Is there really a God?

Matariki said:
The answer is free choice and God does not interfere with this premise. Though thats not to say that God isn't incapable of reminding and individual of right and wrong, buts its ultimately up to us to how we respond. If God were to prevent moral evil as such, it would be a contradiction to the concept of freedom of choice. To remove apparent evil, we would have to be without the capabilities of morals and a sense of justice, whether it be subjective to the individual or objective to the whole of the human race. Murder would be classed as an act of the survival of the fittest, and rape would be classed as the insurance of the survival of the human species, natural evil as in disasters (I have no idea why some people call them evil) wouldn't be classed as anything, with no permanent emotional side effects (such as the death of a loved one). In other words we would be moral zombies or robots.

This statement implies that if God were a good, loving God, we would be God's pets. In a sense we would own God, and God would serve us, and either be considered our equal or lower in status.
And yes, why would you call that God, God?
Click to expand...

How did you make the logical leap from "we would be God's pets" to "we would own God"?
 
Peace said:
There are only two acceptable answers to this question.

1. There is no God.
2. There is a God, but such a being is beyond the rational capacities of human beings.

As such a belief is God is simply a matter of choice. There are those who try to make logical arguments for or against God, but any logical argument made against God would simply be seen as the limitation of human reasoning in understanding God and any argument made for God is typically based on circular logic.

The watchmaker's analogy, as demonstrated by Captain, argues that the complexity of something is a valid argument for the necessity of a designer. While it is a fun and colorful argument, it actually disproves itself. If complex things must have been intelligently designed by something more complex than themselves, then something more complex than God would have had to design God. As such, the reasoning breaks down and you are left once again with the reality that God either does not exist or is beyond the rational capacities of humans.
Click to expand...

There are other issues with his argument;

The single cause fallacy - God is the one and only cause of everything.
The possibly reversed relationship between cause and effect in the argument about Earth's perfection for the human life, which doesn't account for evolution of species or the climate and geological changes of the planet over time. We adapted to the planet as a species, the planet did not adapt or was made for us specifically.

There is also a problem with using Occam's razor to argue for existence of God - note the bolded "The principle is often summarized as "simpler explanations are, other things being equal, generally better than more complex ones." In practice the principle is usually focused on shifting the burden of proof in discussions.That is, the razor is a principle that suggests we should tend towards simpler theories until we can trade some simplicity for increased explanatory power. Contrary to the popular summary, the simplest available theory is sometimes a less accurate explanation. Philosophers also add that the exact meaning of "simplest" can be nuanced in the first place
The thing that confuses me about creationist arguments is the selective use of science and and the apparent assumption that the biological complexity of life came to be instantaneously. If you assume it happened instantaneously, yeah, it doesn't make sense."

Creationism and Evolution have little similarities between them other than the same goal to explain how organisms came to be. The approaches to explanation are fundamentally different.
Then, I also have to wonder, how is God's creation, God being supposedly omnipotent and all, the simpler one?

Cause precedes effect, and I agree that everything has a "maker" in that sense. But why would the maker be God? Why wouldn't the maker be evolution? If we posit that the "maker" must be somehow more "powerful" than a mere human, and follow that line of reasoning, the big bang is certainly more powerful than anything a human might exercise, but it's not a valid response to a creationist. So, imo the line or reasoning quickly comes apart. What is interesting that it holds up if we assume that cause-effect relationship universally applies, and leave out the assumptions about the biblical God as the omnipotent ultimate creator entity.

Definitely, it all comes down to the paradox of knowing God. If God is in everyday higher than humans, and de-facto exists on a fundamentally different plane of existence and is a different entity allthogether, how can we perceive and know him correctly, is the question.

Philosophically I'm an agnostic, because my intellectual integrity doesn't allow me to ignore the possibilities or the problem or perception, no matter how small, but practically I'm an atheist, because I do not know God or his influence.

If you told me that God is a sentient entity ("big man in the sky") that objectively exists outside of humanity and is directing the storylines of the universe - I would disagree.
If you told me that you believe in the existence of natural forces that shape the universe, and you just prefer to call them God - I would agree, because natural forces exits, and it's not all too relevant what you call them, as long as you explain.

The difference between the two statements is that the first one implies a will, predetermination, a sort of destiny, and the other one doesn't. The thing is that the meaning that creationists conjoin with the creation is not necessary in any practical sense. This is where Occam's razor finds it's application. The Evolution does it's creative work without having a greater plan for humanity, and without being it's guide, and life survives and happens, and changes, the Earth spins and humans find their happiness, meaning and morality.


To remove apparent evil, we would have to be without the capabilities of morals and a sense of justice, whether it be subjective to the individual or objective to the whole of the human race. Murder would be classed as an act of the survival of the fittest, and rape would be classed as the insurance of the survival of the human species, natural evil as in disasters (I have no idea why some people call them evil) wouldn't be classed as anything, with no permanent emotional side effects (such as the death of a loved one). In other words we would be moral zombies or robots.
Click to expand...

I'm astounded that you're taking the idea of survival of the fittest so literally and negatively.

Survival of the fittest means an organism is healthy, lacking impairing defects, being resilient toward illness, injury, food available, and climatic factors, and being capable of reaching reproductive age and leaving these traits to their offspring, it's not as literal as simple brute strength.

Rape is evolutionary bad, it's very bad in fact. It negates the whole mate selection process, it leaves the female vulnerable, and possibly unable to carry the pregnancy to term, it leaves the offspring vulnerable. Males are physically stronger than females generally, but it doesn't make him a good candidate for reproduction necessarily. What if the female is fit but the male makes the offspring inherit a genetic disease? Not good. Rape is extremelly widespread among ducks, and the females have evolved very long, maze like vaginas to circumvent fertilization by rape.

Do I even have to say why murder is bad from an evolutionary perspective? It thins out the population and leaves few reproductive choices. Bad again.

Grief and compassion keep us from harming other members of the species, which is again useful.

Moral sentiments are in complete accordance with evolution.
 
Faith must be mentioned when we talk about God. The explanation I have read most of my life states "Faith is the substance of all things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." The words substance and evidence somewhat have captivated my curiosity many a decade. I now wonder how many people understand that statement.
 
Peppermint said:
I'm astounded that you're taking the idea of survival of the fittest so literally and negatively.

Survival of the fittest means an organism is healthy, lacking impairing defects, being resilient toward illness, injury, food available, and climatic factors, and being capable of reaching reproductive age and leaving these traits to their offspring, it's not as literal as simple brute strength.

Rape is evolutionary bad, it's very bad in fact. It negates the whole mate selection process, it leaves the female vulnerable, and possibly unable to carry the pregnancy to term, it leaves the offspring vulnerable. Males are physically stronger than females generally, but it doesn't make him a good candidate for reproduction necessarily. What if the female is fit but the male makes the offspring inherit a genetic disease? Not good. Rape is extremelly widespread among ducks, and the females have evolved very long, maze like vaginas to circumvent fertilization by rape.

Do I even have to say why murder is bad from an evolutionary perspective? It thins out the population and leaves few reproductive choices. Bad again.

Grief and compassion keep us from harming other members of the species, which is again useful.

Moral sentiments are in complete accordance with evolution.
Click to expand...

My objection is not against evolution, I am a theistic evolutionist in my beliefs. So I agree with your statement.

My objections is against the concept of the good, loving God in the sky (why anyone believes that God is in the sky is beyond me) that has no sense of justice or moral obligation, who does everything for us without giving us the opportunity to grow, develop and learn from our errors. I also have some objectives against Darwinistic philosophy when taken to its extremes (but thats my opinion on any philosophy or religion).

I personally believe that ALL human beings are capable of morals, ALL humans have an encoded sense of basic and almost instinctual morals that are built upon as that individual develops. Thats when subjective morals are thrown into the pot. However without morals, everyday could be Auschwitz and we would have very little to complain about, even those undergoing the suffering except for the complaint of physical pain, without morals there would be no practical need for empathy or sympathy. Morals aren't merely a side dish to the human character, its a law we abide to and ignoring its fundamental characteristics and principles comes with devastating consequences.
 
Leo, each of us in the forum is like a finger pointing at an answer. May I suggest that rather than spend so much time examining the fingers, that you look where they are pointing. Rather than ask us if there is a G-d, why not ask G-d, Are you there?

I remember my professor of religious studies (who was presbyterian btw) telling me of an experience with one of his Jewish students who insisted there was no G-d. He advised this student that as G-d was such a widely held notion, and that if G-d does exist the ramifications are countless, that he should at least make the greatest of efforts to try to seek G-d so to find out if He exists or not. Several years passed by and the student came back. My professor asked him, So do you beleive in G-d yet? And the student said, no but he was enjoying learning the many intersting ideas in Eastern Philosophies. Several more years passed and the student returned; again the Professor asked, "So does G-d exist?" "No," said the student, "but I'm getting so much benefit out of meditation that I really have to recommend Buddhism to others." A half dozen years go by and the student returns yet again. The professor says, "So what have you learned in all these years? " The student says, "I don't know quite how to put it into words, but the more I meditate, the more I sense this absolutely incredible something that underlies the universe!!!" "And what about G-d?" asks the Professor. "Oh, there is no G-d." said the student. As my Professor finished this story, we both broke out laughing. It was very obvious to us that what the student had rejected was his limited childhood understanding of G-d, which was so simplistic that when he finally encountered G-d, he didn't even recogtnize him.

Go look for Him, and try to realize in advance that He tends not to fit into our boxes. The Tao which can be expressed is not the Eternal Tao.
 
Matiriki:

Your objection regarding the Santa Claus in the Sky god is quite valid. It is very sad that so many people believe in a heavenly Father that spoils his kids rotten rather than cares to raise them into admirable young adults. If G-d truly is loving, there HAS to be componants of justice and discipline.

I disagree that all human are capable of morals. There are a few who have no biological sense of empathy or conscience. They are monsters. There are those who have become so screwed up morally that they can no longer see right from wrong. They are also monsters. Monsters are real. They need to be fought and killed. Fighting evil is part of pursuing good.
 
Matariki said:
However without morals, everyday could be Auschwitz and we would have very little to complain about, even those undergoing the suffering except for the complaint of physical pain, without morals there would be no practical need for empathy or sympathy. Morals aren't merely a side dish to the human character, its a law we abide to and ignoring its fundamental characteristics and principles comes with devastating consequences.
Click to expand...

That is not necessarily a good example. While detestable in the scope of human history, Hitler and the Nazis acted in what they genuinely felt was in the interest of protecting Germany from a grave threat. They acted in their own moral sense. While there is indeed a biological basis for our morality, that is not interpreted the same way by every culture.
 
GracieRuth said:
I disagree that all human are capable of morals. There are a few who have no biological sense of empathy or conscience. They are monsters. There are those who have become so screwed up morally that they can no longer see right from wrong. They are also monsters. Monsters are real. They need to be fought and killed. Fighting evil is part of pursuing good.
Click to expand...

Who gets to decide who is and is not a monster?
 
Perhaps the problem lies in the way each one of us defines "God." There should really be a consensus before we get to discussing it.
 
Peace said:
That is not necessarily a good example. While detestable in the scope of human history, Hitler and the Nazis acted in what they genuinely felt was in the interest of protecting Germany from a grave threat. They acted in their own moral sense. While there is indeed a biological basis for our morality, that is not interpreted the same way by every culture.
Click to expand...

Read my previous posts.
 
Peace said:
Are you saying that humans are the same as cats? Your statements are making far too many logical leaps.
Click to expand...

The reason why I mentioned cats is because of the manner how they treat and regard human beings, humans respond in a similar fashion to the concept of God although in a more complex manner. Yes, humans and cats are indeed different beings but we also both have our similarities.
 
Matariki said:
The reason why I mentioned cats is because of the manner how they treat and regard human beings, humans respond in a similar fashion to the concept of God although in a more complex manner. Yes, humans and cats are indeed different beings but we also both have our similarities.
Click to expand...

I would say that your statement is an overgeneralization. Not all humans have the same sort of relationship with God, as they understand the concept.
 
Why must we know if there is a god? Motivation?
Surely there are other causes to keep us occupied
and allied instead of divided and pointing fingers.
Any answer to the question is as true as
any other due to its' the philosophical nature;
I would think the only thing that can be truly
measured and judged is what people do
in the name of belief (measured against
which standard is, of course, up to debate.
Absolute truths are hard to come by).

Just my two cents.
(Any replies to this post will be answered indefinitely because I am in the process of moving.)
 
GracieRuth said:
There are a few who have no biological sense of empathy or conscience. They are monsters. There are those who have become so screwed up morally that they can no longer see right from wrong. They are also monsters. Monsters are real. They need to be fought and killed. Fighting evil is part of pursuing good.
Click to expand...

If there is a god, I hope he helps me resist the temptation to make a sarcastic antisemitic comment in reply to this.
 
I'm not going to bother reading this thread. Anything to be discussed in this thread can easily be summed up by a thorough studying of the topics of iconoclasm and idolatry.

What I mean to imply is that the initial topic that motivates this thread inevitably leads to an attempt to characterize God.
 
Matariki said:
Your assertion that God isn't worthy of being God?
Click to expand...

Where on earth did I make that assertion?

My argument is that if everything must have a maker, then God too must have a maker. Who or what then would be the maker of God?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top