It seems we avoid this question a lot

  • Thread starter Kakorot
  • Start date
  • #1
Kakorot
Hi there everyone, it may say im new hear but i'm not. Ive actually been a member before, with the same sn. But anyways, back on topic...

It seems we always avoid the question: "Does God exist?"
Or at least they avoid really thinking about it.
Many people don't believe God exists, believing science has never shown God's existance. Which maybe it hasn't, or maybe we humans simply study things wrong. Who knows?
Someone cannot correct their errors until they know what they're doing wrong, so until we find out what that could be, we may never "see" God while we are alive.
Some atheists suggest a God isn't proven to exist, so it may not exist. But one thing that bugs me about that is that Christopher Columbus didn't know America existed, yet it did.
So we may not see God right now, but that doesn't mean God doesn't exist.
This reality, this universe, and all of the energy and other properties of the physical realm were all made at some time. Some suggest a big bang theory, some suggest creation, some even suggest both. Who knows?
I want to see what all you guys and girls think before I go on.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
39
0
It seems we always avoid the question: "Does God exist?"
Or at least they avoid really thinking about it.
Not on internet message boards. Every week someone re-posts this same thing.
 
  • #3
Kakorot
really? yeah i havent been here in a while
 
  • #4
240
0
It seems we always avoid the question: "Does God exist?"

Yes, someone does post this on message boards every week or so- and the conversation is always the same. It isn't a conversation though; it's a debate. While we don't avoid the ISSUE of "Does God exist?", we DO avoid the question.

What I mean is, people postulate ways for God to exist, discuss what implications his existence has on our lives, but never do we actually discuss "Does he exist?". What I mean by a discussion is a logical conversation without prejeduce aimed towards resolving a certian problem.

The first question is "Why"; Why would God exist? (I reffer to the being as "God" in the masculine and singular tense, but that is only because of the faultyness of the English language and our culture- If God exists, it may be a he or a she, there may be more than one, etc. But for the sake of simplicity I shall use the masculine singular term in most discussion, and I would advise others to do the same)

If we have a reason, the next question is "How"; How does God exist and fit in with our observations, or fail to do so?

Then is the "Then what?" question; much like predictions made by a theory. Any logical conclusion we come to about the existance of God will (most likely) have predictions of some sort... Would it not?
 
  • #5
15
0
If this question has stopped popping up in forums, then it is for the better. There are no words or therums that can prove god. This is why it is a 'belief' if god. You either do or do not believe. Belief requires faith, knowledge in things unseen. Not science or philosophy. So maybe it's better that this question should not be asked on an internet forum.
 
  • #6
240
0
If this question has stopped popping up in forums, then it is for the better. There are no words or therums that can prove god. This is why it is a 'belief' if god. You either do or do not believe. Belief requires faith, knowledge in things unseen. Not science or philosophy. So maybe it's better that this question should not be asked on an internet forum.

Things believed with no evidence whatsoever are called "wrong". If I say "I believe a giant penguin created the universe so that mankind would develop twinkies it could eat", that has no evidence- thus it is "wrong". If you want to go around making up totally random ideas and saying they aren't subject to logic because they are "beliefs", you're never going to learn anything new or come to any correct conclusions, and there's no point in thinking about anything.

Even religious beliefs are not what you're labelling a "belief". They are based on logical thought, on direct evidence (visions, acts of God, etc), and such. They are beliefs because there is no proof against them and they seem to make sense to some or because the validity of the logic and evidence is in question.
 
  • #7
591
0
What exactly is the difference between this:

Originally posted by Sikz
Things believed with no evidence whatsoever are called "wrong".

and this:

Originally posted by Sikz
They are beliefs because there is no proof against them


In the first paragraph you speak derisively of beliefs with no evidence and in the second paragraph you go the other way. Do you think there's a difference between evidence that is made up and evidence that it's impossible to test the validity of?
 
  • #8
NateTG
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2,450
6
From the scientific point of view:
1. Invoking god in an theory will typically not improve predictions of the theory.
2. Calls for adding a poorly understood and described concept to a theory.

Thus Occam's Razor eliminates god from modern scientific theory. This leads to the relatively modern notion that whether god exists is an unimportant question.

Of course, even if the existance of god is not important, the belief in god has clearly shaped human history. Thus a potentially more useful question might be:
"Is it beneficial to me to believe in god?"
Of course, this is not the type of question that anyone ever really discusses since most people confuse it with other useful questions like:
"Is membership in this church beneficial to me?"
or
"What are the postive and negative aspects of organized religeon on modern society?"

In my experience most of the people who participate in discussions or debates about the existance of god(s) are incapable of seperating these notions in the discussion.

Discussions about the existance of god(s) are also often great places to see logically flawed arguments ranging the full gamut from straw men, and false dichotomies to applealing to invalid authority and circular reasoning.
 
  • #9
15
0
Sikz, who is to say that all the experiments that we do aren't wrong. Everything is from perseption. This is what I like to call the 'Matrix' theory. This is where every aspect of philosophy comes coliding together in some way. And there is not the only question of 'Is there a God?' but also 'What is God?'

Everything that is believe is believed on faith. Faith that we're here for a purpose. Faith that life has meaning. And Faith that the car in on comming traffic won't cross the line and kill you. Perseption is everyting, so if you are to believe in unalterable, unchangeable true science there must be a god.

As Albert Einstein said "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." The two coenside. Science is faith in the perseptually known. Religion is faith in the unknown. A perfect science would create a perfect religion, and vice versa.

God is also required beyond the field of math and science. He is also required in life. Without a god there are no ethical truths. Just what sociaty says to be true.

Because a belief in God derives from faith no amount of forum posts will be able to prove this otherwise. And if you think our simple math can prove or disprove God... well, I feel sorry for you.
 
  • #10
17
0
either you believe god or either you don't
 
  • #11
Kakorot
Many people don't believe God exists, believing science has never shown God's existance.

Science has nothing to do with disproving the existence of God. This being said I believe that many people are justified for questioning the the validity of religious texts such as the Bible or Koran given their tendency to be inconsistent and contradicitve. I think it is fair to say that science has played a part in exposing many of these inconsistencies/contradictions. This of course only calls into question the validity of "revealed" religions, not the existence of God.
 
  • #12
8
0
The matter is interesting, Whenever someone questions the existence of God, or considers it a matter to be discussed It actually is related to the way religions has been presented to us. There is Hell & Heaven, There are good & bad, Since Religion has been evolved with human being.. It atleast had develped the resemblance with our emotional satisfaction. Many people think of God, while looking towards there limited knowledge and uncertainity, but behind these questions is fear of Hell etc. What if God is a reality and I don't know. But If it is the matter of knowing then agian you are not responsible since you are limited to your experience for your knowing etc.
Looking at the matter objectively, I simply say that with the knowledge we have so far... We can not certainly claim the existence of God. But considering the faith & belief etc.. Our judgement will be based on the environment in which we grown. So everyone is open in it to judge it but remember there is no certainity.. If it would then their will be no need for this discussion....
 
  • #13
Stryker said:
perseption. .
perception!!! :eek: :eek: :surprise:
 
  • #14
317
2
It would have to be much more important that God believes in you, than you believe in God. That is, if God exists at all. I know that if an intelligence made this whole thing, this intelligence is what we are made of. We can examine ourselves, and kick ourselves and others around the block over any issue we care to make. But, if you have not enjoyed this existence, then you have missed it, and missed God too. This whole thing with "God" so annoys me because of the obnoxious human traits, humans attribute to the creator of the universe. Get this straight, he made us some badassed monkeys, but God is not a badassed super monkey; that is if God exists at all.
 
  • #15
2,126
0
Kakorot said:
It seems we always avoid the question: "Does God exist?"
Or at least they avoid really thinking about it.

I want to see what all you guys and girls think before I go on.

I can't say I have ever met a person who never thought about the subject of God. Personally, I have had religion shoved down my throat since I was able to understand the concept. As an adult I get a little more respect in this regard, but I am still surrounded by believers and inundated daily with aspects of their beliefs. Often beliefs which they mistakenly believe just about the entire world shares.

As a child no one ever asked me what I believed, they just made it clear being agnostic (as I am) was not acceptable. As an adult I find most believers misinterpret my beliefs as religious and supportive of a God. I am a spiritual agnostic who believes existence is the only miracle I need. If there is a God, they too will have to take a backseat to this simple fact of life.
 
  • #16
91
0
:wink: Just a bit of a rant.

Whether God exists or not, our lives would be immensely more meaningful and gainful, if we could just try to BE God.
 
  • #17
2,312
0
So they claim there are no absolutes in terms of "physical reality." And yet how is it possible to even conceive of perfection? Could it be that there is some other realm by which these absolutes do exist? Perhaps the same reality by which we approach God in our own minds?
 
  • #18
129
0
To the original poster. Does what exist? What are you asking? We may as well ask "Does uikbjb exist?" Your god-concept has no actual meaning it only has this inter-subjective sort of meaning, merely a vague conceptual construct.
*Nico
 
  • #19
142
1
[I'm new here as well as young, so don't take anything I say too seriously. I'm bound to make myself look like a fool]

Many people run to God as an excuse for the universe only because we haven't discovered all of the answers.

A personal God is incredible and the theory is pointless. God created us solely to worship Him, and if we don't, he sends us to eternal hell. This theory isn't believable and appears to be made just to scare people into believing the religion. (This is only a personal belief)

However, the idea of God as "the master and creator of the universe" is actually pretty believeable, even though many questions of it are still unanswered. This would answer the question of "How/Why are we here?", but still leaves many questions unanswered, such as "How was God created?". You're most likely going to get an answer similar to that of "He wasn't created. He just is." This doesn't make sense.

Perhaps there is a God and perhaps there isn't. We humans will never know, even though discussing it can be quite useful if its progressive.

As for me, I'm an atheist.
 
Last edited:
  • #20
10
0
Nicomachus said:
To the original poster. Does what exist? What are you asking? We may as well ask "Does uikbjb exist?" Your god-concept has no actual meaning it only has this inter-subjective sort of meaning, merely a vague conceptual construct.
*Nico
Can you define consciousness? Yet don't you admit that you exist? Cogito Ergo Sum.
 
  • #21
10
0
This would answer the question of "How/Why are we here?", but still leaves many questions unanswered, such as "How was God created?". You're most likely going to get an answer similar to that of "He wasn't created. He just is." This doesn't make sense.

Sure it makes sense, at least as much sense as the second law of thermodynamics which has been empirically verified countless times, yet this physical law breaks down as does General Relativity, which has also been verified countless times, when we take the universe back to Planck time 10^-43 sec.

Before you ask the religious zealots "where did God come from?," you better first ask the cosmologists, "where did the Big Bang singularity come from?" It's turtles all the way down. Tell them to E=mc^2 out of that conundrum.

The zealots don't claim to have all the answers, that's the difference.
 
  • #22
2,312
0
phreak said:
However, the idea of God as "the master and creator of the universe" is actually pretty believeable, even though many questions of it are still unanswered. This would answer the question of "How/Why are we here?", but still leaves many questions unanswered, such as "How was God created?". You're most likely going to get an answer similar to that of "He wasn't created. He just is." This doesn't make sense.
Well, if you have hard time accepting the notion that nothing existed before the Big Bang, then you can only conclude that existence has always been. In which case that which is responsible for existence has always been here too. Consider for example the Eternal Moment which, is not contingent upon time and space and, in fact is inclusive of time and space ... and all things else for that matter. What could that possibly suggest, except that the moment is a dimension unto itself and, in fact the very dimension from which all things spring ... the Eternal Stillness in other words. Which of course is technically impossible according to the proponents of nothing.

But then again we have to ask, was there absolutely nothing before the Big Bang or, absotutely something before the Big Bang? Which of course could be anything other than nothing. In fact if you opt for nothing, I doubt there would be any possibility for us to discuss this thought. :wink:

By the way, did you know that the whole Universe is contained within the moment? Hmm ... Now what might that give rise to? The possibility that the whole Universe can be coordinated with a single thought? Hey, don't look at me, I'm not God! :biggrin:
 
Last edited:
  • #23
147
0
man, Iacchus32... you're the first person ever to land on my ignore list... just because you're so annoying... my mortal enemies haven't ever been able to annoy me enough to make me do that... :eek:
 
  • #24
vanesch
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,092
17
Nicomachus said:
To the original poster. Does what exist? What are you asking? We may as well ask "Does uikbjb exist?" Your god-concept has no actual meaning it only has this inter-subjective sort of meaning, merely a vague conceptual construct.
*Nico

Exactly. When pushed, this is always the difficult point in religious discussions. EXACTLY WHAT DO YOU MEAN WITH 'GOD' ?
Once we have a precise definition, we can argue about it, including its existance, its testability etc...
It occured to me that no sane, religious person could ever give me an accurate working definition of his/her god. The only thing we know for sure is that the fundamentalist gods (the literal interpretations of the hebrew bible, the coran, the greek gods etc...) do not exist. The greek gods do not exist, for example, because satelite pictures of mount Olympus in Greece doesn't show us the trone of Zeus, where it should be.
So, what exactly do you mean with the word ?

cheers,
Patrick.
 
  • #25
346
0
Sikz said:
The first question is "Why"; Why would God exist? (I reffer to the being as "God" in the masculine and singular tense, but that is only because of the faultyness of the English language and our culture-

I think that this is an important point. Due to the grammar of the English language, we anthropomorphize god, and assign to the concept masculine singular gender. This causes people to conceptualize god as a man. Therein lies the problem, in my opinion.

Supposedly, god is everywhere and knows everything. If we would define god as nature itself, and eliminate the anthropomorphic symbolism and the accompanying anthropomorphic attributes, perhaps a more acceptable concept of god might emerge.
 

Related Threads on It seems we avoid this question a lot

  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
53
Views
7K
Replies
56
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
6K
Replies
2
Views
4K
Z
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
28
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Top