Does god exist?

[Rammjet]

There is no proof that God exists or not, but the question i keep asking myself is where did everything come from? It most certainly cannot be what my teacher told me ' germs developed' which sounds pretty weird, because where did the germs come from? It's a hard thought to think, how everything came to being, it certainly cannot be 'matter' or just a miracle. Im not one to study the bible in detail, but as far as the bible is concerned with 'me', i do believe God exists. Religious perspectives tell the story of development from a different view, but yet there is no proof for that...
So this thread goes on and on and on...

The creation myths of religious books, such as the bible, have long been disproven. We know that life forms weren't spoken into existance by a god, but that they instead evolved over billions of years. We know that the earth isn't a flat disc with a fermament of water above it- but a planet with an oxygen and nitrogen atmosphere. etcetera

I'll address the principal fallacy with your argument quickly though, rather than try to explain the process of evolution etc. Even if all modern science was wrong, and nobody had a clue how we got here, this wouldn't be a reason to believe in god because it is an argument from ignorance. In the absense of knowing you are not entitled to assume 'god must have done it', because that assertion needs proof. The only entitled statement about questions such as 'where did everything come from', without having any evidence, is 'I don't know'.

Luckily enough some people have been bothered to search for evidence and to construct theories around it, and the history of the universe according to those endeavours is as follows. [all of these statements are backed by rigorous research, which you can check in libraries or from other valid sources]
? Before the big bang whether the universe existed at all is unknown, but lots of people have ideas they'd like to prove.
-The big bang spewed out a soup of fundamental particles and energy.
-Over time the universe expanded and cooled, and atoms like hydrogen formed from the available matter and energy.
-Clouds of hydrogen gas collapsed under their own gravity into stars.
-Stars fused nuclei to create heavier elements, and released them into space when they died.
-These heavier elements condensed into clouds that collapsed under their own gravity into new stars and planets.
-One such star was the sun, orbited by several planets including a rocky planet we call earth.
-The surface of the earth contained elements like carbon and nitrogen, and with the energy of the sun spontaneous chemical reactions were performed and catalysed by the earth's minerals, to produce molecules that could self-replicate.
-A process of evolution begins, selecting the molecules best at self-replicating.
-This process continues for billions of years, making the first cells then multicellular organisms, then even more sophisticated creatures until we arrive to where we are now.

[Hasit]

Big Bang made the Universe.
God Made Earth.

[Mayhém]

Big Bang made the Universe.
God Made Earth.

Lol XD

[Skullish]

Big Bang made the Universe.
God Made Earth.

HHAHAHHAHAAH go die

[PooZy]

Big Bang made the Universe.
God Made Earth.

:\

[Rammjet]

Big Bang made the Universe.
God Made Earth.

Actually the earth condensed out of heavier elements produced by old stars, just like every other planet, which is why the earth's core is mostly iron, the most stable heavy element produced by fusion in stars.
If you think God made the earth you'll need to prove it.

[Husk.]

Big Bang made the Universe.
God Made Earth.

lol

[Derpface]

Big Bang made the Universe.
God Made Earth.

So your saying that the powers of our universe (physics) are above the power of God? Well that's a new perspective on Christianity.

[Rammjet]

It's wonderful that somebody with only 1 post, gives it the title of 'final answer' and provides no justificaiton. x3

[DaFlamingPotato]

I should probably continue that post I made a while ago.

edit: Finally looked up when to use awhile vs. a while.

[Derpface]

It's wonderful that somebody with only 1 post, gives it the title of 'final answer' and provides no justificaiton. x3

Sounds a lot like a typical theist reaction to me.

[PooZy]

It's wonderful that somebody with only 1 post, gives it the title of 'final answer' and provides no justificaiton. x3

Because they're an alt account ?

[Rammjet]

Because they're an alt account ?

Ted?

[DaFlamingPotato]

Previous entries:

Does God Exist? (01)

This post will discuss the meaning of the term "god" and the scenarios in which belief in a god originates.
In my next post I will discuss some of the core arguments for and against god.

--------------------------------------------------



Does God Exist? (02)

Welcome to part two of the series.
This post will discuss a couple arguments for god, and how they're all really the same thing.
If you have any criticism or comments, please speak up.
Let's get started!



--------------------------------------------------



Here is the list I will be addressing

1. The Will to Believe: I have never heard of this one before, but at a glance it seems kind of silly.

"The will to believe doctrine was pragmatist philosopher William James' attempt to prove God by showing that the adoption of theism as a hypothesis "works" in a believer's life. This doctrine depended heavily on James' pragmatic theory of truth where beliefs are proven by how they work when adopted rather than by proofs before they are believed (a form of the hypothetico-deductive method)."

I don't know if this argument is still used, but here are some objections to it according to Wikipedia:

1. the necessity of positing a hypothesis without personally adopting it as a belief
2. the epistemological problems of belief voluntarism
3. success in the world verifies a belief, rather than restricting verification to predictive success
4. the separation of belief adoption from truth and epistemic justification

What I'm getting from this is that we have to believe in god before the evidence comes to us, or god's existence is dependent on our belief in him. Quite an abstract concept. In that case, we're all living the The Matrix. Does anyone understand the rationality of this argument at all? He's saying we have accept religion as a hypothesis first, without any evidence whatsoever.


---


2. Argument from reason: I haven't heard this before either, but it makes a bit more sense.

The argument against materialism holds:
For an assertion to be capable of truth or falsehood it must come from a rational source (see explanation below).
No merely physical material or combination of merely physical materials constitutes a rational source. (i.e. anti-panpsychism)
Therefore, no assertion that is true or false can come from a merely physical source.
The assertions of human minds are capable of truth or falsehood
Conclusion: Therefore, human minds are not a merely physical source (see explanation below).
The argument for the existence of God holds:
(5) A being requires a rational process to assess the truth or falsehood of a claim (hereinafter, to be convinced by argument).
(6) Therefore, if humans are able to be convinced by argument, their reasoning processes must have a rational source.
(7) Therefore, considering element two above, if humans are able to be convinced by argument, their reasoning processes must have a non-physical (as well as rational) source.
(8) Rationality cannot arise out of non-rationality. That is, no arrangement of non-rational materials creates a rational thing.
(9) No being that begins to exist can be rational except through reliance, ultimately, on a rational being that did not begin to exist. That is, rationality does not arise spontaneously from out of nothing but only from another rationality.
(10) All humans began to exist at some point in time.
(11) Therefore, if humans are able to be convinced by argument, there must be a necessary and rational being on which their rationality ultimately relies.
Conclusion: This being we call God.

There is no way to verify the bold point. What if our brain alone assess the rationality of an argument? Creatures in nature can asses risks as well. This argument says our logic and reason come from god. There are other arguments saying the same thing, but with free will and morality. It all circles back to the same thing -- Intelligent Design. God being the grand mechanic of the universe, the source of all the things we cannot yet fully explain, and the same "god of the gaps" as always. Nothing has changed.

I think you'll find that all the arguments in the list pretty much flow into this one idea of intelligent design, so instead of wasting more time on these individual things I'm going to address the ID argument in my next post.

This will include a more in-depth explanation, the origin of the idea, irreducible complexity, fine-tuning, etc...

Thanks for reading! (sorry if you were a little disappointed, but I was too.)

[Rammjet]

@ argument from reason

The basal assumption is a negative, which is impossible to prove.
Point 8 is an unnecessary assumption and another negative, as is 9.

But if you want to get really weird we could envoke the brain-in-a-jar scenario, and knock point 10 off the list too; are you sure you ever began to exist or do you just have amnesia?

[Blackie6789]

@Potato: The arguments you addressed here aren't typically used by theists. That's the only critique I have with your post. I definitely look forward to your next post since it will be more 'up to date' with theist arguments.

Regarding the argument from reason, the original 'writer' I suppose you could call it C.S. Lewis did not exploit his argument as an argument in support of God's existence.

Instead, his point was that if humans really are formed from a chance occurrence [big bang] and then evolved from primordial soup by chance, why should we rely on our brain if it itself is a product of chance?

CS Lewis puts this the best:
Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God."

It's not really an argument for gods existence, its more of an argument that shows why atheism is not a logical position to hold.

If God knows exactly what you need etc etc then praying to God would be a complete waste of time and if nothing else an Insult to god's intelligence, so religious people must be doing something wrong if they think praying is worth while.

Interestingly enough, your main point comes directly from the Bible :p Quoting from Matthew 6:8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him
When you pray, you aren't telling God anything new, since he already knows what your going to say.

However, extrapolating from that fact really is an assumption that cannot be proved and is primitive.
Go back to the drawing board ._.

Actually, the main reason why people pray to God is that since he knows all your troubles, you don't need to explain your troubles. God already knows what your troubles are; there isn't any need to let him 'know how you feel'. Instead, God is aware of it from the start. To me, personally this is a comfort although I don't suppose I can explain that to you very well.

In any case evolution doesn't tell people to care for patients, but that doesn't mean people who believe in evolution don't care.

I wasn't saying that people who believe in evolution Don't care, I was asking why they should care. A terminable illness such as cancer is no benefit to the future gene pool of humans, in fact it would be detrimental, so why should you try to stop it? Why not just let the humans who have cancer die off?
Why do we choose to help cancer victims instead of eliminating them from our gene pool?
If we are nothing more than mutated pond scum, why should we have feelings of pity for weaker humans who serve no purpose in survival? If an old man is drowning in a river, you most likely would dive in and help him. Or if you didn't help him, you would at least feel guilty afterwards. Why do humans have a characteristic to help each other? How does this make sense at all from an evolutionary perspective?

How did this trait of pity for weaker humans evolve if the history of life as evolutionists see it is a struggle for survival?

[PooZy]

"However, extrapolating from that fact really is an assumption that cannot be proved and is primitive.
Go back to the drawing board ._."

It's an assumption, but it's written in the Bible and makes logical sense anyway?
Why go back to the drawing board?

edit: In terms of evolution it IS beneficial to help people.
Helping people relieves strain on a community because there are more people to help out and improves morale because other people know they will be protected if they need help. This is the case even if the person in need of help has a bad genetic make up or is elderly or otherwise sick.

Also it is beneficial for a wide array of the gene pool to survive and reproduce because this keeps the gene pool broad, so if a disease comes in and wipes out everybody there's a good chance that someone will live. For example sickle cell amenia is a genetic blood disease, but it gives you protection from malaria. Genetic problems are rarely a reason for somebody not to live, from an evolutionary stand point.



double edit: There are a crap tonne of reasons why helping weaker people is beneficial for the survival of people.

[~Twisted]

Big Bang made the Universe.
God Made Earth.

Then the big bang created god.
>Implying big bang is mightier then god.
>God is not all powerful.
>Bible is incorrect.
>The bible is not a reliable source.
>Bible references destroyed.

It's wonderful that somebody with only 1 post, gives it the title of 'final answer' and provides no justificaiton. x3

Ted.

Ted?

Yes, Ted.

[Blackie6789]

edit: In terms of evolution it IS beneficial to help people.
Helping people relieves strain on a community because there are more people to help out and improves morale because other people know they will be protected if they need help. This is the case even if the person in need of help has a bad genetic make up or is elderly or otherwise sick.

In certain terms, caring for people may be of use; for instance, a mother bear will take care of her cubs until they are well enough to survive; however, this is only because in order to continue the specie the cubs need to survive. On the other hand, helping people who have a terminable illness makes no sense at all. They can't do anything to 'further' the community, so why help them?

Regarding your morale argument, how do you define morale? According to you, primordial forms of life relied on a survival of the fittest mentality. Why should morale be boosted when the weak are helped if the original focus of life was to kill the weak? According to evolution, shouldn't morale be boosted when the elderly and genetically mutated be wiped out since the gene pool would be improved?

You are interpreting morale in terms of present day thinking. Why do we feel pity for older people when they are merely weak members of the specie who slow us down? I believe in some instances, helping others MAY be beneficial; however, going out of our way to help an old lady cross the street, and moral feelings in general don't make sense in an evolutionary worldview at all.

@Twisted: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Not just the universe, but the earth with it. Hasit's statement was completely out of context from a Biblical perspective; extrapolating from a non-biblical perspective and turning it into one isn't logical at all.

[PooZy]

In certain terms, caring for people may be of use; for instance, a mother bear will take care of her cubs until they are well enough to survive; however, this is only because in order to continue the specie the cubs need to survive. On the other hand, helping people who have a terminable illness makes no sense at all. They can't do anything to 'further' the community, so why help them?

Regarding your morale argument, how do you define morale? According to you, primordial forms of life relied on a survival of the fittest mentality. Why should morale be boosted when the weak are helped if the original focus of life was to kill the weak? According to evolution, shouldn't morale be boosted when the elderly and genetically mutated be wiped out since the gene pool would be improved?

You are interpreting morale in terms of present day thinking. Why do we feel pity for older people when they are merely weak members of the specie who slow us down? I believe in some instances, helping others MAY be beneficial; however, going out of our way to help an old lady cross the street, and moral feelings in general don't make sense in an evolutionary worldview at all.

You might have noticed, but animals other than people usually will abandon terminally sick animals. Humans help them because of our intelligence. We have empathy, and this is what pushes us to help people who have no hope. Empathy probably didn't develop to make us help the terminally ill, empathy developed to cover the entire spectrum of aiding others.

In any case helping the terminally ill is beneficial, learning about these people helps to better medicine and create cures.

Generally a lot of animals don't help each other, it's only really social animals who do. Humans are social animals (the most social, in fact). We live in groups, and when you live in a group the best way to survive is to make sure the group grows and doesn't diminish. To do this you need to look after everybody in the group.

On the part about morale being boosted when people die, that's actually true. People will often remark that another person should just be 'put out of their misery', and in a lot of cases people will request abortions because their child has some kind of horrible deformity.

Elderly people do serve a purpose to the human race. They often look after the infants while the fit and able hunt (or work nowadays) and stuff. Just because they're old and slow doesn't mean they're not useful. Also back when Humans just came about (and they lived in tribes of around 150 people) then a lot of people would be related to a lot of other people within the group. If one person helps out their family more so, then their family will survive and grow. This means the gene (and the nurture) that made the original person helpful will spread amongst the group.


In either case, you have to admit that team work is extremely helpful for survival.