the arrogance of human being. "God created us and gave us our most precious abilities to worship himself" Well, everything about the god and the religions today serve for money and a domination fight over the planet. It is a very good basic to force people to murder and do horrible things also.
Of course there are lots of things to discuss about the god thing. In the terms of philosophy or science... But in my opinion the most important thing about god and the religion that they are the most dangerous socialogical problems. Social drugs. They provide the needed adrenaline and anger for war, peace and harmony for an ordered social life, which are infact only a kind of a mental terrorism practised on countless people.
By religion I mean all of them...

Hello,

Since you say you mean all of them, answer me this:

1) Explain how Buddhism and Taoism have been used to 'murder and do horrible things'. How about Jainism?

2) Considering Buddhism and Taoism do not have the concept of sin, how have they been used to control humans?

3) Buddhism and Taoism have no god, no creator, or actual supernatural beings, how does this fit with what you just wrote?
 
  • #101
Originally posted by Zero
Believe as little as possible...that will get you farther than your current 'believe in the pretty lies' attitude.
Beauty. Yes, what is wrong with beauty? And you're right, if it weren't for beauty, I probably wouldn't believe. And yet this is one thing that science seems to have the inability to explain, "beauty."

How does science go about explaining beauty? It would be so much easier if it didn't exist wouldn't it? :wink:
 
  • #102
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Beauty. Yes, what is wrong with beauty? And you're right, if it weren't for beauty, I probably wouldn't believe. And yet this is one thing that science seems to have the inability to explain, "beauty."

How does science go about explaining beauty? It would be so much easier if it didn't exist wouldn't it? :wink:
What are you talking about?!? Science explains beauty just fine, thank you.

My problem is that science may be cold to you(not to me), but it is solid. Your 'beauty' is a thin veneer covering nothing at all.
 
  • #103
Originally posted by Zero
What are you talking about?!? Science explains beauty just fine, thank you.

My problem is that science may be cold to you(not to me), but it is solid. Your 'beauty' is a thin veneer covering nothing at all.
Okay, explain to me how science "appreciates" (and hence acknowledges) beauty? Isn't beauty one of those things science deems "subjective?"
 
  • #104
Originally posted by Iacchus32
If, by and large science is a result of the "human endeavor," and by and large effects its outcome, then what can I say? Are you saying science is a non-human agency, run by non-humans? Then hey, why don't we just pass a law, saying only monkeys can be scientists?

My intent was that you were 'personifying' science, as if it were a monolithic entity with a personality. If you wish to resort to ridicule to try and win your points, fine, but I must point out that it is an argument flaw, and unlikely to bother me either way. :wink:


The subjective reality is "you" man. The subjective reality is "me." If you wish to cancel out your own existence, then I guess that's your choice. Of course if you believe in determinism then I suppose that means there is no choice. Too bad.

See what I mean by "canceling out?"

And by the way, the "objective reality" is only the aftermath, of a lot of "internal things" at work which, have come and gone. In which case I would say you're living in the past. Aren't we all? This is why we can't find God, because He only exists in The Present.

Hmmm, all reality is in the present - does that mean we cannot find anything in reality?

Since I cannot produce evidence of how I experience or feel things, it is not readily observable to others and cannot be independently verified, is, by the definitions of science, outside the domain of science. That doesn't mean what I am feeling or what I experience internally isn't real, only outside the domain of science.

Saying science is trying to objectify everything is a little absurd, given the main definitions of science restrict it to the quest for knowledge about the objective.

Some here seem to forget that science, as a protocol for determining objective truth, has a focus which is narrowed such that many things are outside it's domain. Determining the existence of god [assuming no easily verifiable attributes, like living on Mount Olympus], is one of the things outside that domain. Determining one's own reasons for life is another. Finding a meaning in life, yet another. This doesn't mean they don't exist, only that it's outside the domain of science to investigate.

My own religious practice deals extremely intimately with being and living in the present, as well as my own subjective reality. I've never found any conflict with investigating the objective and living in the present, nor any problem with it 'cancelling me out'. I do try to maintain a level of clarity, with respect to what is agreed reality (the objective) and my subjective reality.
 
Last edited:
  • #105
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Okay, explain to me how science "appreciates" (and hence acknowledges) beauty? Isn't beauty one of those things science deems "subjective?"

So what if it does? Just because medicine calls pain subjective, that doesn't mean medicine disregards it. Us rational folks just don't think subjective equals supernatural, the way you do. A thing can have perfectly rational, materialistic reasons, and still be good.



For instance, we know that food tastes good because we ned it to eat, and 'good' flavor is our brain's way of driving the body. The same goes for 'bad' flavors. 'Good' and 'bad' taste is a subjective thing with a biological explanation...that doesn't mean I can't also absolutely love a juicy steak, just because I know why I love it.
 
  • #106
Originally posted by radagast
Assuming this was a debating point, this would be considered a "Shifting the Burden of Proof" argument flaw.
No, what I'm saying is that if no one can provide any proof to the contrary, then ultimately it's up to me to decide, and no one has any business trying to sway my opinion one way or the other.

In which case I could say God exists and it would be true or, I would very likely be under a delusion. In either case, who's going to prove otherwise?

Are you saying I have no business believing in God because I can see it for myself?

And why does science seem to be so unwilling to even consider the possibility?
 
  • #107
Originally posted by Iacchus32
No, what I'm saying is that if no one can provide any proof to the contrary, then ultimately it's up to me to decide, and no one has any business trying to sway my opinion one way or the other.

In which case I could say God exists and it would be true or, I would very likely be under a delusion. In either case, who's going to prove otherwise?

Are you saying I have no business believing in God because I can see it for myself?

And why does science seem to be so unwilling to even consider the possibility?
Well, you can't disprove that I am God, can you? Therefore, I can decide that I am, and demand that you all worship me?

I'm saying that you have no business stating as a fact that supernatural beings exist.
 
  • #108
Originally posted by Iacchus32
No, what I'm saying is that if no one can provide any proof to the contrary, then ultimately it's up to me to decide, and no one has any business trying to sway my opinion one way or the other.

If you finished reading my post, I said the same thing. Burden of proof regards the burden one bears when debating, if you're not debating then there is no such burden.

In which case I could say God exists and it would be true or, I would very likely be under a delusion. In either case, who's going to prove otherwise?

Are you saying I have no business believing in God because I can see it for myself?

I agree completely [in that you can believe anything you wish], if you finished reading my post, it concerned debating. If you are not trying to convince others that god exists, then there is no debate, thus no burden of proof, et. al.



And why does science seem to be so unwilling to even consider the possibility?

'Why does cooking seem so unwilling to even consider the possibility that god exists'

Sounds kinda odd, right?

My point is, science is a branch of endeavor that has, by it's definition and method, restricted itself to only that which can be agreed on [the definition of objective reality], and which is repeatable or can make used to make falsifiable predictions. The proof or disproof of god is outside this domain. Science can't say anything about them either way.
 
  • #109
Originally posted by Zero
So what if it does? Just because medicine calls pain subjective, that doesn't mean medicine disregards it. Us rational folks just don't think subjective equals supernatural, the way you do. A thing can have perfectly rational, materialistic reasons, and still be good.

For instance, we know that food tastes good because we ned it to eat, and 'good' flavor is our brain's way of driving the body. The same goes for 'bad' flavors. 'Good' and 'bad' taste is a subjective thing with a biological explanation...that doesn't mean I can't also absolutely love a juicy steak, just because I know why I love it.
A Zen koan from Alan Watts', Behold the Spirit ...

"In answer to a question about the meaning of Reality an old master simply held up his fly-whisk, and another master asked one of his monks to explain the action. "The master's idea," replied the monk, "was to elucidate the spiritual along with the material, to reveal truth by means of an objective reality." "Your understanding," said the master, "is alright as far as it goes. But why are you in such a hurry to make theories about it?" At this the monk asked, "What, then, will be your explanation?" The master held up his own fly-whisk.
What can I say? ... :wink:
 
  • #110
BTW...science HAS considered the existence of the supernatural, and so far there is little evidence to back it up. Show someone some new evidence, and the case is reopened.
 
  • #111
Originally posted by Iacchus32
A Zen koan from Alan Watts', Behold the Spirit ...

What can I say? ... :wink:

Mu! :wink:
 
  • #112
Originally posted by Zero
Well, you can't disprove that I am God, can you? Therefore, I can decide that I am, and demand that you all worship me?
LOL!
I'm saying that you have no business stating as a fact that supernatural beings exist.
Oh, speaking of one's opinion? And yet if it "were" a fact that God exists, then how can it be stated otherwise?
 
  • #113
Originally posted by Iacchus32
LOL!
Oh, speaking of one's opinion? And yet if it "were" a fact that God exists, then how can it be stated otherwise?

But you don't have any proof!
 
  • #114
Originally posted by Zero
BTW...science HAS considered the existence of the supernatural, and so far there is little evidence to back it up. Show someone some new evidence, and the case is reopened.
So, if there are those of us who wish to believe in the supernatural, then I guess it would require a "second opinion" now wouldn't it? :wink:

And yet it's like I keep telling everybody, I don't necessarily have a problem with science ... at least "as far as it goes."
 
  • #115
Originally posted by Zero
But you don't have any proof!
This miraculous thing we call the human mind has been around for thousands of years, and all this time processing information, which is a lot longer than science has been around!

Are you saying that until recently, the human mind hasn't been fully functional?
 
  • #116
Originally posted by Iacchus32
LOL!
Oh, speaking of one's opinion? And yet if it "were" a fact that God exists, then how can it be stated otherwise?


By saying "I believe..."

or

"IMO, ..."

Both these prefaces make it clear you believe something, not that you are claiming something (as in the start of a debate).
 
  • #117
Originally posted by Zero
But you don't have any proof!

I think the disconnect is coming from Iacchus32 stating something he believes, in such a way that we consider it a claim he will back up, or is something he's trying to convince us.

Obviously he needs to prove nothing to us, just for him to believe something. His own criterion for internal truth is his own.
 
  • #118
Originally posted by radagast
By saying "I believe..."

or

"IMO, ..."

Both these prefaces make it clear you believe something, not that you are claiming something (as in the start of a debate).
And yet what if it's possible to ascertain something, without being able to explain it? Should I say I believe this is so? Or, should I say I know this is so? ... Mu? :wink:

By the way what does Mu mean?
 
  • #119
Originally posted by Iacchus32
This miraculous thing we call the human mind has been around for thousands of years, and all this time processing information, which is a lot longer than science has been around!

Are you saying that until recently, the human mind hasn't been fully functional?
What are you talking about? Do you believe that the merit of an idea rests in how long it has been around?

People have believed the wrong things for much longer than they have known the right things. The fact that religion is an old idea works against it, frankly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #120
Yes...God exists...end of story...
 

Similar threads

Taxpayers funding Christian anti-science private schools
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
Can Morality Exist Without Belief in God?
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
8K
Burden of Proof: Proving God's Existence or Non-Existence?
  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
10K
News Richard Dawkins on Rick Perry (and the rest of the Republican Party)
  • · Replies 293 ·
10
Replies
293
Views
35K
News Courts rule Divine Creation is Science
  • · Replies 57 ·
2
Replies
57
Views
8K
When Rebutting Arguments For the Existence of God
  • · Replies 60 ·
3
Replies
60
Views
10K
Does God Exist? - Beliefs & Evidence
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
7K
How (not) to discuss evolution/sciene vs. religion/creationsim
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
8K
Reasoning for the existance of God the Creator
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
8K
News Creationists Try to Edge Around Ban
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K