PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
It is a concept, but my point is that that concept is very well-defined, and not at all mysterious.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Does God Exist?
- Thread starter Dan4reason
- Start date
A thousand years ago no one knew about electricity. Does that mean it did not exist. No of course not. And intangible things like love are also impossible to show but it exists too. But many people will say that they've experienced it. No one questions them. So to say that because I cannot bring you something to prove God does not mean He doesn't exist either. But to point out the existance of life and our universe and not offer a logical explanation is nothing either. It's like a scale and to me logic points in the direction of a creator because of the sheer nature of it all.
God is not mysterious to me, and billions of people either.
but we could see lightning.
and the most important thing is that we didn't just make up electricity without knowing what it is because I can asure you that if we did, we wouln't even be close to having it right.
I don't doubt its existance but chemestry can expose the secrets of love
Abiogenesis is a litle less far fetched compared to a magic man.
Yes but just because we saw lightening doen't mean we knew what it was. Electricity to those people did not exist
The experience of love can only be between people and just because there are hormones or phermones doesn't replace the experience of love. But you cannot bring me love in a court of law can you? Can we see it, touch it?
I thought the "magic man" was the idea of the universe just popping out of nowhere without any explanation. But even with Abiogenesis it still had to start somewhere.
Ben Masada
Well-Known Member
The Judeo-Christian god does not exist. Nieszcher somehow found out he had died. And I believe him.
McBell
Unbound
Individually, perhaps.
But get them all together and try and get one description of god that they all agree on?
Never going to happen.
That is one of the big problems with the appeal to popularity fallacy.
That's probably because God is too complex for just one description and is different to everyone in terms of how we see Him.
waitasec
Veteran Member
so that's why people are murdered in the name of religion...
Dan4reason
Facts not Faith
This whole debate is whether the Judeo-Christian God exists. Even if your design argument is true, it proves an architect, not even a God. So even deism is a stretch for the design argument, and deism does not get you close to any proof of the judeo-Christian God.
I will now enter a lenthy refutation of the design argument I am sorry about its length.
There are problems with the design argument. Before Charles Darwin, whenever we observed a complex thing being created, it was created by a designer. Even though life is vastly different than anything humans have made and only shares the simmilarity that it is complex, we just assumed that it was also made by someone. Even though the universe is not complex in quite the way life does, it simply exists and has patterns, we just assumed that it was designed by somebody. The Greek idea that thunder was made by a person is a parallel example to this.
Just like the Greeks, we are attempting to explain big questions about the universe and life itself which we knew very little about with intuitive human answers like design, and designers simmilar to humans in a way. We ignored the fact that just because design is an explanation for a certain type of complexity (watches), it explains every type of complexity, and you cannot that there IS NO other explanation. This of course is a fallacious idea because there can be more than one explanation for a certain type of thing. For example, there is more than one explanation for the creation of flashes of light. We see that humans create flashes of light (sparks, fire) but that does not mean all flashes of light are made by designers.
When we learn about science we started to realize just how counter-intuitive it is. Gravity is not a constant in the universe, time is not a constant, causality breaks down in the quantum level, space can expand contract or bend, nature upkeeps itself not a "gardener." Despite this, many people still try to explain things without scientific evidence in the universe with intuitive answers that works in their daily lives but should not be assumed to work in a vast strange counter-intuitive universe. To assume that counter-intutive answers don't apply as explations for life and the universe conflicts with the nature of the universe.
Beginning with Darwin, we began discovering non-design explanations for complexity like the big bang and the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is supported by fossil evidence such as hominids ("ape men") and an organized fossil record with "complex" being on the top and "simple" life at the bottom, a perfect cartoon of the evolution of life through time. The big bang theory is valid because it follows from the mathematics of the theory of relativity, and explains why 75% of the universe is hydrogen, and 25% is oxygen. If the theory were true, we should see a super-cold radiation with a certain frequency everywhere, and this is exactly what we see. The complexity of life and the universe we have today have been found to refute the design argument and we should have learned to never again trust it.
A major problem with the design argument is that it refutes itself and does not explain ALL complexity. If God made the universe who made God? If God was not made by a designer, then you have to agree that complexity can sometimes be explained with non-design. As we have seen, the design argument makes too many assumptions, is contradicted by science, and contradicts itself. This argument does not prove a designer.
buddhadev
harish
Hi i am from India.This debate between science and religion has been unable to satisfy the realists. The point of existence of God or whatever you may call it is very tricky only when you have that conscious mind trying to put truth in terms of experience. What we realise as truth is our experience through the five senses we have. Everything we accept as truth through our experience via our senses becomes finite. God is infinite. So when we try to put our efforts taking time,land and love(or emotion) as lenses we put a limit(finite) to its existence. It is not possible to experience God but neither we can doubt its existence. If you want to know God forget about knowing it through your senses.
waitasec
Veteran Member
I can't really comment on that. People are people. We are pretty much all the same no matter one's creed, culture or religion. I guess for some any excuse is as good as another.
It would seem to me that like time we have normally thought of it as a steady thing. A second is a second. But the idea that time can actually change with speed is very new, thanks to Einstein. So to apply the same time on earth as in space (speed of light) doesn't work. And if you apply the design concept to the designer it also doesn't work. God is above all that. That part just has to be accepted just like when someone says that time changes with speed and you are stuck here on earth. We are unable to comprehend this idea of where God came from but it is clear we as humans are limited in what we can do. When you think of what is being said of God, that He created everything and we cannot fully comprehend that, how can we go to the next step even?
Excellent post. Great points
Dan4reason
Facts not Faith
First off, if we assume that God exists, and he created everything, then we can assume that any objection to him is a result of ignorance on our part. However, this is not a Christianity DIR thread, we are not assuming that God exists and are even debating that idea. You cannot explain away my arguments by saying that you are sure that there is an explanation out there because God's ways are mysterious.
With that said, the point I was trying to make is that the fundamentals of the universe are extremely anti-intuitive and often defy the way that the world of our normal experiences works.
That is why I say that his existence can only be explained through non-design whatever mystery that is. This proves that the design concept is not universal and if it fails for God, it may fail for other things. This has already been shown with the theory of evolution and the big bang.
Since this debate does not assume God's existence, this does not bode well for the design argument which jumps to conclusions trying to explain the fundamentals of the universe in terms of the world of usual human experience and assuming that there is no other explanation. In fact the existence of God forces another explanation, and the big bang and evolution prove it.
With that said, the point I was trying to make is that the fundamentals of the universe are extremely anti-intuitive and often defy the way that the world of our normal experiences works.
That is why I say that his existence can only be explained through non-design whatever mystery that is. This proves that the design concept is not universal and if it fails for God, it may fail for other things. This has already been shown with the theory of evolution and the big bang.
Since this debate does not assume God's existence, this does not bode well for the design argument which jumps to conclusions trying to explain the fundamentals of the universe in terms of the world of usual human experience and assuming that there is no other explanation. In fact the existence of God forces another explanation, and the big bang and evolution prove it.
Orias
Left Hand Path
Dan4reason
Facts not Faith
I see. You want to exclude your beliefs about spirits, your God, magical miracles, and supernatural events from the definition of myth because you happen to think it is true. I argue that the definition of mythology should not depend on whether you happen to believe it or not but what it is claiming and what evidence it has. Christianity makes all the wild supernatural claims just like every other myth and there is no evidence to back up these myths despite whatever you say. Therefore it is a mythology, but that does not make it false. It just makes it a certain kind of idea.
Dan4reason
Facts not Faith
Ah, but you have not establish the existence of God as a negative; unless you are unable to do so. And who establishes whether there is enough evidence to prove or disprove something? That amount is purely subjective. The first evidence is the creation of the universe and earth, for starters: It was by design and not from random chaos.
My religion and my religious beliefs are not the focus of this OP. But you should already know something about my beliefs from my posts. :angel2:
I cannot extablish your idea as a negative because you make sure that it avoids the evidence. You just have to make God invisible so we cannot detect him. You have to make it so he does not want to prove his existence by showing himself because he wants people to believe in him with little evidence. How convenient. However, this idea shoots itself in the foot. In avoiding the evidence, it has stripped itself of any possibility of ever being positively proven and is just as valid as belief in fairies, Greek Gods, devils, etc. In order to believe something, it must have evidence. Without evidence, the idea will not be believed, just like if there were evidence against it.
The universe has patterns, but that does not mean it is complex like a computer or a clock. The universe with its stars and planets has just as much evidence of design with its patterns as rainbows, snowflakes, thunder, etc. Just because you don't know the explanation for natural phenomena does not mean that there is a guy who just makes it happen by magic. We even have an explanation of the universe called the big bang and natural observations and our knowedge of the theory of relativity confirm that this event really did happen. There is no need for a designer of the universe.
waitasec
Veteran Member
but you would agree people are more likely to commit murderous acts if it were justified by religious beliefs...it's the higher calling and purpose that would drive them.
i understand that people are people, and i fully agree with that. given the divine permission, if you will, opens a wider door of destruction.
most wars are for the purpose of gaining power. the ones in power create a justification for war and in most cases, they use religion. bush for example, while rallying up america used the word "crusade", which implies a religious overtone.
History of Religion