God, your standpoint

[awisler]

whats your standpoint on god and his existence. i really think that its just not real, i have seen nothing in this world that would make me believe there is on. all of the death/carnage ect. now people say, he has to for population to be thinned down ect. but if he is really so powerful, can he not find a way around that? make the world bigger, make more land on the ocean, give us huge skyscrapers to fit everyone in. now some people need to be punished for their actions, but completely innocent people have been killed. babies, kids, adults even. why cant he make it so that there is no getting old.

i dont know ,its hard to explain, i just cant fathom the thought of their really being a god, im not here to convert anyone just looking for your opinions, if he is real, well, i geuss im screwed :hmmm:

[William the Bastard]

Personally I think there is something that created everything but conventional religion hasn't and won't hit the nail on the head. There is soo much to know about existence that the human brain can not comprehend it as we are not as advanced psychologically as we like to think. As for an old grey bearded bloke on a throne it sounds like too many human machinations have been going on in that scenario for it to be true. However if I am proved wrong then thats the gift of being mortal in that we can make our own ideas and decisions up until shown proof otherwise.

[Nurab Sol]

I believe in God. I also believe that he is perfect justice tempered by mercy. I also believe that it's prudent to believe in him, because of what one might suffer from disbelief.

Pascal sums it up nicely:

We have two choices, belief, or disbelief, no third one.

1. You believe in God.
1a If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
1b If God does not exist, your loss (the investment in your mistake belief) is finite and therefore negligible.

2. You do not believe in God.
2a If God exists, you go to hell: your loss is infinite.
2b If God does not exist, your gain is finite and therefore negligible.

It's a safe bet to believe, because you avoid the possibility of an infinite loss.

[DarkKnight]

I believe in God. I also believe that he is perfect justice tempered by mercy. I also believe that it's prudent to believe in him, because of what one might suffer from disbelief.

Pascal sums it up nicely:

We have two choices, belief, or disbelief, no third one.

1. You believe in God.
1a If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
1b If God does not exist, your loss (the investment in your mistake belief) is finite and therefore negligible.

2. You do not believe in God.
2a If God exists, you go to hell: your loss is infinite.
2b If God does not exist, your gain is finite and therefore negligible.

It's a safe bet to believe, because you avoid the possibility of an infinite loss.

Pascals wager is a false dichotomy. It assumes that there are only two options when in fact more exist. What if you believe in the wrong God?

Furthermore, if you accept a world view that does not include an afterlife, the our finite time on earth is more valueable than some pipe dream fairy tale that has no evidence that its going to happen.

[Feliks]

I believe in God. I also believe that he is perfect justice tempered by mercy. I also believe that it's prudent to believe in him, because of what one might suffer from disbelief.

Pascal sums it up nicely:

We have two choices, belief, or disbelief, no third one.

1. You believe in God.
1a If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
1b If God does not exist, your loss (the investment in your mistake belief) is finite and therefore negligible.

2. You do not believe in God.
2a If God exists, you go to hell: your loss is infinite.
2b If God does not exist, your gain is finite and therefore negligible.

It's a safe bet to believe, because you avoid the possibility of an infinite loss.

Only if your beliefs are centered on gain.

[empty]

I believe in God. I also believe that he is perfect justice tempered by mercy. I also believe that it's prudent to believe in him, because of what one might suffer from disbelief.

Pascal sums it up nicely:

We have two choices, belief, or disbelief, no third one.

1. You believe in God.
1a If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
1b If God does not exist, your loss (the investment in your mistake belief) is finite and therefore negligible.

2. You do not believe in God.
2a If God exists, you go to hell: your loss is infinite.
2b If God does not exist, your gain is finite and therefore negligible.

It's a safe bet to believe, because you avoid the possibility of an infinite loss.

As Darknight commented Nurab Sol, I'd say the say that Darknight said... Nurab Sol, you're turning religion into a dictatorship (in this case God is the dictator) where you have to fully obey the superior which is God. That's just a plain ridiculous attitude because it's a personal decision and the minory (atheists) are so independent that they can choose to go by their own paths, not the maiority ones.

God is zero to me. I, personally, hate the fact that people believe in God. It just makes me mad. Like, how dumb can a person be to believe in something that never existed, it's just a simple stupid tendency!... God created suffer around many beings, didn't allow us to know if there are other beings on the universe and created a phobia that shouldn't exist: death.

God is the source of all wars, basically of all things if you are theist... God made violence, punishment, happiness, depression, problems, and all sort of things.
If God ever exists, then I wouldn't respect him, since he didn't respect ,what christian call other human beings, my "brothers".
I believe in nothing that's all.

[Scorch]

As much sense as that makes, God wants us to believe in him because we love and follow him, not because on the balance of probabilities it's worth taking the risk and following him.

As for people that constantly use the paradox of "if god has the power to help us and doesn't he's not all loving, and if he wants to help us but can't he's not all powerful", I have a quote (kinda) from one book I've read that explains this really well:

"You are confused because the bible describes god as an omnipotent and benevolent diety"
"Exactly."
"Omnipotent-benevolent simply means God is all knowing AND well-meaning."
"I understand the concept. It's just ... there seems to be a contradiction."
"Yes, the contradiction is pain. Man's starvation, war, sickness."
"Exactly, terrible things happen in this world. Human tragedy seems like proof that God could not be both well-meaning and all powerful. If he loves us and has the power to change our situation, wouldn't he?"
"Would he?"
"Well if God loves us and He can protect us, he would have to. It seems he is either omnipotent and doesn't care, or benevolent and is powerless."
"Do you have children, Lieutenant?"
"No signore."
"Imagine you had an eight year old son, would you love him?"
"Of course."
"Would you do everything in your power to prevent pain in his life?"
"Of course."
"Would you let him skateboard?"
"I guess. Sure I'd let him skateboard, but I'd tell him to be careful."
"So as this child's father, you would give him some basic, good advice, and let him go off and make his own mistakes."
"I wouldn't run behind him and mollycoddle him if that's what you mean."
"What if he skinned his knee."
"I would tell him to be more careful."
"So even though you have the power to interfere and stop your child's pain, you choose to show your love by letting him learn his own lessons."
"Of course, pain is part of growing up. It's how we learn."
"Exactly."

[Nurab Sol]

I should probably have put it in a better context, sorry.

Your criticism would be valid if we were to take pascal's argument out of its proper context. Pascal was trying to convert others to the Christian faith. He is assuming that you have a choice between the God of Christianity and no God at all (which was very much the case in his time). However, this is a useful because it serves as a practical argument for religion and God in general. He also intended it as a way of convincing others to examine more closely the issue of God's existence.

[Tom Paine]

But it doesn't serve as an argument for faith, only practice, in an attempt to con god, and how precisely do you intend to do that, with an omniscient god? A flawed wager.

[the Black Prince]

i believe and have faith in the strength and guiding wisdom of the Gods, the Lord and the Mother Goddess

[removeduser_426582376423734]

I'd love to believe fully, but if anything I'm a pessimistic agnostic.

[Tajir]

I'd love to believe fully, but if anything I'm a pessimistic agnostic.

In my non-Theist days, I was more of a skeptical agnostic, not confident in my non-God stance, but not strong enough in my pro-God stance, strange really, until I broke out and jumped back in Allah's arms!

I view god the original way, ONE and ONE alone! With servants, angels, messengers, etc. But still ONE figure at the end of the day. God is of course a masculine figure, but nothing much else is known about his physical appearance.

I don't believe in the complicated and erroneous Trinity or any other extra Medieval inventions thrown in with God's immortality.

[Sétanta]

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit
and born of the Virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell.
On the third day he rose again.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Holy Catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.

[Tecumseh]

"You are confused because the bible describes god as an omnipotent and benevolent diety"
"Exactly."
"Omnipotent-benevolent simply means God is all knowing AND well-meaning."
"I understand the concept. It's just ... there seems to be a contradiction."
"Yes, the contradiction is pain. Man's starvation, war, sickness."
"Exactly, terrible things happen in this world. Human tragedy seems like proof that God could not be both well-meaning and all powerful. If he loves us and has the power to change our situation, wouldn't he?"
"Would he?"
"Well if God loves us and He can protect us, he would have to. It seems he is either omnipotent and doesn't care, or benevolent and is powerless."
"Do you have children, Lieutenant?"
"No signore."
"Imagine you had an eight year old son, would you love him?"
"Of course."
"Would you do everything in your power to prevent pain in his life?"
"Of course."
"Would you let him skateboard?"
"I guess. Sure I'd let him skateboard, but I'd tell him to be careful."
"So as this child's father, you would give him some basic, good advice, and let him go off and make his own mistakes."
"I wouldn't run behind him and mollycoddle him if that's what you mean."
"What if he skinned his knee."
"I would tell him to be more careful."
"So even though you have the power to interfere and stop your child's pain, you choose to show your love by letting him learn his own lessons."
"Of course, pain is part of growing up. It's how we learn."
"Exactly."

^
Angels and Demons is better than the Davinci Code.

I believe in a Christian God, not neccesarily the same one as others though. I see it as a benvolent and guiding force, which exists within and beyond this universe.

[Scorch]

^
Angels and Demons is better than the Davinci Code.

I believe in a Christian God, not neccesarily the same one as others though. I see it as a benvolent and guiding force, which exists within and beyond this universe.

Heh, I thought someone would pick up on the reference eventually.

[Tom Paine]

I don't believe in any supreme being whatsoever... just doesn't appear rational, and certainly not any sort of theistic revealed God.

[Lee1026]

"You are confused because the bible describes god as an omnipotent and benevolent diety"
"Exactly."
"Omnipotent-benevolent simply means God is all knowing AND well-meaning."
"I understand the concept. It's just ... there seems to be a contradiction."
"Yes, the contradiction is pain. Man's starvation, war, sickness."
"Exactly, terrible things happen in this world. Human tragedy seems like proof that God could not be both well-meaning and all powerful. If he loves us and has the power to change our situation, wouldn't he?"
"Would he?"
"Well if God loves us and He can protect us, he would have to. It seems he is either omnipotent and doesn't care, or benevolent and is powerless."
"Do you have children, Lieutenant?"
"No signore."
"Imagine you had an eight year old son, would you love him?"
"Of course."
"Would you do everything in your power to prevent pain in his life?"
"Of course."
"Would you let him skateboard?"
"I guess. Sure I'd let him skateboard, but I'd tell him to be careful."
"So as this child's father, you would give him some basic, good advice, and let him go off and make his own mistakes."
"I wouldn't run behind him and mollycoddle him if that's what you mean."
"What if he skinned his knee."
"I would tell him to be more careful."
"So even though you have the power to interfere and stop your child's pain, you choose to show your love by letting him learn his own lessons."
"Of course, pain is part of growing up. It's how we learn."
"Exactly."

Now, explain earth quakes.

[TheKwas]

So God lets the Spanish flu ravage the earth and it's justified as "Part of growing up"? There's a huge difference between individual growth and the growth of a species.

That aside, the analogy is flawed. The father is not omipotent and thus would get tired, making constant observation an impossibility. Also, I doubt a father's love is as deep as theists like to make God's love.

My stance on God is that belief in him is irrational from an objective viewpoint, because it violates Occam's Razor. The basic argument goes as follows:
Thinking simply of the Universe, it seems it could only exist if one of two things are true:
1) Something was created out of nothing.
2) Something always existed.

Something refers to either God, or the Universe, however, we know for a fact that the Universe exists, so if 'something' refers to God then the two possibilities could be rewritten as

1a) God was created out of nothing, and then he created the Universe.
2a) God always existed, and then he created the Universe.

This is where the concept of God obviously violates Occam's Razor. For the original 'something' to be 'God', it makes the entire Universe orgins more complex than they need to be in order to describe them (the orgins). If we replace the original 'something' with 'the Universe' instead of God, we realize how much simpler the explanation is, and how its explaining power is just as equal (if not more powerful)

1b) The Universe was created out of nothing
2b) The Universe has always existed.

I'll contrast the two for clearance.
1a) God was created out of nothing, and then he created the Universe.
1b) The Universe was created out of nothing

2a) God always existed, and then he created the Universe.
2b) The Universe has always existed.

The 'b's are obviously more simple. To go the extra step and add more into the explanation of the Universe's orgins that is needed is to violate Occam's Razor.

[LegionnaireX]

^

Well the general consensus in the scientific community is that the universe has not always existed and indeed came into existence, seemingly from nothing. How can this happen is the question that needs to be asked. At the beginning of the universe science as well as logic breaks down, and personal beliefs take center stage. The atheist would contend that there must be some explanation other than a supreme being for the origin of the universe and its laws out of nothing, that eventually given enough time science may find the answer. The theist would look at the beginnings of the universe and the order within and claim that an intelligent force, God, must be responsible.

No science. No logic. Just belief.

[TheKwas]

^

Well the general consensus in the scientific community is that the universe has not always existed and indeed came into existence, seemingly from nothing. How can this happen is the question that needs to be asked. At the beginning of the universe science as well as logic breaks down, and personal beliefs take center stage. The atheist would contend that there must be some explanation other than a supreme being for the origin of the universe and its laws out of nothing, that eventually given enough time science may find the answer. The theist would look at the beginnings of the universe and the order within and claim that an intelligent force, God, must be responsible.

I have to disagree with that. There are plenty of models that attempt to explain the creation of the Universe, and do so without violating logic. There are certainly lots of work to do and much more knowledge to be accuired on the matter, but it's doesn't totally escape human logic.

For example: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9712344

It's extremely hard to understand, but if it was simple I wouldn't trust it as a model.