Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's funny to me that the question of whether god exists or not comes down to a divide between religion and physical/natural science for most people.
The clearest evidence that there is no god is found in the vast knowledge of SOCIAL science that humans have collected.
Just look at the seemingly innumerable myths, philosophies, and religions that we humans have concocted since the time of the written word (let alone before that).
That multitude of ideas is proof to me that humans will always be concerned with questions of mortality and life's origin. We crave answers and we invent ways to make sense of our world. We believe people who say they are prophets. There are new mythologies all the time, and there will always be too many to count. This tells me that, as compelling as such questions are, no humans will ever have the definitive answer. Thus, each attempt to define an answer to life on Earth is equally useless. As one of those moot attempts, the idea of god is not something I find believable.
The absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. Examples, we have no evidence that there is no gold on Pluto. But does that mean that there is no gold on Pluto? It's clearly not. So, when does the absence of evidence count as evidence that something does not exist?
Why buy into something without evidence? I for one would not plan a trip to Pluto on the gamble that there was gold. Yet we are all expected to live our lives through the words of a book that asks us to practice obscure, obsolete lofty ideals that are full of shades of superstition... If we are all expected to follow what this book says, the least it could do would be to offer some evidence, at least in the real world that is what is expected.
Quote:
What I am saying is, if God exists, should we expect to see more evidence of his being, than...say...the orgin of the Universe OUT OF NOTHING, the equisite fine tuning of the universe for intelligent life, the apprehension of a realm of moral and aesthetic values, the radical claims of the ressurection of Jesus from the dead and the immediate experience of the personal fellowship with God? I think the answer is obvioiusly not.
I find this interesting also. If what humans know about the universe could be written on the head of a pin, who is to say that there isn't evidence out there somewhere that absolutely proves god does NOT exist? Besides, even if something did create the universe, it still doesn't mean that it created this anthill we know as humanity and all the morals and consequences that come along with it.
Religion doesn't prove that god created the universe, it just claims that he did. There isn't even much proof that god did what christians claim... How many people saw jesus come back? Even better, how many people does the bible claim saw jesus come back? How many people last year alone saw ufo's? how many of those people claim they were actually on an alien spaceship?
Quote:
So, you have to prove that it is highly probable, that, if God exists, we should have MORE evidence of his existance than, what we do, in fact, have. I think that is sheer speculation. I don't think that the absence of evidence is at all a positive argument against the existance of God.
That's the point I'm trying to make.
and again, if we are supposed to accept the way of the book, a little evidence of the undoubted existence of god shouldn't be much to ask for.
Philly,
So lets say a huge being shows up in the sky today and you and over 600 other people saw it. The being says, "Philly, I am your God!"
What are you going to say? Hallucination? Man, if you don't want to acknowledge that you will not accept anything, then just admit it.
As for the origins of the universe......what's more plausible.....that the world has been ETERNAL forever? Or, that God created it in the beginning? I think the latter is much more plausible. From NOTHING, NOTHING COMES!
if i saw a huge man come from the sky that claimed it was god, then i would believe you, but that's a pretty big if. If want to put all your stock in some giant man walking down from the sky, good for you, but it's less reason for me to buy into it all...
from nothing comes nothing = no god, back to square one....
Philly, I've been thinking about this very hard the past few months. I feel like my faith has propelled higher than it ever has before. How? Because I questioned God existance.
I will add some reasons why I think it's highly plausible to believe that God does exist. I am not going to believe in a God based blindly on faith. I think we have very excellent reasons to believe that a God does exist:
1.) God makes sense in the origin of the universe
A famouse mathematician once said, "The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea."
The Big Bang shows that the universe started from nothing. I don't want to get into details because it is out of my own technical scope, but the origin of the universe is a VERY BIG REASON why I believe that a God exists. I mean, what's more plausible for the thinking mind? That the world was forever eternal or that it had a beginning? Out of nothing, nothing comes! Why does the universe exist instead of just nothing? There must have been a cause which brought the universe into being.
I can at least see a grain of logic with this argument. the BB doesn't exactly say there was nothing, just just something of pretty much infinite density. I could have that wrong as I am not an expert either so don't' bank on that. Humans don't know much about there universe, it would be kind of naive to assume that what we know is how the universe came to be. I personally am a little skeptical about the big bang (not as skeptical as i am about religion) also, just because like I say, we are niave about the universe.
Quote:
2.) God makes sense of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life
During the last 40 years or so, scientists have discovered that the existence of intelligent life depends upon a complex and delicate balance of initial conditions given in the Big Bang itself. We now know that our existence is balanced on a knife's edge--the calculation needs to be PERFECT for life to sustain. Without getting into technical details and citing sources, the consensus is this: The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design. I believe it is not due to physical necessity or chance. Therefore, it is due to design.
life doesn't mean there was a creator, life on earth could be there just because it is the only habitable planet. and who's to say there isn't life at some level on the other planets?
Quote:
3.) God makes sense of objective moral values in the world.
If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.
"If . . . there are . . . objective values, they make the existence of a God more probable than it would have been without them. Thus, we have a defensible argument from morality to the existence of a God."
-- J.L. Mackie, Oxford University (he is a prominent aetheist).
If God does not exist, objective moral values does not exist. Objective moral values DO exist, therefore, I believe God does exist.
I'll answer this with a question... would morals exist if humans didn't?
Quote:
4.) God makes sense of the historical facts concerning the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
Most people would probably think that the resurrection of Jesus is something you just accept on faith or not.There are three established facts concerning the fate of Jesus of Nazareth: the discovery of his empty tomb, his post-mortem appearances, and the origin of his disciples' belief in his resurrection.
The hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" is the best explanation of these facts.The hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" entails that the God revealed by Jesus of Nazareth exists.Therefore, the God revealed by Jesus of Nazareth exists.God can be immediately known and experienced.
Now if this is right, then there's a danger that arguments for the existence of God could actually distract one's attention from God Himself. If you're sincerely seeking God, God will make His existence evident to you. I don't remember what verse, but the Bible says, "seek God and he will draw near to you".
He definitely has ever since I started looking deeper into questions I have been asking all of my life.
Sorry, wish I could explain it better.
who is to say that there was even a body? the roman guards that were guarding the tomb were threatened with sever penalties for anything happening with the body. they didn't want the followers to get to the body because they knew they would use jesus as a martyr (which happened anyhow). but they could have just put him in a different place and said they put him in the tomb, that isn't much of a stretch to accept.
the disciples belief doesn't mean evidence, they were his friends and followers, i'm sure they would have a few good things to say about the guy being murdered over religious and political conflicts that he caused.
In the case of a bunch of monkeys hammering away at a keyboard, I'm not sure if this is your argument against evolution (biological), because no one would expect a monkey to ever spontaneously write "Where art though, Romeo?"
I think you completely misunderstood my post. I'll rephrase and clarify.
Evolution and God or a creator are not mutually exclusive. Belief in a creator does not infer belief in the God of Abraham. Belief in a creator does not guarantee that the creator has any interest in the outcome of our universe.
My analogy with the monkey writing Shakespeare was not to suggest that humans magically appeared, but illustrate my belief in the universe having a creator. I don't believe that our universe is the result of a random event, just as I would not believe that one of the works of Shakespeare was the result of a monkey banging away at a keyboard. But at the same time I think it's entirely possible, even if I believe it's not probable.
I think you completely misunderstood my post. I'll rephrase and clarify.
Evolution and God or a creator are not mutually exclusive. Belief in a creator does not infer belief in the God of Abraham. Belief in a creator does not guarantee that the creator has any interest in the outcome of our universe.
My analogy with the monkey writing Shakespeare was not to suggest that humans magically appeared, but illustrate my belief in the universe having a creator. I don't believe that our universe is the result of a random event, just as I would not believe that one of the works of Shakespeare was the result of a monkey banging away at a keyboard. But at the same time I think it's entirely possible, even if I believe it's not probable.
The simple fact of the matter regarding the origin of the universe is that we really don't know. It can be frustrating not to have the answers right on hand, but humanity has its limits. We can't at this point even reach the nearest planet in our solar system, yet alone gain anything even bordering on a detailed understanding of the universe itself.
Personally, I am comfortable with not understanding everything. I don't know the origin of the universe, and I probably won't ever know. Maybe in the distant future we will be able to understand the nature of the universe and reality, but as for now, it is mostly speculation and shots in the dark. There's nothing wrong with speculation of course, but it is a bad idea to put too much stock in it because it just isn't reliable.
There is nothing wrong with admitting that we don't know something. A lot of things have been called the beginning of wisdom. Personally, I think the beginning of wisdom is "I don't know, let's find out."
The thing is, not knowing something doesn't mean that we should invent explanations that we can't support with evidence. Just writing off the problem as "Goddidit" may be emotionally comforting, but it isn't really an explanation, or at least it isn't a good explanation. It's just a copout and an excuse to avoid admitting that an understanding of everything is outside of our reach for the moment.
Thankfully, he didn't. He likely thought something along the lines of "I don't understand how that happened, but I am going to try to find out."
A few years of study later and he had an antibiotic.
If people had continued to write off disease as being caused by demons, or "simply God's will" this would most likely not have happened, and medicine as we know it would not exist.
If people had continued to write off disease as being caused by demons, or "simply God's will" this would most likely not have happened, and medicine as we know it would not exist.
I doubt it, seeing that the author of The Gospel According to Luke - Luke, was a Doctor.
In fact, I'd go the other extreme and say that modern medicine came about FROM the compassion that Christianity teaches for the suffering. The problem as I see it, comes when we try to substitute and trust alone in "medicine" for "The truth of the Gospel" which is that this world is temporal and death is nothing to be afraid of.
Couple quotes: "Over two millennia, Christian doctors and nurses, inspired by the example and teaching of Jesus of Nazareth, have been at the forefront of efforts to alleviate human suffering, cure disease, and advance knowledge and understanding. Rosie Beal-Preston examines how the Christian Church has played a major role in developing and shaping the practice of Medicine."
"Before Christianity emerged, there were several hospital-like centres in Buddhist regions. The ancient Greeks practised a very simple form of medicine and Greek temples included places where the sick could sleep and receive help. The Romans are believed to have established some military hospitals. However, it was the Christians of the Roman Empire who began to change society's attitude to the sick, disabled and dying, by their radically different outlook."
A link where they came from if you care to read some more.
I doubt it, seeing that the author of The Gospel According to Luke - Luke, was a Doctor.
In fact, I'd go the other extreme and say that modern medicine came about FROM the compassion that Christianity teaches for the suffering. The problem as I see it, comes when we try to substitute and trust alone in "medicine" for "The truth of the Gospel" which is that this world is temporal and death is nothing to be afraid of.
It is the Hippocratic oath that doctors take. Hippocratus was a pagan Greek so it is absurd to claim all medical advances and compassion came from Christians. The medical history was from the Greeks and carried through the Middle Ages with precious little advance until the 19th century and the discovery of bacteria. There have even been caveman remains found with clear evidence of brain surgery and dental surgery. Man has always tried to give medical care.
It is the Hippocratic oath that doctors take. Hippocratus was a pagan Greek so it is absurd to claim all medical advances and compassion came from Christians. The medical history was from the Greeks and carried through the Middle Ages with precious little advance until the 19th century and the discovery of bacteria. There have even been caveman remains found with clear evidence of brain surgery and dental surgery. Man has always tried to give medical care.
If you can look past your hate for all things Christian, you will see that I never said "ALL" and in fact gave credit to the Greeks in my quote.
My point is that Christianity was not counter productive to modern medicine as we know it - just the opposite.
If you can look past your hate for all things Christian, you will see that I never said "ALL" and in fact gave credit to the Greeks in my quote.
My point is that Christianity was not counter productive to modern medicine as we know it - just the opposite.
I don't have a hatred for all things Christian. But I do not like misrepresentations of history and claiming all good things came only from Christians, especially when they predated Christians by many centuries. Your quote acknowledged the long existence of medical care then discounted it by claiming, without any evidence, that only Christianity gave compassion to medicine. That is a patently false claim as compassion in medical care has been documented for many, many centuries prior to the existence of Christianity and may well have existed in the caveman days. Doctors take the Hippocratic oath, not any Christian oath, to do no harm. Christianity may or may not have interfered with medicine; it did have a long history of opposing science.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
