God vs Science: Is there a point?

[Gyrannon]

I have to ask both sides:

Why is it necessary to prove or disprove the existence of any god from any belief system?
Say someone SOMEHOW proved that God is real, ok.
Say someone SOMEHOW proved that God isn't real, ok.

Either way, we are battling each other, not literally, over supernatural beings that we as humans know almost nothing about. Either way, whats the point?
Non-Believers, given everything you found out thus far, and say God is proven real (SOMEHOW), would your beliefs or stances on such a being change at all? And same in reverse to Believers, say God was proven to be not real (SOMEHOW), your beliefs change at all?

Based on how Science & Religion works, neither can honestly prove the other wrong. Science & Religion has a guess for what happens after death (I say guess cause frankly no one really knows for a fact), so even if we die, comeback & try to say "I saw God!" even if the person in question was a well-known Scientist who was highly against anything to do religion & deities, the rest of the science community would still find a way to discredit that person (ex. Hallucinated). And same for Religious people, a highly devout believer comes back from death & says "Nothing happened, I saw nothing", the religious side would simply say "Oh that person is lying" or "The devil got to them!" etc.

Does anyone honestly think that this debate will end with one side actually winning the debate?

 

[RedDragon94]

Either way, we are battling each other, not literally, over supernatural beings that we as humans know almost nothing about.

Right, the point is we're here.

 

[Quetzal]

Either way, we are battling each other, not literally, over supernatural beings that we as humans know almost nothing about. Either way, whats the point?

It is a circular argument I tend to avoid.

 

[psychoslice]

To me the concept of god is only in your head, to the Cosmos, it means absolutely nothing.

 

[Skwim]

I have to ask both sides:

Why is it necessary to prove or disprove the existence of any god from any belief system?
Say someone SOMEHOW proved that God is real, ok.
Say someone SOMEHOW proved that God isn't real, ok.

Believers tend to make arguments for the existence of their god because others contend he doesn't exist. This is important because either they care what others think or they see the nonbeliever's argument as an actual threat to their belief system---the possible erosion of their faith. Nonbelievers tend to make arguments for the the nonexistence of god because they can't stand the conceit and arrogance of the believers. It's more of a pastime than anything. Of course the believers, recognizing the potential harm this could have to their religion, retaliate with counter arguments.

Either way, we are battling each other, not literally, over supernatural beings that we as humans know almost nothing about. Either way, whats the point?

See above.

Non-Believers, given everything you found out thus far, and say God is proven real (SOMEHOW), would your beliefs or stances on such a being change at all? And same in reverse to Believers, say God was proven to be not real (SOMEHOW), your beliefs change at all?

If they can be honest with themselves they should; however, believers have vastly more invested in their position than do the nonbelievers. Sometimes the belief in a protective, comforting supreme being is the only thing that gets them through life. In contrast, the arrival at none-belief may be just a satisfying exercise of one's powers of reason.

Based on how Science & Religion works, neither can honestly prove the other wrong.

Correct, although it should be remembered that proof is only meaningful in logic, mathematics, and liquor.

Science & Religion has a guess for what happens after death (I say guess cause frankly no one really knows for a fact), so even if we die, comeback & try to say "I saw God!" even if the person in question was a well-known Scientist who was highly against anything to do religion & deities, the rest of the science community would still find a way to discredit that person (ex. Hallucinated).

Nope. Scientists wouldn't care about such claims. They would ignore them; although, if pressed for an explanation a scientist might say it was a hallucination. As for science's "guess" I'm not sure what you're referring to. About the only thing science speaks to about after-death is its effect on the body.

And same for Religious people, a highly devout believer comes back from death & says "Nothing happened, I saw nothing", the religious side would simply say "Oh that person is lying" or "The devil got to them!" etc.

Perhaps.

Does anyone honestly think that this debate will end with one side actually winning the debate?

I don't really see it as any kind of debate, but more of a stalemate wherein in nonbelievers pretty much take an "I don't care---once in awhile jab" position, and believers are left tilting at windmills to protect their investment in their faith.


.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Does anyone honestly think that this debate will end with one side actually winning the debate?

I shall ask Saint Dawkins.

 

[idav]

Does anyone honestly think that this debate will end with one side actually winning the debate?

The subject of god and religion seems to be very important to at least 90% of the worlds population (and thats probably a conservative estimate). The type of god should make a difference to how people treat each other particularly when there is so much real fighting going on over it, and not just the nice type of debate fighting. This is especially apparent in places like the middle east and in India where people of different religions can end up clashing in a very bad way. Since science seems to be a valuable source of information it would seem maybe science should be able to point humanity in the right direction, but apparently not for religions that would rather science never existed.

 

[Quintessence]

Why is it necessary to prove or disprove the existence of any god from any belief system?

Why would you think it is necessary? Who told you that?

Seems to me the only traditions (theistic or non-theistic) that would call something like this "necessary" are those that believe they have The Truth and want others to accept their Truth. In other words, it is a necessity to the self-righteous and authoritarian personality... not to the rest of us. In many religions, what you believe about the gods (ideology) is far less important than honoring them (practices).

Either way, we are battling each other, not literally, over supernatural beings that we as humans know almost nothing about. Either way, whats the point?

Setting aside that gods need not be supernatural for the moment, what makes you say humans know almost nothing about the gods? This does not seem to be the case at all, looking at the world's theistic religions. As for "the point" of discussing theology with others? Well, some people like discussing the topic because they are interested in it. They're curious to share their stories and hear the stories of others. Those who put down others' stories make it about control and social dominance. I'm not so much a fan of that point.

Does anyone honestly think that this debate will end with one side actually winning the debate?

It probably goes without saying that not everyone regards this as a debate at all. To my mind, the goal is to share stories and listen to each other to better understand and respect the wonderful diversity of this world we live in. Derailing this goal for social posturing like "winning" is just sad to me.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I have to ask both sides:

Why is it necessary to prove or disprove the existence of any god from any belief system?
Say someone SOMEHOW proved that God is real, ok.
Say someone SOMEHOW proved that God isn't real, ok.

Either way, we are battling each other, not literally, over supernatural beings that we as humans know almost nothing about. Either way, whats the point?
Non-Believers, given everything you found out thus far, and say God is proven real (SOMEHOW), would your beliefs or stances on such a being change at all? And same in reverse to Believers, say God was proven to be not real (SOMEHOW), your beliefs change at all?

Based on how Science & Religion works, neither can honestly prove the other wrong. Science & Religion has a guess for what happens after death (I say guess cause frankly no one really knows for a fact), so even if we die, comeback & try to say "I saw God!" even if the person in question was a well-known Scientist who was highly against anything to do religion & deities, the rest of the science community would still find a way to discredit that person (ex. Hallucinated). And same for Religious people, a highly devout believer comes back from death & says "Nothing happened, I saw nothing", the religious side would simply say "Oh that person is lying" or "The devil got to them!" etc.

Does anyone honestly think that this debate will end with one side actually winning the debate?

No; and, it's a useless debate, I agree. The only reason I can see a formal way of debating and the goal out of it is to address how religions such as Christianity and Islam affect people and in some cases in both religions, harm people. I wouldn't address it as to whether god exists or not. Since god does not exist and it is proven that he doesn't (say we prove the Bible and Quran aren't true), what would believers do? Then you have to think, are they basing their beliefs on actual facts or are they interpreting their experiences and feelings as historical and logical facts that are not only real to themselves but supposedly real for everyone else?

I think addressing these questions if the motivation is to "get people to see" would hopefully let a parent see how indoctrinating their children can have ill affects on their child as an adult. Telling outsiders they will go to hell is counter productive to bring one to Christ or any hell believing religion.

I honestly hope their beliefs don't change if they found out they are wrong. I just hope their actions will change as well as their perception on how their beliefs affect other people. I hope conversations will give them factual not just opinionated viewpoints that their religion does and always will have bad points and hopefully they can see that, accept it, and continue to believe as they do.

Believers like Evangelcal Christianity and Catholicism, Islam, Buddhism (Nichiren Shoshu and SGI), as far as I know so far, have a tendency to want to "save" people. If believers, regardless the religion, understand "not everyone is meant to be saved", hopefully, the debate over god's existence won't be worthless but a way for believers to look deeper into their beliefs without drop off conversations and for some being too uncomfortable to look beyond the surface of their faith. One person here said he/she had no absolutely no problems with her faith. Then I think. Is that even possible? We love our family but there are some things about our family may get on our nerves. Religion isn't different. That doesn't mean it's false or you're questioning it (doubt it), just means you're being honest.

Anyway, I see some value in talking about gods existence only because I hope it will help believers see how their beliefs affect others in a good and bad way. Other than that, we talk because we're curious, others are searching, but in itself, I agree with you, it goes no where.

 

[Milton Platt]

I have to ask both sides:

Why is it necessary to prove or disprove the existence of any god from any belief system?
Say someone SOMEHOW proved that God is real, ok.
Say someone SOMEHOW proved that God isn't real, ok.

Either way, we are battling each other, not literally, over supernatural beings that we as humans know almost nothing about. Either way, whats the point?
Non-Believers, given everything you found out thus far, and say God is proven real (SOMEHOW), would your beliefs or stances on such a being change at all? And same in reverse to Believers, say God was proven to be not real (SOMEHOW), your beliefs change at all?

Based on how Science & Religion works, neither can honestly prove the other wrong. Science & Religion has a guess for what happens after death (I say guess cause frankly no one really knows for a fact), so even if we die, comeback & try to say "I saw God!" even if the person in question was a well-known Scientist who was highly against anything to do religion & deities, the rest of the science community would still find a way to discredit that person (ex. Hallucinated). And same for Religious people, a highly devout believer comes back from death & says "Nothing happened, I saw nothing", the religious side would simply say "Oh that person is lying" or "The devil got to them!" etc.

Does anyone honestly think that this debate will end with one side actually winning the debate?

It isn't "necessary" to prove a god exists, except for those who believe it does and insist that others believe it. They have a burden of proof to meet. If they are not intent on sharing their beliefs, then they can quietly go on believing. For those who think it that a god positively does not exist, well, they have the same burden of proof.

For the rest of us, it is logical to withhold belief until such a time as a god is demonstrated to exist.

Yes, since I choose to base belief on factual knowledge, demonstrating the existence of a god would change everything. People have been waiting for thousands of years for that to happen, so I do not hold out much hope. For example, Christians often say that their god is imbued with mutually exclusive traits, or that it is "beyond space and time". That removes it from reality as we know it, so places it outside the realm of human experience.

 

[godnotgod]

A God that can be proven or disproven would be a dead God, because either is to define God, and by nature, God is beyond definition.

If you really want to make some progress here, try a little exercise the Buddha recommended:

"Think neither God, nor not-God"

That will get your mind out of the dual world. Once this occurs, return here and let us know how you now see things.
*****

'The fundamental difference between Buddhism and other religions is that Buddhism has no God or gods before whom people bow down in return for peace of mind. The spirit enmeshed in the Buddha’s teachings refuses to offer a god in exchange for freedom from anxiety. Instead, freedom from anxiety can only be found at the point where the Self settles naturally upon itself.'

from: 'From the Zen Kitchen to Enlightenment', by Dogen/Uchiyama

 

[Milton Platt]

A God that can be proven or disproven would be a dead God, because either is to define God, and by nature, God is beyond definition.

If you really want to make some progress here, try a little exercise the Buddha recommended:

"Think neither God, nor not-God"

That will get your mind out of the dual world. Once this occurs, return here and let us know how you now see things.
*****

'The fundamental difference between Buddhism and other religions is that Buddhism has no God or gods before whom people bow down in return for peace of mind. The spirit enmeshed in the Buddha’s teachings refuses to offer a god in exchange for freedom from anxiety. Instead, freedom from anxiety can only be found at the point where the Self settles naturally upon itself.'

from: 'From the Zen Kitchen to Enlightenment', by Dogen/Uchiyama

Your statement is nonsensical. To even use the term "god" is to define the thing you are speaking of. Therefore your statement itself violates the idea you are trying to convey. If you cannot define a thing in any manor whatsoever, you cannot possible claim that it existx, because stating that it exists begins to define it.

 

[godnotgod]

Your statement is nonsensical. To even use the term "god" is to define the thing you are speaking of. Therefore your statement itself violates the idea you are trying to convey. If you cannot define a thing in any manor whatsoever, you cannot possible claim that it existx, because stating that it exists begins to define it.

However, it is not I who is creating the idea of God in the first place. I am only referring to someone else's notion of 'God', who is asking: 'can God be proven or disproven?'. If I define 'God' in part, as 'That which is beyond all definition', then I can refer to God without the word 'God' having to be a definition.

I am not claiming that God exists or not-exists. I am saying that God, by definition, cannot be proven or disproven, because God is beyond the faculties of mind, which are Logic, Reason, and Analysis. A God that can be so proven is clinically dead, because such a God is an encapsulated God, and an encapsulated God is a finite, limited God.

 

[YmirGF]

However, it is not I who is creating the idea of God in the first place. I am only referring to someone else's notion of 'God', who is asking: 'can God be proven or disproven?'. If I define 'God' in part, as 'That which is beyond all definition', then I can refer to God without the word 'God' having to be a definition.

I am not claiming that God exists or not-exists. I am saying that God, by definition, cannot be proven or disproven, because God is beyond the faculties of mind, which are Logic, Reason, and Analysis. A God that can be so proven is clinically dead, because such a God is an encapsulated God, and an encapsulated God is a finite, limited God.

I find it endlessly amusing that human animals actually think their primitive ideas about god are in any way accurate or particularly meaningful.

 

[Zigzangle]

Maybe one day science will be able to prove beyond all doubt god doesn't exist, I hope so.

 

[Milton Platt]

However, it is not I who is creating the idea of God in the first place. I am only referring to someone else's notion of 'God', who is asking: 'can God be proven or disproven?'. If I define 'God' in part, as 'That which is beyond all definition', then I can refer to God without the word 'God' having to be a definition.

I am not claiming that God exists or not-exists. I am saying that God, by definition, cannot be proven or disproven, because God is beyond the faculties of mind, which are Logic, Reason, and Analysis. A God that can be so proven is clinically dead, because such a God is an encapsulated God, and an encapsulated God is a finite, limited God.

Not aure why being to identify that a god exists would nulify the god. Can you elaborate on that point? If it exists in actuality, how would knowing it exist alter any of it's atributes?

I do get what you are saying about using the word god, that's all semantics, anyway, no need for us to argue over it.

 

[godnotgod]

I find it endlessly amusing that human animals actually think their primitive ideas about god are in any way accurate or particularly meaningful.

They are very meaningful in terms of human psychology and spirituality, even if they are projections, or maybe especially so.

 

[godnotgod]

Maybe one day science will be able to prove beyond all doubt god doesn't exist, I hope so.

That makes you just as dependent as those who look for proof of existence.

 

[godnotgod]

Not aure why being to identify that a god exists would nulify the god. Can you elaborate on that point? If it exists in actuality, how would knowing it exist alter any of it's atributes?
.

A God that can be known via the intuitive mind and direct experience cannot be proven to exist other than by those pathways, as the nature of God is beyond fact and data. An intellectually-defined God must be a limited, finite God, and therefore, not God at all, as the nature of That is ineffable. IOW, it is beyond mind and its trappings, which are the spheres of Reason, Logic, and Analysis. Only via Consciousness can That be experienced, and never, ever via words. It is always in utter Silence. That is why Zen, for example, calls itself 'a finger pointing to the moon, but is not the moon itself'.

 

[Geoff-Allen]

Interesting thread!

Here's an excellent site -

http://www.livinglifefully.com/god.html

Not sure if it answers the questions ...

Namaste