Does God Exist?
I think you're proceeding on some bad assumptions.
First, those of us that are non-believers, generally, are not profesing that belief on others, and vice versa. Everyone here is free to believe what they will.
Second, we may indeed be the result of a cosmic long shot. But you have to remember, for this one success, there were millions of failures.
Third, the fact that this one cosmic long shot succeeded, does not change the chances of winning at Keno. Just like the one successful cosmic long shot, somewhere, someone will win the max prize at Keno.
Quote: FrGambleGod is the ultimate way to know that what I do and how I live matter and to remind us that this life is not all there is. To not understand or believe that is to condemn ourselves to a sad conception of reality that nothing really matters and I am a cosmic accident - I'd rather play Keno that think that!
That's a very concise, elegant statement -- but it's also a statement of faith. If you're honest, you admit that you have no way of testing or falsifying that belief. There's nothing wrong with faith per se, and many people find comfort in the thought that life has meaning because of X (God, higher power, the idea of a better afterlife, etc.)
But perhaps there's a more fundamental question to be asked. Why would it be a sad conception of reality if you and I were cosmic accidents?
Let me give you an analogy. For about 130 years, human science has been able to create rubies in chemical laboratories. You can go to any big-box retailer today (Target, Sears, etc.) and find lab-created ruby jewelry for very low prices. These rubies have the same chemical structure as "real" or naturally-occurring rubies. But natural rubies are among the most prized gemstones on the planet -- they only occur under very specific circumstances and are incredibly rare -- far rarer than diamonds, for example, and often more expensive.
A lab-created ruby is a common-place trinket while a naturally-occurring ruby is one of nature's wonders.
So how would you rather see yourself -- as a lab-created trinket or a naturally-occurring wonder?
Quote: MathExtremistSo how would you rather see yourself -- as a lab-created trinket or a naturally-occurring wonder?
Well put, ME.
/excercises self-control to postpone religion discussion ;)
That is a really cool question. I imagine that there is always some way to tell the lab created trinket from nature's wonder. If it isn't the chemical structure than maybe it is the unrepeatable uniqueness of the way it was formed. Wouldn't being made on purpose add to the value of a ruby if it was still eternally unique? In my humble opinion we are all wonderfully and purposefully made unique so that there is not, nor will there ever be, another human person just like us. If naturally occurring rubies are valuable because they are so rare imagine a living, breathing creation that was one of a kind and will never be found again - look in the mirror and you will see such an awesome creation whose value is far beyond rubies and diamonds.
By the way, I am very conscious that I was making a statement of faith earlier and I'm not trying to proselytize or anything - heck I'm still just trying to learn the ace-five count - but if I'm being honest we should all be honest and recognize that any statement for or against a belief in God is one of faith.
Quote: FrGambleI imagine that there is always some way to tell the lab created trinket from nature's wonder.
If only we could do the same for people =) Would save a lot of nonsense bickering, but if you COULD definitavely find out for sure, WOULD you? Who would really want to know?
Quote: FrGamblebut if I'm being honest we should all be honest and recognize that any statement for or against a belief in God is one of faith.
If we're being honest, that's the faithful's way of dragging everyone down to their level.
You begin with the assertion that there is a god of some sort, offer no evidence, and then say that not believeing the assertion requires faith.
As for random chance, the average man produces a huge amount of sperm every day. When he couples with a woman, the chances that any one sperm will find an ovum and fertilize it is small. The chances that a fertilized ovum will attach to the uterine wall are also small. The chances that the attached embryo will grow to term are good, but not certain.
In other words, the odds don't favor anyone's existence in particular.
It's like blindly throwing a dart at a board. The board is made up of a gigantic number of points equal in diameter to the dart's point. The odds of striking a point is near 100%. The odds of striking a particular point, though, are close to zero.
So if small odds mean something can't happen, then you don't exist. Since you do, then the premise is wrong.
Quote: FrGambleThat is a really cool question. I imagine that there is always some way to tell the lab created trinket from nature's wonder. If it isn't the chemical structure than maybe it is the unrepeatable uniqueness of the way it was formed.
Yeah, that's about it. Lab-created gems are almost always perfectly-formed, because if they're not, they can just get melted down and remade. Natural gems have all sorts of flaws, inclusions, and unique distinctions.
But if the analogy holds, doesn't the above imply that man is not lab-created?
Quote: NareedIf we're being honest, that's the faithful's way of dragging everyone down to their level.
You begin with the assertion that there is a god of some sort, offer no evidence, and then say that not believeing the assertion requires faith.
As for random chance, the average man produces a huge amount of sperm every day. When he couples with a woman, the chances that any one sperm will find an ovum and fertilize it is small. The chances that a fertilized ovum will attach to the uterine wall are also small. The chances that the attached embryo will grow to term are good, but not certain.
In other words, the odds don't favor anyone's existence in particular.
It's like blindly throwing a dart at a board. The board is made up of a gigantic number of points equal in diameter to the dart's point. The odds of striking a point is near 100%. The odds of striking a particular point, though, are close to zero.
So if small odds mean something can't happen, then you don't exist. Since you do, then the premise is wrong.
I disagree with this analogy. If a woman ovulated once in their life time and a man just put one sperm out there you'd have a point. The fact that men produce hundreds of millions of sperm per orgasm and that women ovulate some 300 - 400 times and are fertile for something like 1200 - 2400 days in their lifetime make the continuation of the human race VERY likely. If it wasn't for contraception and the woman's movement 50 years ago one wonders how many natural US citizens there would be today.
Try a different argument. I like the argument of the OP. There are people here who actively look down on your for believing in God -- the Wizard for one, though he married a believer. I have a degree in Physics and Astronomy and though Hawking makes a good argument "there is no room for God", how the hell would he know? How the hell would I know? It's presumptious to make an argument one way or another when all of the "facts" are not in.
I can't provide proof that there is a God, and you can't provide proof that there is not. It's a matter of faith.
If you score below 16.4, then you likely believe in the existence of God.
If you score above 16.4, then you are less likely to believe in the existence of God.
If you score 32 or higher, then you are probably a devout atheist, hell bent on making sure that everyone around you knows that you do not believe in the existence of God and that they also should not believe.
Have fun with the test, and don't take this post too seriously.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.12/aqtest.html
Quote: KeyserI've personally noticed that the higher someone appears to score on the AQ test, the more likely they are to be an agnostic or an atheist.
Funny thing, that. It in no way speaks for all, but my personal situation is no different. My wife is religious yet knows nearly nothing about it, just, in my opinion, a blind follower. I'll sometimes quote the Bible to make a point or have some fun...Zoop!...right over her head. Needless to say we rarely bring up religion to one another.
Quote: Keyser
If you score 32 or higher, then you are probably a devout atheist, hell bent on making sure that everyone around you knows that you do not believe in the existence of God and that they also should not believe.
l
I've never heard of this test before. Since I always seem to want to know where I fit in on something like this, I gave it a shot. I scored a 34. It kind of surprised me a bit. I am an atheist but not a hard-core, "hell-bent" on making sure everyone knows it type of person.
I'm curious to see where others will score on this.
Quote: gofaster87Im not very religious myself but my mother is. When I went to the Middle East to visit some family I saw physical evidence of miracles that cannot be explained by science. One religious artifact is still in the hands of my mothers family to this day. I wont get into it but seeing these things has made me believe there is some higher power out there. I dont like to argue with people about it but I know what Ive seen and what my super honest mother tells me.
Without getting into it to far, lack of an explanation is not necessary and sufficient for a higher power to exist... just as explanation in of itself does not disprove the existance of a higher power. Something unexplainable does not mean there is no explanation -> thus God did it; like wise an explanation for a natural phenomena does not mean God is eliminated from that gap, per se.
However, trying to disprove God's existence with the scientific method to a believer never works out too well, much as trying to prove God's existence logically to an Atheist hardly ever sways them.
It's a personal, emotional response to the "why are we here", and someone will use their own experience and feelings, others will use their external processes, and come to different conclusions. You can probably guess which side of the fence I am, but I've come to realise its eventually comes down to some level of belief in something, even if I -feel- my belief is based on something far more tangible than -your-(*) belief.
Of course, I am just an unhappy, confused individual (according to one ex-poster :)) so take what you will from that.
(*) (Generic you, rather than a gofaster87 you).
Quote: boymimboI disagree with this analogy. If a woman ovulated once in their life time and a man just put one sperm out there you'd have a point.
Not my point.
The chances that two fertile people will conceive is nearly 100%. The chances they'll conceive you in particular is nearly zero. So, odd that your parents would have a child around the time of your birth are very, very good, given what they were doing about 9 months earlier. The chances they'd ahve the aprticular individual you are, though, are not at all good.
Quote:I can't provide proof that there is a God,
Thanks. I knew that, but it's good to hear the admission.
Quote:and you can't provide proof that there is not. It's a matter of faith.
No, it's not a matter of faith. It's a matter of evidence.
Point: there is no evidence, none, that even suggests there may exist such an entity as a god. If I've missed any, I'd gladly review any you care to point out.
Given that, there is no reason to believe in the Biblical god any more than there is any reason to believe in any other made up deity, like Tlaloc, Ra, Zeus, etc. There is no reason to belive in the tooth fairy, either, or in the great Spaghetti monster, or unicorns, or little green men living on the Moon, etc, etc.
To suggest that a refusal to belive in something for which there is no evidence requires faith, is not to know what faith is. What I've found most people mean when they say "refusal to believe in God requires faith," is "How dare you hold your judgment above that of the vast mass of people that does believe?"
Quote: NareedPoint: there is no evidence, none, that even suggests there may exist such an entity as a god. If I've missed any, I'd gladly review any you care to point out.
Without assigning it to you in particular, that viewpoint is arrogant in the extreme.
Some people look at the universe and see evidence for god. Others, like you, look at it and see no evidence.
Same data, different conclusions. As Sagan once said, "Observation: clouds. Conclusion: dinosaurs." In other words, you have your conclusion set way before you stare into the cosmos. That is perfectly fine.
The arrogance comes in this way: you do not get to take the high ground because of your conclusion.
Quote: FrGambleBy the way, I am very conscious that I was making a statement of faith earlier and I'm not trying to proselytize or anything
Well, I think anyone should question a belief that needs to be sold AMWAY style.
Some people use methods that make you think their product wouldn't sell so well on its own merit.
(For instance, I applaud anyone who can find the proof when climate change proponents have other nefarious intents -- if they find the proof.)
Quote: FrGambleTo not understand or believe that is to condemn ourselves to a sad conception of reality that nothing really matters and I am a cosmic accident
Whats 'sad' about it? Believing in a cosmic Daddy that knows
all and is all is the really sad thing. This is no Santa, dude, no
Tooth Fairy either. Jump outside your box and open your eyes.
Have you taken the AQ test yet?
You may find the results interesting. Here's the LINK http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.12/aqtest.html
Basically I believe that the more autistic you are, the more likely you are to be an agnostic or atheist.
Religion talks are awesome, until someone (either thiest or athiest) gets all uppity. Stating opinions as facts or unknown as definates is not good. Projecting opinions onto others is even worse. Let's keep it clean.
Edit - AQ = 27
Quote: FrGambleTo believe in a "cosmic daddy" is to look at a tree and see purpose, love, and a power greater than me.
I look at a tree and see a tree. You look at it thru a filter &
add things that aren't there. If you think life has a 'purpose',
care to share what the purpose is? You can't, you don't have
a clue. You're hoping there's one, because nothing makes
sense to you if there isn't. Get help..
Quote: Keyser
Have you taken the AQ test yet?
You may find the results interesting. Here's the LINK http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.12/aqtest.html
Basically I believe that the more autistic you are, the more likely you are to be an agnostic or atheist.
What happens if you're on low end of the scale? Well, I don't know, there's this:
Quote:Describes the Williams syndrome, a rare human genetic disorder that causes retardation yet leaves language and social skills strangely unscathed. Syndrome as the opposite of autism; Skills and abilities of a person with Williams syndrome.
By PT Staff, published on September 01, 1995
'Bill" has an IQ of 49, a score exports label "moderate mental retardation." Yet when asked to describe an elephant, Bill's answer is complex, almost poetic: "It has long gray ears, fan ears, ears that can blow in the wind."
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199509/when-words-dont-fail
Quote: FrGamble...if I'm being honest we should all be honest and recognize that any statement for or against a belief in God is one of faith.
I disagree. When I aver that I see no evidence of a god, or of the actions of gods, that is not a statement of faith; it is a statement of fact. I don't see it.
You may have a faith that I don't have, and that's ok with me. I want people to be happy. I want them to think and to decide for themselves. I do have a problem with people institutionalizing faith, and resisting its deinstitutionalization. But I like that they have beliefs that give them strength and purpose.
Quote:What happens if you're on low end of the scale? Well, I don't know, there's this:
Then you likely believe in the existence of God because you can imagine the existence of God.
Someone that's autistic is less likely to make the connection because they will usually lack the creativity required to imagine the possibility of God. Asking someone that's autistic whether or not they believe in God is like asking a computer if it believes in god. The computer is limited by the information that has been programmed into it. It can't imagine what it doesn't know to be a fact. This is why I consider the AQ test to be rather a rather accurate indicator of whether someone does or does not believe in God.
Quote: FaceOy, FrGamble. Surely you must realize that your take is merely opinion and, to be frank, quite offensive?
Why isn't ...
Quote: EvenBobJump outside your box and open your eyes.
... offensive? While I'm still wrestling with the issue of god, I do know that being talked down to is offensive.
I think the non-believers assume some sort of high ground that they simply cannot assume. To assume it is ... well ... offensive, and indescribably arrogant.
The position of no-god is not an insane one, and does not need be guarded with defensiveness and feigned offense. That reaction is more likely intended to shame and silence the one with the different viewpoint. Bad form, EvenBob. Very bad. Just defend your point without telling believers how stupid they are.
But the position of yes-god is also not insane. As I read this thread, FrGamble is at least defending his point. The no-god folks here say, generally, 1) there is no evidence, and 2) you're closed-minded and stupid if you don't 100% agree.
My academic credentials are such that you cannot say I'm stupid. If you say that intelligent people can be dead wrong, 1) you're right, and 2) you've just undermined your point.
If I had to make a decision this moment, based upon the posts I read here, I would go with yes-god just because all the no-god's are acting like arrogant pricks. It would be refreshing if a no-god made a point that a) can't be exactly re-written by the yes-god people, and b) comes across with something resembling compassion.
NB: By a), I mean ...
Quote: moscaWhen I aver that I see no evidence of a god, or of the actions of gods, that is not a statement of faith; it is a statement of fact.
The thinking works both ways. Nobody gets to assume the high ground. FrGamble, at the very least, is offering something that I can't do that to.
Quote: KeyserEvenbob,
Have you taken the AQ test yet?
My score is 6. Whats yours, 43?
In my mind, I have no doubt about the existence of God. That being said, I am not an evangelical nut.
Quote: FrGambleWhat is sad about it Bob, is that it robs the world of beauty. To believe that you and I and all around us is here just by some random chance is to make a sunrise with golden rays of light no more important than a roll of the dice. To not believe in God, or more precisely to believe there is no higher intellegent power, is to see a beautiful tree and as Satre put it be nauseated. To believe in a "cosmic daddy" is to look at a tree and see purpose, love, and a power greater than me. Atheism also makes you and what you do not important because you are some randomly assembled quarks that have no lasting future - this undermines human dignity and morality. It sounds like we both have our eyes wide open but you need to open some other part of you to see some things you're missing.
Now see, I disagree with this, too. The world is achingly beautiful, in both its majesty and its horror. You get no special eyes or sense of wonder whether you believe in gods or not. Atheists cry too.
My score was 10.
Quote: KeyserNo, my score is about 15.
In my mind, I have no doubt about the existence of God.
I bet god loves you thinks you're special, huh. I
bet he even has a 'plan' for you.
I make my own plans, I scored a 6.
Quote: FrGambleWhat is sad about it Bob, is that it robs the world of beauty. To believe that you and I and all around us is here just by some random chance is to make a sunrise with golden rays of light no more important than a roll of the dice.
I think that's absolutely wrong. I believe that great beauty can be found in seemingly random events, and even greater beauty can be found in discovering the underlying mathematical elegance that can reproduce them. I studied fractal geometry in high school, and every time I take my kids for a walk in the woods or on the beach I show them the plants and the amazing self-replicating patterns found within them.
For example, this image:
is not actually a picture of a fern, but is the output of a very simple mathematical formula known as an affine transformation.
To me, the fact that a simple mathematical equation can produce something like that, or like this:
is very beautiful. But, as they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Quote: MoscaI disagree. When I aver that I see no evidence of a god, or of the actions of gods, that is not a statement of faith; it is a statement of fact. I don't see it.
Hear, hear!
Quote: MathExtremistI think that's absolutely wrong. I believe that great beauty can be found in seemingly random events,
Of course. Clouds and mountain ranges are beautiful and completely random.
The Japanese have a rock garden art form that results in the rocks 'placing
themselves' where they belong. Its all random and beautiful and the Japanese
meditate in these gardens and find great peace there.
Quote: MathExtremistTo me, the fact that a simple mathematical equation can produce something like that, or like this:
is very beautiful. But, as they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Or this.
I downloaded the Xaos freeware awhile back and got stuck all evening fooling around with it.
Quote: ItsCalledSoccerWhy isn't ...
... offensive? While I'm still wrestling with the issue of god, I do know that being talked down to is offensive.
I think the non-believers assume some sort of high ground that they simply cannot assume. To assume it is ... well ... offensive, and indescribably arrogant.
The position of no-god is not an insane one, and does not need be guarded with defensiveness and feigned offense. That reaction is more likely intended to shame and silence the one with the different viewpoint. Bad form, EvenBob. Very bad. Just defend your point without telling believers how stupid they are.
But the position of yes-god is also not insane. As I read this thread, FrGamble is at least defending his point. The no-god folks here say, generally, 1) there is no evidence, and 2) you're closed-minded and stupid if you don't 100% agree.
My academic credentials are such that you cannot say I'm stupid. If you say that intelligent people can be dead wrong, 1) you're right, and 2) you've just undermined your point.
If I had to make a decision this moment, based upon the posts I read here, I would go with yes-god just because all the no-god's are acting like arrogant pricks. It would be refreshing if a no-god made a point that a) can't be exactly re-written by the yes-god people, and b) comes across with something resembling compassion.
NB: By a), I mean ...Quote: moscaWhen I aver that I see no evidence of a god, or of the actions of gods, that is not a statement of faith; it is a statement of fact.
The thinking works both ways. Nobody gets to assume the high ground. FrGamble, at the very least, is offering something that I can't do that to.
Um, I think you're calling me an arrogant prick? I don't appreciate that. And you conveniently edited my statement, leaving off "I don't see it." I intentionally wrote that to have two meanings, both referring to my not seeing evidence, and referring to the statement being prima facie true. And further, you implied that I felt that my position was somehow better, that I was "assume[ing] higher ground", when I specifically wrote to the contrary, that I believe everyone should think it through and decide for themselves.
Not cool. Not cool at all. My beliefs are my own, and I arrived at them through a lot of personal angst, after a lot of thought and heartache and anguish. I debated this internally for most of my life. You have no business twisting my words to fit what you think they should mean.
Quote: ItsCalledSoccerI would go with yes-god just because all the no-god's are acting like arrogant pricks
Whats the point of being a no-god if you can't be
an arrogant prick about it.
Duh..
Quote: MoscaUm, I think you're calling me an arrogant prick? I don't appreciate that. And you conveniently edited my statement, leaving off "I don't see it." I intentionally wrote that to have two meanings, both referring to my not seeing evidence, and referring to the statement being prima facie true. And further, you implied that I felt that my position was somehow better, that I was "assume[ing] higher ground", when I specifically wrote to the contrary, that I believe everyone should think it through and decide for themselves.
Not cool. Not cool at all. My beliefs are my own, and I arrived at them through a lot of personal angst, after a lot of thought and heartache and anguish. I debated this internally for most of my life. You have no business twisting my words to fit what you think they should mean.
Sorry, not buying the faux-disingenuous-ness. I said ...
Quote: ItsCalledSoccerIf I had to make a decision this moment, based upon the posts I read here, I would go with yes-god just because all the no-god's are acting like arrogant pricks. It would be refreshing if a no-god made a point that a) can't be exactly re-written by the yes-god people, and b) comes across with something resembling compassion.
And yup, you are claiming higher ground that you cannot claim. In one sentence, you say so emphatically that ...
Quote: NareedQuote: MoscaI disagree. When I aver that I see no evidence of a god, or of the actions of gods, that is not a statement of faith; it is a statement of fact. I don't see it.
Hear, hear!
... so I'm not reading you wrong. You don't get to say in one sentence that, unequivocally, what YOU see is FACT, and then try to cover that arrogance by saying, hey, but everyone can do whatever. Everyone CAN do whatever, and they do. You have no special insight into FACT (neither do I, but at least I admit it). It's a non-apology apology. It's like you say something arrogant, and then try to be arrogant in a nice way.
"Arrogant," in the context of this discussion as I'm using it, means "you're claiming something as Fact that is merely your perspective; i.e., taking a high road that is not yours to take." "Prick," same qualifiers, means "saying everyone who thinks otherwise has a screw loose/is closed-minded/must be stupid."
So, if you're asking me directly what I think, then my best guess is that you're acting arrogant but at least you're trying to be a little nicer about it. You may not be an arrogant fellow overall, but you are on this topic.
Don't worry about what I may (in your mind) imply. You can usually remove any implication by taking me at face value. I can only write the plain meaning of what I write. If you want to assign all sorts of silly extras to it, I can't stop you. But it's bullshit.
You shouldn't give a shit what I think. But it would be nice to hear a "point" from the no-gods that cannot be simply mirror-imaged and claimed by the yes-gods with similar veracity.
Really, that's all I'm asking for. But the "proof" is coming in the form of "wow, aren't these nice fractals pretty and don't they look a lot like things we see in nature" (never mind that the computers drawing those pretty fractals were designed and created by powers higher than themselves, which more closely resembles the yes-god side than the no-god side).
Quote: EvenBobWhats the point of being a no-god if you can't be
an arrogant prick about it.
Duh..
Humor. Nice! Like it!
Rep!
Quote: FrGambleWhat is sad about it Bob, is that it robs the world of beauty. To believe that you and I and all around us is here just by some random chance is to make a sunrise with golden rays of light no more important than a roll of the dice. To not believe in God, or more precisely to believe there is no higher intellegent power, is to see a beautiful tree and as Satre put it be nauseated. To believe in a "cosmic daddy" is to look at a tree and see purpose, love, and a power greater than me. Atheism also makes you and what you do not important because you are some randomly assembled quarks that have no lasting future - this undermines human dignity and morality. It sounds like we both have our eyes wide open but you need to open some other part of you to see some things you're missing.
Who is the Satre person? If you mean Sartre, then to state that the sight of a tree nauseated him is absurd. You are making things up. Have you actually read Nausea. If you had you would know what a nauseated existentialist is.
No!
To exist it would have to be both omnipotent and infinite at the same time.
If it is omnipotent it must be able to self-destruct.
However, if it is infinite it can't self-destruct.
As these two conditions are mutually exclusive, existence is impossible.
It looks like it's back to the drawing board for our theological friends and their
bizarre activity of attempting to convert mythology to reality.
Quote: KeyserTry the AQ test and let us know your score.
Translation: If you don't believe in god you must be mentally
ill.
Quote: ikilledjerryloganNo one can say if God exists or not.
Can you say whether Ra, the Sun God, exists or not?
