Does God Exist? Evidence & Arguments For & Against

[pace]

Many christians claim that religion is only defined through a personified God. But it isn't. Buddhism is one of those which is counted as a religion, even with no personified God.

Religion, and as I meant it above, is something of an idea you have of some essential belief about how the world is built up, but as such it's not something you know and never will, and therefore we call it a belief. I get the feeling things is being mixed up when many talk about religion about something you believe in strongly, because this implys that what you have is a very certain oppinion, but it's not meant as this, but rather a belief that means much, as I explained above.

I believe almost any human, whether how strong or weak or how little this little idea might seem to them, have some counscious or mostly unconscious belief in some essential issue about the world, but won't admit it because of social pressing difficulties.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by radagast
While I understand your feelings and I have no belief in a diety, you haven't experienced the things they have. Referring to believers as ignorant is unjust at best, and abusive at worst.

It is extremely easy to fall into the trap of feeling that someone with a contrary point of view is not just accepting something different, but trying to tell us that we are wrong (unlike saying that they believe we are wrong). It can end up with both parties arguing from a point of view that they are defending themselves - a little ironic to say the least -, and often starts to generate frustration and anger. To allow this emotion to let insults and spite slip into the discussion, reduces a rational debate to simple name calling and venting of anger.

This is not productive. If I need to feel my anger emotionally manipulated, I'll watch the WWF or a soap opera.

That was in reference to the ancient folks who invented religion in the first place, not at current believers. I can't even begin to guess at the psychology of a modern human being who believes in fairy tales.

 

[Zero]

And, hell, who do you attack something like religion? It doesn't contain anything solid enough to attack. However, I do have a problem with intellectual laziness. The 'justifications' for a belief in fairy tales are not always as weak as the ones that I have read here.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
And, hell, who do you attack something like religion? It doesn't contain anything solid enough to attack. However, I do have a problem with intellectual laziness. The 'justifications' for a belief in fairy tales are not always as weak as the ones that I have read here.

And yet the thing is, once you know something, it doesn't require a lot of speculation -- and hence intellectual "unlaziness" -- to back it up. You know, how many times do you have to "affirm" that 1 + 1 = 2?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet the thing is, once you know something, it doesn't require a lot of speculation -- and hence intellectual "unlaziness" -- to back it up. You know, how many times do you have to "affirm" that 1 + 1 = 2?

I would say that where you came up with the 'knowledge' is where the laziness pops up...not to mention that once you've convinced yourself, you need never think again.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet the thing is, once you know something, it doesn't require a lot of speculation -- and hence intellectual "unlaziness" -- to back it up. You know, how many times do you have to "affirm" that 1 + 1 = 2?

Hey, I "know" that 1 + 1 = 2. You got to give me at least that much credit.

But you're right, I don't speculate on a whole lot of things, I don't find the need to. But, rather I tend to focus on the experience of "my being" (existence).

 

[pace]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Hey, I "know" that 1 + 1 = 2. You got to give me at least that much credit.

As Immanuel Kant explained, it's prior to experience. It is both an strict allknowingly thing. And also a necessity, something that cannot be different.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by pace
As Immanuel Kant explained, it's prior to experience. It is both an strict allknowingly thing. And also a necessity, something that cannot be different.

Perhaps we're beginning to approach "the standard" by which all things are measured then?

 

[Zero]

1+1=2 only exists as a concept...

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
1+1=2 only exists as a concept...

Do you believe that standards exist? That's about as absolute a statement as you're going to get!

 

[Iacchus32]

It looks like I missed this one. Hmm ...

Originally posted by radagast

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.

Perhaps it was your reference to the navel lint? And yes, in the way it effects society, I do think science has a bit too much clout. Because life itself is all about "the experience" -- which we "live" subjectively -- not the "objectified view" of the experience.

Originally posted by radagast

Originally posted by Iacchus32
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?

It almost sounds like I'm contradicting myself here doesn't it, by saying the external reality, which indeed does exist in the present, is the aftermath of the internal reality which also exists in the present (although rarely seen, except "subjectively"). Even so, the observation is only the acknowledgment of the act which came before. Whereas God is an experience which is to be felt, in "the present," and not over-analyzed.

Originally posted by radagast
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.

Except as human beings, we're all pretty much capable of experiencing the same things.

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.

Nope, afraid you got to stick with the "scientific facts" on this one ...

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.

And yet if science were established outside of the "human domain," by "non-humans," there would be no problem here. If you're saying science doesn't affect changes in human policy -- and hence you, me and everyone else -- then you're sadly mistaken. Whereas how can science begin to acknowledge that anything is complete, unless it makes some sort of concession towards the "other reality?"

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.

Yes, in fact I think this is what's called for, and integration of "both realities."

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Do you believe that standards exist? That's about as absolute a statement as you're going to get!

And, like many other absolutes, it only applies in a limited manner. It certainly doesn't apply in every case. Sometimes, when you combine things, you get less or more(of what you want) than the sum of the two parts.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
And, like many other absolutes, it only applies in a limited manner. It certainly doesn't apply in every case. Sometimes, when you combine things, you get less or more(of what you want) than the sum of the two parts.

But it does suggest that absolutes exist, and that they are ascertainable.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
But it does suggest that absolutes exist, and that they are ascertainable.

It aqlso suggests that absolutes exist mostly on paper, or in your head, and have no objective reality.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by pace
Many christians claim that religion is only defined through a personified God. But it isn't. Buddhism is one of those which is counted as a religion, even with no personified God.

Religion, and as I meant it above, is something of an idea you have of some essential belief about how the world is built up, but as such it's not something you know and never will, and therefore we call it a belief. I get the feeling things is being mixed up when many talk about religion about something you believe in strongly, because this implys that what you have is a very certain oppinion, but it's not meant as this, but rather a belief that means much, as I explained above.

I believe almost any human, whether how strong or weak or how little this little idea might seem to them, have some counscious or mostly unconscious belief in some essential issue about the world, but won't admit it because of social pressing difficulties.

There is a little trouble with what you've said. You include Buddhism, yet Buddhism, depending on the school of Buddhism you pick, may or may not have any 'beliefs' (as in dogma) and few of any about how reality, outside of your head, is. Much less how the world is made up.

 

[pace]

Originally posted by radagast
There is a little trouble with what you've said. You include Buddhism, yet Buddhism, depending on the school of Buddhism you pick, may or may not have any 'beliefs' (as in dogma) and few of any about how reality, outside of your head, is. Much less how the world is made up.

One is not in doubt Gotama Buddha was an historical character who lived from aboutly 563-483 B.C. (read somewhere else for his life )

In the history of philosophy the expression -buddhism- doesn't stand for one certain, limited belief, but with many strongly branched directions in religion and philosophy. An essential things they have in common is that they all point back to G. Buddha as their founder. The many structures has in different countries and in different times shown a very different image.

There are certain points in buddhism which has certain philosophical interests:

1. Everything, without exception, is passing. This also goes for souls, spirits or godlike creations.

2. The world is more defined by actions(processes) rather than things(substances). All change happens with amalgamation(integration) and desintegration through law-abiding means. The World as understood by change lasts forever. There is no thing that happened first.

3. The Illution of Self. The human is no permanent I. The feeling of an absolute dividation between The I/Self and the rest of the world is an illusion: There exist nothing other than temporary fleeting connections between all the different elements that constantly makes up the human personae.

4. All suffering comes from a deep surging drive trying to separate your own self as much as possible from the rest of the world. Every splitting such as this, drives towards suffering because nothing is permanent, and every positioning the human is seeking as to feel permanent, divided from all, will cease to exist. And as such, should the tendency to go towards independendtly individual excistance, be fought against as much as possible. Nirvana is the name when you manage to free yourself completely from the illusion of total independent self. Later on, it seemingly went towards being more pessimistic, especially the direction which was grounded by strongly ascetic monks.

5. The Illution of Self is being fought neither by life in pleasure nor in self torment. The correct path goes through insight(through the points 1-4 and their deepening), and actions according with this insight. This  include kindness, openess, love for truth, and peacefullness. The demand to take no life, is implicit. One shall refrain from kill or harm anything that's alive.(Humurous comment by Naess: On Buddhas time, the absence of a microscope made this difficult)


It seems like G. Buddha put great weight upon good conduct of life as sign that you had understood your Self. Later traditions shall have removed themself from the eldest tradition and put more weight upon theoretical knowledge and on the outer techniques of meditation(yoga as technique). And as such, it became a more dividation between the professional trained buddhists, and 'amateur' buddhists. The first ones moved towards being ascetics monks, which you can find today in Tibet and Himalaya.

Buddhism is today counted as an religion, even though it has no definition of God.


- The History of Philosophy, Arne Naess. Previous professor in Philosophy, Oslo (2001)

Oh buddhism is very much so about how the world is built up. And so how you should live it.

 

[radagast]

by radagast
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.

Iacchus32
Nope, afraid you got to stick with the "scientific facts" on this one ...

Huh? I can't make heads or tails of what you mean, from your reply.

Facts cannot 'do' anything, nor objectify anything. The methodology, that science is, may seem to - but as I said, it's scope is specifically narrowed to the objective.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet if science were established outside of the "human domain," by "non-humans," there would be no problem here. If you're saying science doesn't affect changes in human policy -- and hence you, me and everyone else -- then you're sadly mistaken. Whereas how can science begin to acknowledge that anything is complete, unless it makes some sort of concession towards the "other reality?"

Affecting human policy is outside of any portion of the argument I was making.


YES! Science is, by definition, not meant to be complete - by narrowing it's scope of inquiry to the natural and objective, it cannot investigate certain areas of knowledge.

The only folk who consider science to the the only source of knowledge are severely mislead. It would be as if Zoology were being equivalenced with Biology. Zoology, by definition, narrows it's scope, excluding plants - if one considered Zoology to be the only source of biological information, then they would be seriously mistaken.

I thought that this was obviously what I was saying about science - If you can find anywhere, where I state that science is the only method for gaining information, please show this. It's not a position I've ever taken.

 

[radagast]

Dear Pace,
As both a Buddhist and one working toward becoming a priest, I appreciate the dissertation on Buddhism.

I would only agree, with respect to the world from inside our heads. It says little about how the world came about or what the world is. Saying it tells us how we should live is only partially true, it says that if you live in this way, you will experience much less suffering, if you don't then you will experience more. It doesn't try to place the rules of action on you, merely present causes and effects of how we act and the methods of allivieating suffering (Karma). For Buddhism to set out rules to be followed, it would fall into the trap of dualism, one of the primary causes of suffering. These are not simple topics that are easily understood by reading of them, they are exquisitely sensitive to misunderstanding - intuitive understanding will only comes thru meditation.

Understanding, intuitively, Buddhist practice by reading a philosophy paper is like learning tennis strickly from a book.

 

[pace]

No prob

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
Huh? I can't make heads or tails of what you mean, from your reply.

A general statement about those who rely exclusively on scientific fact, and hence objectification.

Facts cannot 'do' anything, nor objectify anything. The methodology, that science is, may seem to - but as I said, it's scope is specifically narrowed to the objective.

Except that a fact doesn't become a fact unless it has been "objectively" viewed as such. In which case it does belie that which is objective.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
Affecting human policy is outside of any portion of the argument I was making.

And yet this is very much apart of my argument, the fact that science claims to be outside of a certain domain, and yet this is the very domain that it effects -- "you and me."

YES! Science is, by definition, not meant to be complete - by narrowing it's scope of inquiry to the natural and objective, it cannot investigate certain areas of knowledge.

This is like describing the mechanics of something without understanding how it truly functions as a whole. Indeed without the whole, there would be nothing to "dissect."

The only folk who consider science to the the only source of knowledge are severely mislead. It would be as if Zoology were being equivalenced with Biology. Zoology, by definition, narrows it's scope, excluding plants - if one considered Zoology to be the only source of biological information, then they would be seriously mistaken.

What about "most" (of course I could be wrong here) Atheists then, who rely almost exclusively on science?

I thought that this was obviously what I was saying about science - If you can find anywhere, where I state that science is the only method for gaining information, please show this. It's not a position I've ever taken.

Well then you're obviously an exception to the rule, at least on this forum anyway.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet this is very much apart of my argument, the fact that science claims to be outside of a certain domain, and yet this is the very domain that it effects -- "you and me."

Yes, the implications of science and what it finds does effect us, but the argument I understood you to make was that 'Science' as in the methodology, was 'objectifying' things. Rather than people that take what science states and use it to objectify. To me, this sounds analogous to the folks that blame religion for wars.

This is like describing the mechanics of something without understanding how it truly functions as a whole. Indeed without the whole, there would be nothing to "dissect."

So we are to take any persons word that something IS?!? Who's shall we take? Yours? Mine? The problem you've unearthed is that once you enter the realm of the subjective, the rules for 'agreeing' on observed phenomena, for replication, for making certain someone isn't intentionally or unintentionally blowing smoke up your ass, disappears.

You can apply a hammer to the task of putting in a screw, but it does a piss poor job. If you want science to investigate god, you'll get a piss poor job.

What about "most" (of course I could be wrong here) Atheists then, who rely almost exclusively on science?

That they rely on science to determine the objective - what is the problem there? I know of no atheist that relies on science to determine their prospective mates, to kiss their daughter goodnight, or to find meaning for their lives. Just because they rely on science for understanding the objective, doesn't imply that science is the only aspect of their universe.

Well then you're obviously an exception to the rule, at least on this forum anyway.

I think what you're seeing is a result of frustration, at what they see as a constant stream of attacks by the vast ocean of theists, which make up society.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
Yes, the implications of science and what it finds does effect us, but the argument I understood you to make was that 'Science' as in the methodology, was 'objectifying' things. Rather than people that take what science states and use it to objectify. To me, this sounds analogous to the folks that blame religion for wars.

And what else does science do besides "objectify things?" And why do I keep hearing, "Oh, wouldn't it be nice if we could finally 'objectify' God out of a job?"

So we are to take any persons word that something IS?!? Who's shall we take? Yours? Mine? The problem you've unearthed is that once you enter the realm of the subjective, the rules for 'agreeing' on observed phenomena, for replication, for making certain someone isn't intentionally or unintentionally blowing smoke up your ass, disappears.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. And by no means do I ask anybody to take my word for anything!

You can apply a hammer to the task of putting in a screw, but it does a piss poor job. If you want science to investigate god, you'll get a piss poor job.

It would be a long wait indeed, if we had to wait for science to say it was okay to believe in God.

That they rely on science to determine the objective - what is the problem there?

No problem, in so far as it goes.

I know of no atheist that relies on science to determine their prospective mates, to kiss their daughter goodnight, or to find meaning for their lives. Just because they rely on science for understanding the objective, doesn't imply that science is the only aspect of their universe.

And yet why do so many of these avowed Atheists claim that there is no sense of purpose (and hence meaning) in life? Also, if you're scientifically aligned in your thinking, then chances are you're not going to have a problem with the way it affects your life.

I think what you're seeing is a result of frustration, at what they see as a constant stream of attacks by the vast ocean of theists, which make up society.

Let's not forget it's a two-way street. Or is it? ...

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And what else does science do besides "objectify things?" And why do I keep hearing, "Oh, wouldn't it be nice if we could finally 'objectify' God out of a job?"

This is starting to devolve into a semantics debate, something I can do without.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. And by no means do I ask anybody to take my word for anything!

But you avoided the main question. Should our science, that which discovers objective information about our environment and universe now descend into personal opinion. Would you be willing to ride in a plane, where the engineering was based on the popular opinion of the strength of the planes aluminum airframe, or the engineers opinion of the thrust of the engines, or would you rather they be measured and confirmable, by anyone using a set methodology? How about living next door to a nuclear reactor where the half lives and fission breakdown products were not measured, they were determined by philosophical debate?

It would be a long wait indeed, if we had to wait for science to say it was okay to believe in God.

How about Zeus, or Thor, or Oden. But why restrict it to science? Let's wait until Karate ok's the belief in God, or maybe French Cooking, music, or Macrame Ok'ing the belief in god. All of these are activities/systems orthogonal to the belief in god, the same as science!

You, no doubt would be the first to say it was illogical to blame Christianity for the Spanish Inquisition, yet you are doing the same thing here with science. Christianity didn't justify the spanish inquisition, anymore than science justifies the attack on any religious belief that doesn't contradict physically verified information.

And yet why do so many of these avowed Atheists claim that there is no sense of purpose (and hence meaning) in life? Also, if you're scientifically aligned in your thinking, then chances are you're not going to have a problem with the way it affects your life.

NO INHERENT PURPOSE OR MEANING

Iacchus32, it is apparent you are an intelligent person, yet the above seems to be intentionally avoiding the obvious. Please stick to an intellectually honest debate. If you want to win this debate, at all costs, let me know now, I'll bow out. I am here for an honest exchange of ideas, not a pissing contest.

Let's not forget it's a two-way street. Or is it? ...

Just out of curiosity, are there any minority groups to which you belong?

Having been both in the majority and minority over the theism issue, I've seen that many in the theist majority are blithly ignorant of how it is to be in the minority.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast

Originally posted by Iacchus32
This is like describing the mechanics of something without understanding how it truly functions as a whole. Indeed without the whole, there would be nothing to "dissect."

So we are to take any persons word that something IS?!? Who's shall we take? Yours? Mine? The problem you've unearthed is that once you enter the realm of the subjective, the rules for 'agreeing' on observed phenomena, for replication, for making certain someone isn't intentionally or unintentionally blowing smoke up your ass, disappears.

You can apply a hammer to the task of putting in a screw, but it does a piss poor job. If you want science to investigate god, you'll get a piss poor job.

What would be wrong with trying to approach things from the standpoint of wholeness, or at least maintain this view overall, rather than break everything down into its "dysfunctional" component level? Hmm ... Is it possible that this is the problem with society today, with all its dysfunctionality in general? Yes, perhaps. And where do we send people when they get this way? Indeed, to one of the many "compartmentalized agencies" which have sprung up overnight -- like the mushrooms that they are -- to handle our "dysfunctional needs."

EDIT: It used to be the church that handled all these functions (primarily), and now we have all these government sponsored agencies (charities or whatever).

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What would be wrong with trying to approach things from the standpoint of wholeness, or at least maintain this view overall, rather than break everything down into its "dysfunctional" component level? Hmm ... Is it possible that this is the problem with society today, with all its dysfunctionality in general? Yes, and where do we send people when they get this way? Indeed, to one of the many "compartmentalized agencies" which have sprung up overnight (like mushrooms) to handle our "dysfunctional needs."

If I want to understand complex systems, it helps to first look at the components. That they should always be dealt with as just components is usually a mistake.

To say "dysfunctional" component, you're are emotionally biasing your argument.

Have you studied science, more than a course or two in college? The way you write would lead me to believe no, lacking other information.

If you've never studied science, then I cannot address a distorted view of it. The scope of the undertaking would be too much, but I have noticed a strong tendency [in you and others] to view atheists as charactures, often making straw men arguments. That I do have something for: a link that might help understand who we are - certain something you won't normally get from a debate online.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html

 

[Phobos]

ok, I'm joining this topic late. At least I planned to...but then I read the first post and my blood pressure rose too high.
Think happy thoughts...

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
If I want to understand complex systems, it helps to first look at the components. That they should always be dealt with as just components is usually a mistake.

To say "dysfunctional" component, you're are emotionally biasing your argument.

And yet the human mind and human body were here a long time, and fully functional, before science came along to pick it apart.

Have you studied science, more than a course or two in college? The way you write would lead me to believe no, lacking other information.

I think it would be reasonable to say that I'm scientifically aware, but don't have an extensive background in it. I would probably make a good lab technician though.

If you've never studied science, then I cannot address a distorted view of it. The scope of the undertaking would be too much, but I have noticed a strong tendency [in you and others] to view atheists as charactures, often making straw men arguments. That I do have something for: a link that might help understand who we are - certain something you won't normally get from a debate online.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html

It seems I've been to this site before, and they do have some interesting things to say, but have very little to offer in terms of what I believe about God.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
But you avoided the main question. Should our science, that which discovers objective information about our environment and universe now descend into personal opinion. Would you be willing to ride in a plane, where the engineering was based on the popular opinion of the strength of the planes aluminum airframe, or the engineers opinion of the thrust of the engines, or would you rather they be measured and confirmable, by anyone using a set methodology? How about living next door to a nuclear reactor where the half lives and fission breakdown products were not measured, they were determined by philosophical debate?

As I've stated any number of times before, I have no problem with science per se', in fact I probably wouldn't have anything to say about it if it weren't for one thing, "religious experience." And I'm sorry, there is more to reality than what is physical.

Just out of curiosity, are there any minority groups to which you belong?

That would be a minority of one -- one who "sees things for himself."

Having been both in the majority and minority over the theism issue, I've seen that many in the theist majority are blithly ignorant of how it is to be in the minority.

Actually I don't care to go to "either extreme."