God Existence Debate: Agnostic's Perspective

[hypnagogue]

...now I'm an agnostic, mind you, so I'm on nobody's side in the great ongoing PF God debates...

...but if God really does exist, I'd love to see the faces of all the hard core materialists when they met up with him.

 

[Iacchus32]

Yer darn tootin'.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
...but if God really does exist, I'd love to see the faces of all the hard core materialists when they met up with him.

Or, maybe he would let them in on it "easily," as he has so far.

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
...now I'm an agnostic, mind you, so I'm on nobody's side in the great ongoing PF God debates...

...but if God really does exist, I'd love to see the faces of all the hard core materialists when they met up with him.

Who said it would be god we fundamentalists end up seeing?

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
I'd love to see the faces of all the hard core materialists when they met up with him.

how about the faces of all believers when they don't met him?

who says if God DOES exist you will met him? (and please answer that...)

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by hypnagogue
...but if God really does exist, I'd love to see the faces of all the hard core materialists when they met up with him.

Well, there's a tiny little bit of a problem here.
If God does exist and it would like to prove its existence
to me without forcing me to accept this proof - how
would it do it ? After all, God is supposed to be all powerfull
which means that to prove its existence it would have
to be capable of doing an infinite amount of things.
"Before" this infinity is reached, the likely conclusion
would still be that this is not God.

Live long and prosper.

 

[zk4586]

'Met up with him'? What a ridiculous phrase to use.

 

[Eh]

Yes, I would be quite shocked to find such a silly ontology (God) is true. Then I would be joining wuliheron proclaiming existence to be absurd.

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
...now I'm an agnostic, mind you, so I'm on nobody's side in the great ongoing PF God debates...

...but if God really does exist, I'd love to see the faces of all the hard core materialists when they met up with him.

As an agnostic, would you be equally joyful to see the faces of the all the hard core religionists if they could be momentarily awakened just long enough to realize they had been living their lives in fantasy land, then out go the lights once more forever?
Are you absolutely certain you’re agnostic? I ask because this “…I'd love to see all the faces…” thing is something I’ve seen a lot more often with believers than the undecided…
…Some of the believers are quite impatient that a person should have to endure an entire 60 or 70 years before this happens, prefering to hasten the day, if you know what I mean.

Originally posted by Windy
Well, I'd like to see the faces of fundamentalists when we find the mechanics of the brain that drives them to believe in a god. And I'd like to see their faces when it becomes mandatory procedure to remove the "god organ" from baby brains.

 

[Iacchus32]

Of course after death, what kind of faces would we have? The faces of spirits? Or, the faces of dead corpses in a box? Of course the latter is already a given, in which case we will at least have this much, the faces of dead corpses.

And yet if there were a spiritual side to it, how would our spiritual faces look? Hmm ... as the "embodiments" of what we truly are?

Or, let's say there wasn't a spiritual side, then I guess it doesn't really mean anything now does it?

 

[hypnagogue]

yeesh. It's kind of silly that people are compelling me to defend the logic of a post that was obviously not meant to be taken so seriously. Or maybe it wasn't so obvious, I dunno, but generally if I hear a joke that goes "so the devil walks into a bar" I don't put on a face of indignation and say "the devil in a bar? what a ridiculous phrase!"

Anyways, I meant no offense to anyone although it looks like I might have touched a nerve. I was just jabbing a little bit at the people who are disgusted with absolute belief while at the same time seeming to hold the equally untenable position of absolute disbelief.

And yes, I'm sure I'm agnostic, I was just playing on the words of the thread "what if there is no god". The effect of posting one's ideas to a message board is essentially to try to sway thoughts and belief towards one's own worldview; thus, perceiving an imbalance in a debate that I at least think should have no definitive answer OR attitude, I needled a little bit at the ruling majority. I think the struggling minority is just as misguided in asserting a definitive belief, but they're already on their heels here.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
...now I'm an agnostic, mind you, so I'm on nobody's side in the great ongoing PF God debates...

...but if God really does exist, I'd love to see the faces of all the hard core materialists when they met up with him.

It depends on which god or goddess shows up, doesn't it?

 

[Brad_Ad23]

Well I'm glad zero brought it up.

Wouldn't it be hilarious if we all met up with Zeus or Anubis?

 

[Zantra]

Ya and who says god is a man -didn't anyone see dogma?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Well I'm glad zero brought it up.

Wouldn't it be hilarious if we all met up with Zeus or Anubis?

You would still have to atone for your lack of respect though.

 

[Brad_Ad23]

Not particularly. We'd all be doomed I'd just laugh my ass off at all the modern day people for tossing out the right one. But then again, that'd last only a short time as I'd be cast away.

Regardless of the hypotheticals, it is far more likely none of us will remember being alive.

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
You would still have to atone for your lack of respect though.

And so would you- for your belief in a false god

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zantra
And so would you- for your belief in a false god

Actually I think it's more of what you attribute to that god than anything else. You know, a rose by any other name?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
You would still have to atone for your lack of respect though.

Assigning attributes to an unproven god or goddess(or team of them, for all we know)?

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Actually I think it's more of what you attribute to that god than anything else. You know, a rose by any other name?

So you're saying belief in a false god is better than no god at all ?
hmm.. can't say I agree

 

[Royce]

What make any of you think that God is not laughing right along with us? If he exists and we are created in his image wouldn't the fact that we have a sense of humor and a sense of the absurd mean that he is the source of it? Whould it necessarily follow that s/he, God has a sense of humor and a sense of the absurd too?
Don't you think that he too would love to see our faces when we meet up with him?
Is he playing jocks on us then? No; but, as a parent, I took particular delite when my children finally discovered the truth of what was perfectly obvious to me especially when they were babies and realized that even though my face was covered when playing peek-a-boo, I was still there behind my hands.

Peek-a-boo! God. LOL. LOL. LOL

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zantra
So you're saying belief in a false god is better than no god at all ?
hmm.. can't say I agree

No, it's the principle of God that's real, not the different names we associate with it.

This is why so many so-called Chritstians may wind up facing "somebody else," because they haven't associated the name with the principle, let alone act in accordance with it.

 

[Fliption]

LOl. This is one of the few threads here that actually made me laugh out loud. Funny stuff guys. Especially Royce's analogy that God might be playing peek-a-boo. That's frickin hilarious!

I just wanted to say that I am agnostic as well and I do understand why this question is so much fun to ask. I agree with Hypnagogue that there is a ruling majority here but I also think there are a few snotty, know-it-all materialists that I would enjoy seeing the looks on their faces if they ever met God. It's just a personality thing though. These are the sorts of people you don't mind seeing get proved wrong.

On the other side, there might be a few people I would be entertained to watch. Remember Lifegazer? That might be a bit funny to see his reaction if he found out materialism is 100% correct. LOL, I think he would probably just explode after repeatedly saying..."DOES NOT COMPUTE!"

But it seems there is little risks of people who believe in God ever knowing they were wrong. Since by definition they will be dead and cannot "know" anything.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Zero
It depends on which god or goddess shows up, doesn't it?

Well, if it's Shiva, it won't be my face that's incurred the most change, but contents of my pants.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Fliption
On the other side, there might be a few people I would be entertained to watch. Remember Lifegazer? That might be a bit funny to see his reaction if he found out materialism is 100% correct. LOL, I think he would probably just explode after repeatedly saying..."DOES NOT COMPUTE!"

Actually it wouldn't matter, because he would be dead!

 

[heusdens]

Objective existence vs. Subjective existence

Or: why a mere subjective form of existence, can not be all there is without there being an objective material world.

" (...) Hunger is a natural need; it therefore needs a nature outside itself, an object outside itself, in order to satisfy itself, to be stilled. Hunger is an acknowledged need of my body for an object existing outside it, indispensable to its integration and to the expression of its essential being. The sun is the object of the plant — an indispensable object to it, confirming its life — just as the plant is an object of the sun, being an expression of the life-awakening power of the sun, of the sun’s objective essential power.

A being which does not have its nature outside itself is not a natural being, and plays no part in the system of nature. A being which has no object outside itself is not an objective being. A being which is not itself an object for some third being has no being for its object; i.e., it is not objectively related. Its being is not objective.

A non-objective being is a non-being.

Suppose a being which is neither an object itself, nor has an object. Such a being, in the first place, would be the unique being: there would exist no being outside it — it would exist solitary and alone. For as soon as there are objects outside me, as soon as I am not alone, I am another — another reality than the object outside me. For this third object I am thus a different reality than itself; that is, I am its object. Thus, to suppose a being which is not the object of another being is to presuppose that no objective being exists. As soon as I have an object, this object has me for an object. But a non-objective being is an unreal, non-sensuous thing — a product of mere thought (i.e., of mere imagination) — an abstraction. To be sensuous, that is, to be really existing, means to be an object of sense, to be a sensuous object, to have sensuous objects outside oneself — objects of one’s sensuousness. To be sensuous is to suffer.

Man as an objective, sensuous being is therefore a suffering being — and because he feels that he suffers, a passionate being. Passion is the essential power of man energetically bent on its object. (...)"

Excerpt from: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/hegel.htm"

 

[pace]

I think it's a little funny how we people in general must have become much more agnostic or unsure the latter decades.

I mean, before say back 1000 years we were all running around and yelling to people BEWARE! DEMONS! etc. so sure of our own veiw, but maybe now we see more oppinions, I dunno.
Maybe it's all the change that makes us so unsure, and not that we are more.
Maybe in 500 years when we the heavy globalization is mostly over, we will turn back to more sure oppinions.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
Objective existence vs. Subjective existence

Or: why a mere subjective form of existence, can not be all there is without there being an objective material world.

I think it stands to reason that an objective reality exitsts -- but, "who's" going to interpret it? You? ... Me? ... the Easter Bunny?

Therefore, if an external reality cannot even be comprehended without an internal reality, what does that say? That the external reality "must" be the extension of the internal reality. Not vice versa.

So what it all boils down to is who are you going to trust? Are you going to trust science, which by no means has solved all the answers? ... and does very little to address what is meaningful? Or, are you going to trust your own intstincts, and give some credit to Mother Nature, who gave you the brain to think with in the first place? ...

Do you realize that everything which exists outside of this "little sphere" you call yourself is non-existent? Or, at least it is to the extent that you're not aware of it. Which is to say, you can only experience those things which are closest to you, and hence "subjective" to your experience.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
I think it stands to reason that an objective reality exitsts -- but, "who's" going to interpret it? You? ... Me? ... the Easter Bunny?

Therefore, if an external reality cannot even be comprehended without an internal reality, what does that say? That the external reality "must" be the extension of the internal reality. Not vice versa.

Your argument makes no sense, all you state is that we can not comprehend "external" reality without consciousness, therefore consciousness has to exist.

What does that have to do with the existence of external reality itself, independend from one's consciousness?

Would at the moment all consciouss beings would have died, the world cease to exist?

So what it all boils down to is who are you going to trust? Are you going to trust science, which by no means has solved all the answers? ... and does very little to address what is meaningful? Or, are you going to trust your own intstincts, and give some credit to Mother Nature, who gave you the brain to think with in the first place? ...

Do you realize that everything which exists outside of this "little sphere" you call yourself is non-existent? Or, at least it is to the extent that you're not aware of it. Which is to say, you can only experience those things which are closest to you, and hence "subjective" to your experience.

Same unfruitfull attempt to introduce the wrong vision that material reality would not be a reality onto itself, but only would exists "thanks" to human consciousness.

If human consciousness would be the primary substance, then please provide me the reason and cause for consciousness itself. Has it created itself? Had it existed always?

Without the existence of matter, independend of consciousness, you can not answer that question.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
Your argument makes no sense, all you state is that we can not comprehend "external" reality without consciousness, therefore consciousness has to exist.

No, not even saying that. I'm saying that in order for it to "mean" anything, consciousness has to exist.

What does that have to do with the existence of external reality itself, independend from one's consciousness?

How could we even conceive of it, let alone talk about it then? So it does suggest some sort of relationship exists.

Would at the moment all consciouss beings would have died, the world cease to exist?

If there were no conscious humans to recogize it, so what? It still doesn't mean the external reality doesn't arise from an "internal reality."

Same unfruitfull attempt to introduce the wrong vision that material reality would not be a reality onto itself, but only would exists "thanks" to human consciousness.

Without consciousness, of "any form," it would go unacknowledged. Therefore, it seems to suggest that consciousness which, is an "internal quality," is somehow tied to "external reality."

If human consciousness would be the primary substance, then please provide me the reason and cause for consciousness itself. Has it created itself? Had it existed always?

Human consciousness? No, I doubt it. However, it does bring up the possible notion of an omniscient, everpresent Being ...

Without the existence of matter, independend of consciousness, you can not answer that question.

Without God perhaps it wouldn't matter, because there would be "no matter?" Hmm ... Did I just repeat myself?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
No, not even saying that. I'm saying that in order for it to "mean" anything, consciousness has to exist.

That in itself is correct. There is no meaning, purpose or intend without consciouss beings that determine those terms to have meaning.

How could we even conceive of it, let alone talk about it then? So it does suggest some sort of relationship exists.

Right, and neither does a materialist deny that, since materialism states that the material development itself, in both anorganic, organic and human society, has formed the causes of any existing entity. We are therefore related to all of the material reality, and share a development history.
Even with the material world itself, since we know from the BB theory all matter once existed in a very condense form and expanded from there.

If there were no conscious humans to recogize it, so what? It still doesn't mean the external reality doesn't arise from an "internal reality."

What form of "internal" reality are you suggesting then?

Without consciousness, of "any form," it would go unacknowledged. Therefore, it seems to suggest that consciousness which, is an "internal quality," is somehow tied to "external reality."

Yes it is, but the relationship is that matter exists primary and consciousness only secondary, as a development product of matter.

Human consciousness? No, I doubt it. However, it does bring up the possible notion of an omniscient, everpresent Being ...

Omnipresent being I could conceive of, since that could refer to a material reality which is everywhere and exists objectively.

A consciouss being however, is something more difficult cause - part from an existing objective world - consciousness is just something abstract.

Without God perhaps it wouldn't matter, because there would be "no matter?" Hmm ... Did I just repeat myself?

BIG speculation there, but you in fact already gave the answer to that one. Without us consciouss beings, there would be no intend, purpose or will, so that would mean also there would be no God either.

Just matter.