Does It Matter If God Exists?

[Heyo]

Friend Heyo, you are a fellow atheist. In 'Advaita', punching in face does not make any difference, because we believe in two kinds of realities. Pragmatic, which is what is observed; and Absolute, true reality which is not observable but can be understood. Punching in face is what is felt, observed, it is not the truth. The truth is the movement of the wave of energy constituting the aggressor's brain, his hand, the face of the one who is punched and its reaction thereof. When we punch in face, we should take guard against a punch coming our way. Absolute truth is this transfer of energy in space.

I can live with pragmatic reality, that's where the relevant stuff happens.
And as an Agnostic and sceptic I also get the radical Cartesian scepticism but when someone uses it as an excuse to never admit anything, I like to demonstrate the relevance of the pragmatic reality.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I can live with pragmatic reality, that's where the relevant stuff happens.
.. I like to demonstrate the relevance of the pragmatic reality.

Oh yeah, sure, or perhaps it does not happen, only seems to. But I understand, that is what you are more interested in.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I can live with pragmatic reality, that's where the relevant stuff happens.
And as an Agnostic and sceptic I also get the radical Cartesian scepticism but when someone uses it as an excuse to never admit anything, I like to demonstrate the relevance of the pragmatic reality.

Well, pragmatic is what works. It works for me to believe in God. Now I have been a skeptic for over 20 years now, so I know that has nothing to do with existence of God and for that I am agnostic. I don't know.

Part of the pragmatic reality is that some forms of religion work in limited sense.

 

[Heyo]

Well, pragmatic is what works. It works for me to believe in God.

No problem with that.

Now I have been a skeptic for over 20 years now, so I know that has nothing to do with existence of God and for that I am agnostic. I don't know.

As I said, I'm a sceptic and an Agnostic and I like to very specifically distinguish the things I don't know from those I do know. And there are some things I do know aside from cogito ergo sum.

Part of the pragmatic reality is that some forms of religion work in limited sense.

Yep. And for a religion to "work" it isn't necessary that a god exists - only that the belief in the god exists (in at least part of the congregation).

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...And there are some things I do know aside from cogito ergo sum.
...

What is your position on cognitive relativism?
Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

 

[Heyo]

What is your position on cognitive relativism?
Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

I believe in objective reality though the cognition of reality is subjective. But between rational observers an intersubjective cognition is possible through communication.
Basically, "Science, it works, b******".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I believe in objective reality though the cognition of reality is subjective. But between rational observers an intersubjective cognition is possible through communication.
Basically, "Science, it works, b******".

Well, in pragmatic reality even science has a limit:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

 

[Heyo]

Well, in pragmatic reality even science has a limit:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

Of course. And scientists are the first to point that out. By limiting its scope, science is able to function optimal within that scope.
(Unlike some religions who can't help but trespass on that field and get utterly destroyed.) As you may guess, I'm a fan of NoMa.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Of course. And scientists are the first to point that out. By limiting its scope, science is able to function optimal within that scope.
(Unlike some religions who can't help but trespass on that field and get utterly destroyed.) As you may guess, I'm a fan of NoMa.

Since this is derail and I started it, I will stop it here. Nice to find a fellow sceptic/skeptic.

 

[1213]

Can people be righteous without theism?

Righteousness is the wisdom of the just, right understanding, which comes visible for example like in this example:

For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without the law. As many as have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it isn't the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be justified (for when Gentiles who don't have the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience testifying with them, and their thoughts among themselves accusing or else excusing them) in the day when God will judge the secrets of men, according to my gospel, by Jesus Christ.
Romans 2:12-16

Righteous person understands what is right and wants to do what is right. And I think person who is righteous, doesn’t say “God does not exist”.

 

[Trailblazer]

There are lots of threads floating around the forums these days arguing for and against God's existence.

God has not made her presence known to me in my life. I see no reason to need to believe in her in order to be happy, to reason, to behave ethically, or to understand how things work.

Perhaps God judges our fate in the afterlife? If there is some life beyond death in which she will judge me, I have no control over my fate, as I don't even know what the nature of such an afterlife would be, or by what criteria I'll be judged. Humans offer lots of opinions on that subject, but none has presented a convincing argument that demonstrates they are any more in the know on the subject than I am. So I have no reason to live my life any differently based on what may or may not happen beyond death.

In short, even if God does exist...does it matter?

I always appreciate your honesty, and I do not think anyone should ever believe in God "just to believe" because if they do not really believe that God exists that would be dishonest. Moreover, I think that believing for a reward is selfish and it is something we are admonished not to do in my religion.

I am sure this is going to sound rather dorky and maybe like an oxymoron, but I believe it only matters if God if exists, if God exists. Moreover, if God exists, it matters a whole helluva lot. But what do I think it matters? The main reason is because if God exists and God revealed a message/messages to us, then it is a guide to living as God wants us to live as well as guide to gaining eternal life, which is a state of the soul that is near to God. Think about it. If we know nothing about God, how can we possibly ever be near to God? Not only that, but if God exists and revealed the whole purpose of our lives, and we never know what that is, we will be handicapped when we die and enter the spiritual world.

“The beginning of all things is the knowledge of God, and the end of all things is strict observance of whatsoever hath been sent down from the empyrean of the Divine Will that pervadeth all that is in the heavens and all that is on the earth.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 5

So what that means is that knowledge of God is the most important thing we can possess and just as important is adherence to God's ordinances.

So do I think it matters if one believes that God exists just to believe that God exists? No, I do not see the value of believing that God exists unless we also believe on the Messengers of God who reveals who God is and what God wants us to do. Otherwise all one is believing in is a concept -- God. It avails them nothing of practical value or even spiritual value.

Let me explain something personal that might help you understand what I mean. For most of the years I have been a Baha'i, I was in hibernation, meaning I did not have much to do with the religion or with God. Not only that, but before i became a Baha'i and even after that, I had not read the most important Writings of Baha'u'llah that explain who God is and why it is important to follow the teachings and laws. So all those years I was not really a believer like I am now. I believed that God existed but it had no significance to me since I did not know anything about God, and I really did not care about God or being connected to God. I did know many of the social and spiritual teachings of Baha'u'llah, and that helped guide my life, but God was left behind in the dust. So I could have just as easily been a humanist as a believer.

I hope that makes at least some sense to you, at least from an intellectual point of view because I know you are quite the intellectual. I also approach belief in an intellectual way, not in an emotional way..

 

[Trailblazer]

I would think that if it mattered to a god if we think it exists or not, it would have done a better job in letting us know that it exists.

Lol, I do not think it matters to God whether we believe He exists for His sake, but it matters to God that we believe for our own sake. The reason I think that is because I believe that God is fully self-sufficient and fully self-sustaining, and as such God has no needs whatsoever; so how could God need us to believe in Him? However that does not mean that God does not want us to believe in Him, I think He does. But since God does not need us to believe in Him, God leaves it up to us to choose to believe in Him or not, rather than letting us know in a very obvious way.

Moreover, if God needed everyone to believe in Him, God could easily accomplish that because God is omnipotent so the very fact that God has never made everyone believe tells us God wants it to be our choice.

 

[rrobs]

Well, the premises of what you have written above is highly in dispute so I don't know why you brought it up. The fact that your premises are in dispute proves my point. Many religions could also make claims that their god or gods did a job that worked out quite well because their religion lives on.

I think the first paragraph was self interpreting, i.e. the scriptures do say God is spirit and other scriptures say spirit and flesh mix no better than oil and water. That's about all I said in the first paragraph.

I'm going to guess the part you didn't like was what I said about Jesus having to learn who he was and what he had to do to redeem mankind. With that assumption, I'll reply that Jesus, being a man like us (Heb 2:17, et. al., none of us are god-men), came into this world exactly like the rest of us, i.e. he knew nothing when he popped out and he learned about life from sources outside of himself, just like we all do. His source of learning was the scriptures which, as I said, was the blueprint for a new creation (the logos of John 1:1) and Jesus was the building contractor, not the architect (God).

Well, if one doesn't believe that Jesus was raised from the dead then there is no point in being a Christian. I think it would be a stupid person who reads the Bible and doesn't understand that. More relevant to the discussion is that whether Jesus is God or not is still in dispute. And there are quite a few other points regarding the nature and intentions of God that relate to prophecy. Also, the beliefs of Jews is also relevant regarding who God is because the OT is their scriptures and they disagree wholeheartedly with Christians.

Raised from the dead is just an example. How about the vast majority believing that Jesus is coming back? Discounting the outliers, those who argue for argument's sake, I would say by far the vast majority agree on that point. That's not something "self evident." It's a doctrine found only in the Bible. At least as far as I know.

Being reasonable, I think it fair to say that they agree more than disagree. I'm not saying any disagreement at all is OK. It's not. God was clear in 1 Corinthians 1:10 that He wants us united. But people are people. But when Jesus does come back, we'll align with 1 Corinthians 1:10. We just need to be patient.

You are speaking of an artificial limitation which God places on himself. So God is actually limitless but holds himself to his own code. So I would change your third sentence here by saying that he HAS to do what he says he will do and CANNOT do what he says he won't do according to his personal code. But that is all based on what he apparently claims and for all I know he is lying... so I wouldn't take him on his word but on his ACTIONS. God can also do more than what he says he will do because he probably does a whole lot of stuff without saying much like any normal being, and he still has perform the action of thinking before saying anything. So he could have thought of a better way to reveal himself, said he would do such a thing and then actually do it.

It's easy to say God could have done something different. Much harder to say what that something different would be.

Any concrete ideas on how God could do better?

If Jesus was God then God isn't limited to being a spirit. He can become physical. Also angels are spirits and they manifest physically according to the Bible. God has also supposedly communicated to humans through visions.

Your going way outside of scriptures into conjecture. Now I don't mean to tell you that you must believe the scriptures, but at least know what it is you're not believing that's in there.

But.... we still see the sun... don't we? Therefore everybody knows that it exists. What form it takes based on what of it we perceive is after everybody sees it. And then, it could be said that the reason why people have different perceptions of what it looks like is its fault.

Yes. I said we all end up seeing, more or less, the same sun. But according to QM theory we all see our own little sun. Fortunately, all of our individuals suns look similar enough that we "think" we all see the same sun. That works good for getting a sun tan, but it does not accord with physical reality. But we can get a good tan without ever pondering the nature of that sun which is what 99.9% of people do. It works just fine for day to day living which is pretty much all we have.

 

[Trailblazer]

Because God is unnecessary for living a good life, so far as I can tell.

I agree that one can live a good life without God, but one might lead an even better life with God. I believe that not only because of my religion but because of my own experience and what I see in the people know.

I am now compelled to share this passage because it expresses my heartfelt feelings towards nonbelievers...

"This cycle is the cycle of favor and not of justice. Therefore, those whose deeds are clean and pure, even though they are not believers, will not be deprived of the divine mercy; but perfection is in faith and deeds. Undoubtedly, a person, who is not a believer, but whose deeds and morals are good, is far better than one who claims his belief in words but, who, in actions, is a follower of satan. The Blessed Beauty says, 'My humiliation is not in my imprisonment, which, by my life, is an exaltation to me; nay rather, it is in the deeds of my friends, who attribute themselves to us and commit that which causes my heart and pen to weep!'"

(Attributed to 'Abdu'l-Bahá, Star of the West, vol. 9, issue 3, p. 29)

Please bear in mind that Baha'is do not believe in a being called satan, so when he says "a follower of satan" he is referring to the lower material nature of man, his selfish nature, as opposed to his higher spiritual nature, his noble nature.

 

[PAUL MARKHAM]

I agree that one can live a good life without God, but one might lead an even better life with God. I believe that not only because of my religion but because of my own experience and what I see in the people know.

4,000 years of evidence through Millenium where religion and state go hand in hand, I would disagree with you there.

Today we have numerous child abuse stories, religious wars, persecution, etc in countries that keep a strict religious government. Imagine yourself living in Saudi Arabia, Iran, an Afghan village or the US ruled by Right Wing religious zealots. etc.

One can't lead a better life when one is consumed by religion, politics, power, etc.

 

[Trailblazer]

4,000 years of evidence through Millenium where religion and state go hand in hand, I would disagree with you there.

Why keep focusing on the past? The past is gone and a new religion has been revealed. To say that it is just like all the other religions is the fallacy of hasty generalization.

 

[PAUL MARKHAM]

Why keep focusing on the past? The past is gone and a new religion has been revealed. To say that it is just like all the other religions is the fallacy of hasty generalization.

You missed the bulk of my post.

Today we have numerous child abuse stories, religious wars, persecution, etc in countries that keep a strict religious government. Imagine yourself living in Saudi Arabia, Iran, an Afghan village or the US ruled by Right Wing religious zealots. etc.

One can't lead a better life when one is consumed by religion, politics, power, etc.

In a time of the most atheist Man are getting away from his past.

 

[PAUL MARKHAM]

There are striking similarities to other religion in Baha'is. Islam, Christianity, etc. It's also different in its aim to establish peace all over the world. The problem is that's not attainable. Man is by nature competitive and will strive to do more for himself or/and family, tribe, etc.

We are in a time of turmoil brought on by climate change. As that worsens, populations increase war is inevitable and happening.

Maybe it was something we could dream about in the 19th century, even the 20th century with a war to end all wars. Today that dream is gone.

 

[Trailblazer]

You missed the bulk of my post.

Today we have numerous child abuse stories, religious wars, persecution, etc in countries that keep a strict religious government. Imagine yourself living in Saudi Arabia, Iran, an Afghan village or the US ruled by Right Wing religious zealots. etc.

One can't lead a better life when one is consumed by religion, politics, power, etc.

In a time of the most atheist Man are getting away from his past.

No, I did not miss that, and the reason for all of what you noted is because people are still clinging to the religions of the past, and I did address that.

 

[nPeace]

Well, it may not be important for *you* to understand these things, but it is important to you that someone understand these things. How gravity works is relevant to designing bridges and buildings. The shape of the Earth is relevant to travel. Because of that, it is relevant for trade and the economy.

Both gravity and the shape of the Earth are relevant to getting satellites into orbit and keeping them there. That is relevant for communications and weather prediction. So, if you use a cell phone or computer, these are relevant to your life.

Flippantly saying that we don't understand gravity ignores the fact that we can use what we *do* understand to send satellites into orbit, probes to other planets, and explain a great deal about how the universe functions. Our ignorance about gravity is far, far less than it was 400 years ago, and much less than it was 100 years ago.

So, sure, it is possible for people to live, even today, and stay ignorant of these things. But it is quite important that *someone* understand them or else your world would crumble around you. And, staying ignorant only means people will stay at the bottom of the economic ladder because they don't have the knowledge to climb it.

And that affects lives.

Whatever happened to common sense now?
Half the world don't care about understanding gravity and they do quite well, as they don't rely on an expert to tell them that something above can fall on you, and you can drop to your death, if the distance below is a certain depth.

You have all this tech, and what has it done for you? Perhaps it makes you well off financially, along with those being paid a fat salary.
The terrorist will still shoot their rockets in the air, knowing that a well aimed shot will hit their intended target.
None of them learned physics for that.
PhDs don't make you smarter or more sensible than anyone else. Nor does it make you wise.

Those who have true wisdom possess pearls that you can have if you want it.
If you did possess them, you would see what you adore right now, as far inferior in comparison.
That's really how it is... but you can't see it.

I can only feel for you, but that's not going to do anything for you. It's up to you.