Existence of God

[GodEmperor Nicholas]

RULES:
1) be calm, we are all human beings, we all require respect of others views.
2) no needless flaming or such, just present ideas...

I think its an interesting topic, so lets just let it run and see if we can carry on resonable debate...


so I was thinking:

I don't really believe in a god. Being a physics/economics major, I'm pretty quantitative so as you can tell, there aint much evidence of gods part on the world. *nevertheless* you cant claim there is proof of no god.

At any rate, more importantly, I think some religions can be useful in teaching basic morals so I think the usefulness of the existence of things like the bible or the 10 commandments should not necessarily be discounted.

I dislike all the scared people who are nocking religion so strongly, since they are just creating disunity in the united states, when I think we desperately need unity.

NM

[Kazak borispavlovgrozny]

Very well NM.

*nevertheless* you cant claim there is proof of no god

this is an interesting idea. What is "evidence" , to our skeptical minds, if we saw "evidence", we'd probably discounted. This is a bit too deep to discuss in a forum, but it actually has to do with the omnipotence of god, and by god I refer to the clear cut western idea of god, (omnipresent, omni-(benevolent, ,-scient, -POTENT etc..).
Here is a few of my observations
Postulate 1. --If he is omnipotent, then he does not exist with in the laws of logic and reason. (i.e. he can both be here AND NOT be here)

Postulate 2.--If he does not exist with in the bounds of reason, then we are not capable of understanding him.

Postulate 3. --If he is outside the bounds of reason, then all his manifestations will by following logic be removed from out "frame of reference" if you will (for us, a thing is or isn?t, it can?t do both). He can act in whatever way, and we either rationalize it and digest it as best we can, as we have don for eons, or deny outright (assuming we reason the small probability of his existence).

So evidence of god is almost like saying evidence of love not only is it intangible but outside reason. You can see the manifestation of this thing we call love, but we don?t understand it rationally.

If however, you were trying to claim that we cannot claim that he doesn?t exist I am totally with you there! As a scientist to another, it is our duty to realize that we don?t understand much of what we know (or think we know) and as such much keeps an unflinching will to change our viewpoints at the firmest proof. (ie no laws just theories, for anyone who is in liberal arts hehe jk)

The fact that we cannot disprove him makes us acknowledge his possible existence, just as much as the Homeric Gods, Ball, and that angry unicorn on the dark side of the moon. I think Schrödinger put it best when he replied to the question "Is there and electron here? --For heavens sake NO, it?s squared!

[GodEmperor Nicholas]

See, I'm totally with you. IF, should it ever happen, that we as humans come up with a unified theory, and we can explain all of our universe, then according to ockams razor the existence of god would become an unecessary complication.

However, given our position, it certainly cannot be disproved, although experimental evidence seems to present that he is kinda distant and doesnt do much...

I am pretty aristotelian, so I am a fan of the unmoved mover. I suspect you already know that idea, but for the benefit of all, I'll explain... or better yet, a website example!

For anything to be, Aristotle said, there must already exist a perfect example to be its cause. This poses the unanswered question where do these exemplars reside? Also, along the same line, Aristotle considered the most important cause of the existence of something to be its final cause, or the reason for its existence. This is called "Teleological reasoning" because it presupposes the reason for the existence of anything prior to the existence of the thing. In natural objects, he said, formal and efficient (or motive causes, whether natural or artificial are united in the same individual. For example the efficient cause of an animal is an animal, because it must be possessed of the form that will be realized in the offspring. On the other hand, that of a house is the builder but the form or design must already exist in his mind. The products of art have their form in the mind of the artist. He said that the formal, efficient, and final causes also tend to coalesce in one individual while the material is likely to be separate.

(so what is being said-there is a cause of everything. It is based on the fact that who we are is a cause of the effects of other things, like our parents, chemistry, etc.)

However, if we follow this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion we find the ultimate assumption of the teleologist, that what underlies the existence of the universe must be an uncaused cause, and that it must be unmoving.

(ok, i lost the website address, but i dont think anyone is going to be too angry...)

The point is, unless you think the universe infinite, with no begining, and no basis of start (which is kinda unscientific...) you could presume that we were started by a "divine" (could just be a force, another universe, etc.) that started the begings of our universe...

I DO beleve that this makes sense...

NM

[the Black Prince]

i will refrain from commenting, this is not a good area for discussion, we may a well discuss the length of Siblesz's penis, or my sexuality.

i am wary of letting this topic continue, if people stick within the guidelines that Nick has laid down then this will become an interesting discussion. however i easily forsee that this will break down into the same old arguments between the various religions and the atheists andnon believers. that is neither wanted, or required.

i will add my rules to this thread for now,
justify your point, with reasoning or insome way - do not state without reinforcing your argument
everyone is entitled to a point of view, what ever you may think of it, that point of view isnot necessarily wrong
do NOT flame or attack a member, or make generalisations and stereotyping. whatever you may think of someone and their beliefs it is not for you to judge.

in the end i do not see this debate going anywhere, the people who believe will carry on with their faith, those who do not believe will remain non believers.

however - let us see

[Kazak borispavlovgrozny]

To Prince: Bravo !

To GodEmperor: The designer ideal has a few subtle problems if we continue with the western God. Why would he create, in the first place, if he was a totally perfect being. His definition implies the want, and the need for nothing. Why would he suddenly create a universe ex nihilo. this naturally leads to the problem of evil. Why is there evil in a perfect creation. Of course this argument breaks down if we assume god is malevolent and not onmibenevolent, but that is outside the "perfect " definition of the western ( judeo-christian-islamic god). The free will argument t also breaks down here, so it is philosophically contradictory to hold the idea of a western god and free will together. Is the free-will to kill, rape, and pillage a higher good than the nonexistence of the same? As for the unmoved mover, I dare not comment ton the philosophical basis for this, for while I am very familiar with the theory, it doesn?t fit into the argument of the judeo-christian-islamic god. The Unmoved mover of Aristotle is no even technically a God, he?s but a creator. Much like you are a creator to the carbon dioxide you breathed out, are you its god? I will agree however, that it is as valid as anything else.

Thank you for the discourse.
Boris

[Frood]

"I HATE ALL PROTESTANTS AND NON-CATHOLICS! ALL OF YOU WILL GO TO HELL!!!!!!!! I ESPECIALLY HATE BAPTISTS!!!!!!!!!! "

An enlightened revelation! Your post has opened so many new doors to me that I'll never see the world in the same way again. That a mere mortal could ever posess such wisdom astounds me! Thank you for adding so much to the intellectual health of our dear forums.

Serouisly however, if a god does indeed exist, and he is indeed omnipotent, then how would it be possilbe for us to comphrend him, much less postuate about the logical validity of his existance. Why then should we argue over it knowing full well that a being of omnipotent power such as a god is completely incomprehenable to us? This debate may spark many interesting thoughts, but it may also attract people like my "friend", BlackSumpremast, who didn't even spell his own name correctly. I shall conclude with a quote by Nietzsche who was one of the select few philosophers who actually had something interesting to say. Thank goodness I found a website with this book on it or I would have had to type the whole chapter out by hand.

"ONCE on a time, Zarathustra also cast his fancy beyond man, like all
backworldsmen. The work of a suffering and tortured God, did the world
then seem to me.
The dream- and diction- of a God, did the world then seem to me;
coloured vapours before the eyes of a divinely dissatisfied one.
Good and evil, and joy and woe, and I and thou- coloured vapours did
they seem to me before creative eyes. The creator wished to look
away from himself,- thereupon he created the world.
Intoxicating joy is it for the sufferer to look away from his
suffering and forget himself. Intoxicating joy and self-forgetting,
did the world once seem to me.
This world, the eternally imperfect, an eternal contradiction's
image and imperfect image- an intoxicating joy to its imperfect
creator:- thus did the world once seem to me.
Thus, once on a time, did I also cast my fancy beyond man, like
all backworldsmen. Beyond man, forsooth?
Ah, ye brethren, that God whom I created was human work and human
madness, like all the gods!
A man was he, and only a poor fragment of a man and ego. Out of mine
own ashes and glow it came unto me, that phantom. And verily, it
came not unto me from the beyond!
What happened, my brethren? I surpassed myself, the suffering one; I
carried mine own ashes to the mountain; a brighter flame I contrived
for myself. And lo! Thereupon the phantom withdrew from me!
To me the convalescent would it now be suffering and torment to
believe in such phantoms: suffering would it now be to me, and
humiliation. Thus speak I to backworldsmen.
Suffering was it, and impotence- that created all backworlds; and
the short madness of happiness, which only the greatest sufferer
experienceth.
Weariness, which seeketh to get to the ultimate with one leap,
with a death-leap; a poor ignorant weariness, unwilling even to will
any longer: that created all gods and backworlds.
Believe me, my brethren! It was the body which despaired of the
body- it groped with the fingers of the infatuated spirit at the
ultimate walls.
Believe me, my brethren! It was the body which despaired of the
earth- it heard the bowels of existence speaking unto it.
And then it sought to get through the ultimate walls with its
head- and not with its head only- into "the other world."
But that "other world" is well concealed from man, that dehumanised,
inhuman world, which is a celestial naught; and the bowels of
existence do not speak unto man, except as man.
Verily, it is difficult to prove all being, and hard to make it
speak. Tell me, ye brethren, is not the strangest of all things best
proved?
Yea, this ego, with its contradiction and perplexity, speaketh
most uprightly of its being- this creating, willing, evaluing ego,
which is the measure and value of things.
And this most upright existence, the ego- it speaketh of the body,
and still implieth the body, even when it museth and raveth and
fluttereth with broken wings.
Always more uprightly learneth it to speak, the ego; and the more it
learneth, the more doth it find titles, and honours for the body and
the earth.
A new pride taught me mine ego, and that teach I unto men: no longer
to thrust one's head into the sand of celestial things, but to carry
it freely, a terrestrial head, which giveth meaning to the earth!
A new will teach I unto men: to choose that path which man hath
followed blindly, and to approve of it- and no longer to slink aside
from it, like the sick and perishing!
The sick and perishing- it was they who despised the body and the
earth, and invented the heavenly world, and the redeeming blood-drops;
but even those sweet and sad poisons they borrowed from the body and
the earth!
From their misery they sought escape, and the stars were too
remote for them. Then they sighed: "O that there were heavenly paths
by which to steal into another existence and into happiness!" Then
they contrived for themselves their bypaths and bloody draughts!
Beyond the sphere of their body and this earth they now fancied
themselves transported, these ungrateful ones. But to what did they
owe the convulsion and rapture of their transport? To their body and
this earth.
Gentle is Zarathustra to the sickly. Verily, he is not indignant
at their modes of consolation and ingratitude. May they become
convalescents and overcomers, and create higher bodies for themselves!
Neither is Zarathustra indignant at a convalescent who looketh
tenderly on his delusions, and at midnight stealeth round the grave of
his God; but sickness and a sick frame remain even in his tears.
Many sickly ones have there always been among those who muse, and
languish for God; violently they hate the discerning ones, and the
latest of virtues, which is uprightness.
Backward they always gaze toward dark ages: then, indeed, were
delusion and faith something different. Raving of the reason was
likeness to God, and doubt was sin.
Too well do I know those godlike ones: they insist on being believed
in, and that doubt is sin. Too well, also, do I know what they
themselves most believe in.
Verily, not in backworlds and redeeming blood-drops: but in the body
do they also believe most; and their own body is for them the
thing-in-itself.
But it is a sickly thing to them, and gladly would they get out of
their skin. Therefore hearken they to the preachers of death, and
themselves preach backworlds.
Hearken rather, my brethren, to the voice of the healthy body; it is
a more upright and pure voice.
More uprightly and purely speaketh the healthy body, perfect and
square-built; and it speaketh of the meaning of the earth."

[Kazak borispavlovgrozny]

I hope the admins reconize this is a blatant attempt by a spammer ( Ximan, how you doing you filthy rat?) to close down out debate. I encourage them to ignore the relavance of his posts, delete them, and ban him.

I also encourage frood, wulf, hellenes, and cathal, carolus, and others to please post your ideas

P.S. _ Nietzsche is an amazing mind, too bad he is a shining sore on his own philosophy, or he would surpass epicurus in my eyes. The point of the disccusion, is simply that, to stimulate ideas and educate those who seek them, as well as be educated ourselves.

[Frood]

Originally posted by borispavlovgrozny@Nov 16 2003, 03:55 PM
P.S. _ Nietzsche is an amazing mind, too bad he is a shining sore on his own philosophy, or he would surpass epicurus in my eyes. The point of the disccusion, is simply that, to stimulate ideas and educate those who seek them, as well as be educated ourselves.

This is a bit off topic, but as both you and I agree, the point of this thread is to sitmulate interesting ideas. Why do you think Nietzsche was a sore on his own philosophy? True, he may not have been the ubermensch he dreamed of, but there are dozens of passages throughout his works that praise those who help make the world ready for such an ubermensh. I could type them out but they are not posted on the internet, and some of them are rather large. Nietzsche was by no means an interesting character in action, but I think he was really the sort of person who expressed himself through his work. It is also important to note that he often discussed himself in his works, especially Ecce Homo which was in essence a philosophical autobiography. THe man that emerges from this was by no means a wart on the side of his own philosophy, for he was his own philosophy.

[Siblesz]

Originally posted by Frood@Nov 16 2003, 05:45 PM
"I HATE ALL PROTESTANTS AND NON-CATHOLICS! ALL OF YOU WILL GO TO HELL!!!!!!!! I ESPECIALLY HATE BAPTISTS!!!!!!!!!! "

This was ximan's remark. I deleted the post for being overly stupid. What an a$$...

[Kazak borispavlovgrozny]

I take my view from one specific passage in Thus Spake Zarathustra ( btw, no need for you to quote it, I know it Through and Through) In The Song, he seems to extol the value of the European man , as the ideal through which the ubermensch would arrive. This is strangely contradictory in his work until one looks closer, and sees in his earlier writings ( Nietzsche, I believe, MUST be read sequentially to fully comprehend the gravity and brilliance of his work), he pines on about how vile it is to be European. This is believed by some Nietzsche-philiacs, myself included, to be his declaration of unworthiness. This declaration is of course not only supremely awkward but it carries with it a subtle but strong Christian overtone. Here he basically undid himself, purposefully of course, in a brilliant stroke to show his own weakness. This is were I say a sore to his own philosophy, not because he wasn?t the ubermensch, but because, much like Seneca, he failed to set the proper example of his philosophy, and understandably so. Don?t get me wrong, perhaps my words, no, not perhaps, definitely my words are too tough, but I live in peace knowing Nietzsche wouldn?t have it any other way

[Cobra]

This was ximan's remark. I deleted the post for being overly stupid. What an a$$...

That explains a lot. Boris knows what I'm talking about. :-p

[Frood]

Originally posted by borispavlovgrozny@Nov 16 2003, 04:27 PM
I take my view from one specific passage in Thus Spake Zarathustra ( btw, no need for you to quote it, I know it Through and Through) In The Song, he seems to extol the value of the European man , as the ideal through which the ubermensch would arrive. This is strangely contradictory in his work until one looks closer, and sees in his earlier writings ( Nietzsche, I believe, MUST be read sequentially to fully comprehend the gravity and brilliance of his work), he pines on about how vile it is to be European. This is believed by some Nietzsche-philiacs, myself included, to be his declaration of unworthiness. This declaration is of course not only supremely awkward but it carries with it a subtle but strong Christian overtone. Here he basically undid himself, purposefully of course, in a brilliant stroke to show his own weakness. This is were I say a sore to his own philosophy, not because he wasn?t the ubermensch, but because, much like Seneca, he failed to set the proper example of his philosophy, and understandably so. Don?t get me wrong, perhaps my words, no, not perhaps, definitely my words are too tough, but I live in peace knowing Nietzsche wouldn?t have it any other way

Nietszche's works are so often misinterpreted due to their relance on nuance. His works both before Zarathustra, and after, abound in sections condemning europeans. By condemening europeans, he condemns the decandence, morality and nationalism that were prevalent at the time. His works are also full of reference to the "good european" but this "good european" is not to be mistaken with his idea of the avarge european at the time. As you probably know, there are many songs in Zarathustra, and I have very little idea of whihc one you refer to. Nietzsche though opposed to Christiainty and Europeanism never hesitated to talk of how much he loved them at times, he was resoulte in his opposition to them. Again it is nuance which defines what he is talking about. Though you have probably read it, you might think of reading Ecce Homo again, for it contains many brillaint insights in to his life and philosophy.

[Kazak borispavlovgrozny]

I shall reread it as soon as I am done with my Lucretius

[Frood]

Excellent. Please don't think that I was suggesting you misinterpreted his works. I simply meant to outline how I interpreted it and perhaps show you a different perspective which you may or may not agree with. After re-reading my post, it sounds a bit too accusational for what I was intending to say, but as long as you understand what my intentions were, I am content.

[Kazak borispavlovgrozny]

Not at all accusational. I simply want to redress some of my ideas and reread my sidenotes on my books before i commit to an answer. I welcome your interpretation Frood, especially since we differ! Its the only way will make either of ours better, kampf remember .

Boris

[Portuguese Rebel]

Originally posted by BlackSupremast@Nov 16 2003, 10:43 PM
I HATE ALL PROTESTANTS AND NON-CATHOLICS! ALL OF YOU WILL GO TO HELL!!!!!!!! I ESPECIALLY HATE BAPTISTS!!!!!!!!!!

What a "brilliant" piece of human mental production.

Before i start exposing my position i would like to make a mild protest on the title of the thread
If i had started this thread i would have used the plural "gods" instead of the singular. This is because the singular is somewhat a limitation on what it is being asked and has a monotheistic approach. Thre isn't, IMO, a racional reason to immediately approach the question of the existance of deities with this monotheistic approach. Now that i've made this, maybe unnecessary, rant, i will expose my position on this subject.

As a man of science i deal every day with questions of presentation of proofs and exploring the support for given hypothesys. Can the question "Is there a god?" (or it's plural variation) be answered in a scientific maner?

Some philosophical currents wich deal with the question of the object of science clearly say that this question cannot be answered by science. For Karl Popper and its followers, science is the tool wich allows to study the falsifiable. This means that, for a given hypothesys to be an object of the scientific method there must be a way to make that hypothesys false.

For example, i put out an hypothesys: " there will be and eclipse on 23rd of february of 2006". There are several ways to falsify my hypothesys:

- You can make the astronomic calculations and verify it
- You can just wait for the day and then check out the news for an eclipse visible anywhere on Earth...

So my hypothesys is liable of being put through the scientific method.

The hypothesys "there is a god" is not because you cannot set a reasonalble way to falsify it.

I find Popper defenition of the scientific object somehow lacking and made to please theists of any kind. I will explain why.

If we are to take the definition to it's last consequenses you cannot prove that i do not have a flying pink elephant in my backyard if i'm allowed to keep adding properties (mainly to contradict your findings and disbelief) to my pink elephant.

I can say that my elephant is invisible (and that is why you cannot see it), unmesurable (and that is why no instrument can detect its mass, size or atomic signature), and i can even go to the point of saying that my pink elephant is incorporeal and thus cannot be, in any way, reached by our common methods.

An investigatng mind can ask then me how do I know it exists. And can respond that i just "feel it there". Since that in Popper's perspective my hypothesys is unfalsifiable (because i can add what i want to the story without any requirement of racionality on my part), science cannot say nothing about my pink elephant and thus, the hypothesys ust be debated outside the scientific realm wich i find amusing.

After i told you about my pink elephant you can:

1- Join me in my belief of the existance of a flying pink elephant in my backyard;

2- Simply say that there isn't proofs of existance or non-existance and remain undecided in the question

3- State that the burden of proof is on the proponent of the existance of a given reality (may it be an hypothesys or whole theory about anything) and dismiss the "there is a pink elephant in my backyard" hypothesys for lack of support and remain open to re-evaluate it if new data is found (quite common state of afairs in science)

4- Accuse me of being nuts and phone someone to have me commited to an instituition...


The position wich i find more defensible for a scientist is the third option And i can give some reasons for this. The first choice is very dangerous and unproductive for a scientist (i think anyone can see why). The second choice would mean a slowing of scientific advance to a crawl and we would still be debating about ridiculous claims of renacentist "life force" theories to explain the functioning of living beings (and forget all about Occam's razor with this one...).

The third allows both for the dismissal of inadequate hypothesys and the flexibility to review the position when there is an input of new data. This position is very close to an Occam's Razor logic since the more farfetched hypothesys is droped in favor of a more simpler and working one (in the example, the existance hypothesys is dropped because the non-existance hypothesys is simpler and can explain the facts in perfection).

The fourth choice is just too cruel, since i'm not hurting nobody (and can even be beneficial if the elphant tells me to be nice to other people), unless i become a mass murderer because of orders of my pink elephant or something like that...
The fourth choice also demonstrates an unwillingness to accept new data or reform our position.

The four choices can also be used to designate the four major groups i can identify in society:

1- Believers;
2- Agnostics;
3- Scientifc Atheists;
4- "Religious" atheists (funny this one huh!...)

[Cathal]

I'm suprised you actually asked for my input on such a topic boris. Well, I'll try and give you what I think without making my babbling incoherent.

To start off, I don't believe in a God and have no religious affiliation. However, sometimes I'm just walking back from class, by myself, and I look around at people going about their life. I wonder, what's the point of it all? We learn and learn and learn. Go through highschool, hopefully college, and maybe grad school. And then, of course, learn as we go through life. Not really having a purpose in life. Just to live. If we all dropped dead right now, so what? I don't know. I can't prove there is a God nor can I disprove that. Believe me, in college, you get into plenty of those debates with friends and strangers. I have no idea, maybe one day I'll find the answer.

Until then, even though I don't believe in God, I believe in the morals and ideals promoted by religion. I often think of myself as living a Christian life without the religious motives. You know, just be nice to people, do the right thing. Things along those lines.

O well, just my input.

[GodEmperor Nicholas]

Hey guys, I have a stock presentation to be making soon, so I have to work. Still, I am definatelly going to comment on Nietsche, I think he was a genius, but flawed in certain respects...

Good stuff, though, I hope we can keep up the debate, especially when more fans of the god idea show up, since they have been absent so far...

NM

[Kazak borispavlovgrozny]

Ok, shower thoughts...

Do you believe that the existence of God could have been at any time rationally justified as less than highly unlikely? If so, when and under what circumstances. This is not to derail the very interesting Nietszche debate ( NM, I anxiuosly await you entry), but to add another layer to the topic.

please use strictly philosophical arguments and logic, but i guess that goes without saying for the crowd so far cool -_-

[drusus]

Morality?

Where guy, could you see in ANY monotheist religion, morality?

the morality to put down the women, the homosexual for exemple?

The morality to fight against science, culture, entertainement, freedom?

Please guy learn, Ancient History and you will see the birth of Jews and Christian religion (muslim religion was created in medieval age 7th century) and you maybe anderstand why know it is the chaos, why we human beeing are so stupid to kill ourself for nothing...i'm too sad...really sad