The "Is there a god?" thread

[Snuden]

Reading through this thread makes me feel dumb and smart at the same time.

Dumb because I often fail to understand the meaning of a post because of all the "difficult" words used, and also because the post is structured as to look more intellectual.

Smart because I consider myself way above discussing the existence of God.

It's 50/50

[deleted_user0]

this entire thread is anti-intellectual.

[QueenOfdestiny]

this entire thread is anti-intellectual.

[supernapoleon]

1st time a Garja option in the poll would have been apropriate.

[Goodspeed]

Religion is in many ways anti-intellectual. I don't think discussing it is, though. Understanding it and its success is a good lesson in how suggestible and blind to opposing perspectives people can be.

[deleted_user]

Today was a weird day. I went from believing in Christianity to having no convictions whatsoever besides being Luke Cage season 2 is bad.

#ModTheEar, he's not impressionable and he'd make the forums a smarter place.

[Goodspeed]

Luke Cage is bad period.
When are people going to get over Marvel?

[deleted_user0]

Religion is in many ways anti-intellectual. I don't think discussing it is, though. Understanding it and its success is a good lesson in how suggestible and blind to opposing perspectives people can be.

a good discussion isn't no. This isn't a discussion. It's just a circle jerk of people repeating arguments that serve no purpose but to fortify the justification of their belief.

[deleted_user]

Luke Cage is bad period.
When are people going to get over Marvel?

I have a conundrum for you:

A person does not believe in a religion, however, they are a fan of the Marvel movie universe. Can this person exist in the natural world bound by natural law? Or are they a paradox?

[Gendarme]

The answer is yes.

[Amsel_]

@gibson It's funny how in one of your posts you complained about Christians not providing evidence and just giving appeals to emotion; and then when I questioned you about why you have so much trust in science, you said you don't have to prove anything, and started talking about all of science's accomplishments.

[Goodspeed]

@gibson It's funny how in one of your posts you complained about Christians not providing evidence and just giving appeals to emotion; and then when I questioned you about why you have so much trust in science, you said you don't have to prove anything, and started talking about all of science's accomplishments.

Science's many accomplishments ARE proof that it works.

Science is the process of drawing conclusions from observation, something humans instinctively and subconsciously do from birth. Science over the years developed many methods to reduce subjectivity and changes its mind based on new evidence all the time. That's why it's our most trustworthy source of knowledge.

[Goodspeed]

Religion is in many ways anti-intellectual. I don't think discussing it is, though. Understanding it and its success is a good lesson in how suggestible and blind to opposing perspectives people can be.

a good discussion isn't no. This isn't a discussion. It's just a circle jerk of people repeating arguments that serve no purpose but to fortify the justification of their belief.

Do you know what a circle jerk is? There is disagreement here so it is certainly not a circle jerk.

Most discussions are but the exchange of opposing perspectives where minds are not changed. This one is no different. That doesn't make it anti-intellectual.

Not to say that it is necessarily intellectual either. Discussions about God are a little silly just because there is no evidence or logical basis for the belief. Often that's what the discussion revolves around, same here.

It's still interesting to see the mental gymnastics religious people go through to justify their faith.

[deleted_user0]

Religion is in many ways anti-intellectual. I don't think discussing it is, though. Understanding it and its success is a good lesson in how suggestible and blind to opposing perspectives people can be.

a good discussion isn't no. This isn't a discussion. It's just a circle jerk of people repeating arguments that serve no purpose but to fortify the justification of their belief.

Do you know what a circle jerk is? There is disagreement here so it is certainly not a circle jerk.

Most discussions are but the exchange of opposing perspectives where minds are not changed. This one is no different. That doesn't make it anti-intellectual.

Not to say that it is necessarily intellectual either. Discussions about God are a little silly just because there is no evidence or logical basis for the belief. Often that's what the discussion revolves around, same here.

It's still interesting to see the mental gymnastics religious people go through to justify their faith.

there are 2 circles. Since neither of these circles actually interact, because they're basically arguing different things constantly, i think the term is correct. but perhaps there is a better word to replace it. In any case, that wasn't they key part of my post. So basically it's irrelevant.

An intellectual discussion doesn't require a change of minds, but it does require one to be open to the possibility. It also requires a willingness to look critically at ones own beliefs. i'm fairly certain that's not the case here for most people that participate in the discussion, and in fact it's not the case for most people who participate in discussions, in general.

the last part of that post makes it quite clear in which category you fall. Sure, watching monkeys in the zoo can be interesting, it's undoubtedly entertaining, but it's hardly "intellectual".

[Goodspeed]

Anti-intellectual is more than just "not intellectual".
Google the term.

[deleted_user0]

Anti-intellectual is more than just "not intellectual".
Google the term.

sure, that's a different use of the term. i didn't mean that. I shouldn't have said anti-intellectual. Just not intellectual.

[momuuu]

@chris1089 I want to poke at one of the things you seemed to state. You claimed we need a god to explain why there is a universe (slightly paraphrased but I think that's the main argument I'd like to focus on). I don't actually see the logic behind this.

So the universe at some point started existing. We do not yet know if that is just the way it is or if it requires some further explanation. However, I feel like logically it does not actually pose a problem to state the universe simply started existing. There are no actual logical problems with that statement, are there? There are no inconsistencies that arise from it that make no sense at all. From the limited human brain, it seems weird. However, many things about the universe are weird and unintuitive - from the behaviour of the smallest particles to the behaviour of the largest objects in our universe things behave very unintuitively. Regardless, there isn't necessarily a requirement for something to explain the beginning of existance. Saying it just started existing seems the same to saying God created the universe - except that in terms of explaining it the former is better according to Occam's razor and seems slightly more satisfactory to me. Saying the universe magically started existing is basically equivalent to saying a magical man caused the universe to start existing, except that it removes the middle man.

But even if you judge your own intuition - however terrible it in fact is - with regards to how things work to be more important than the logical cleanness of a theory and thus you demand an explanation for the beginning of the universe, that doesn't lead us to conclude God needs to exist. For all we know, the universe could well have been started by the Magical Marshmallow, or maybe some Alien god made up by people in some far away galaxy. Or maybe there's a more physical explanation that we do not yet know. I know @Goodspeed likes the theory that we are in fact a giant simulation run by a highly advanced civilization that is interested in simulating a universe very precisely. The universe started existing because they coded it such and started the simulation and the rest is history. (Actually this theory could account nicely for the seemingly inherent randomness that the universe posseses according to quantum mechanics. This advanced civilization might not know the exact starting parameters and thus runs multiple simulations at the same time with slightly differing outcomes due to inherent randomness to everything that makes up its simulations. Anyways, I digress). In this sense the concept of 'God' that would be obligatory if you require a explanation for the beginning of the universe is simply defined as "some unknown possibly magical or divine being or construction that explains the beginning of the universe". Then in fact, by stating that you believe in that God you are simply stating that you believe there is further but unknown explanation for the beginning of the universe. Which is a subjective but logically correct conclusion. However, there has been zero evidence as to why a God, as defined by human religion, would be a preferred answer.

So then in all this argument simply states that if one subjectively requires explanation for the start of the universe - something that objectively speaking isn't actually necessary - then one would believe in some unknown thing(s) (whether there is a physical reason or some divine creature(s)) that provide(s) this explanation.

However, whether this thing is God remains noting more than a stretch of the imagination within the light of this argument.

[Goodspeed]

Luke Cage is bad period.
When are people going to get over Marvel?

I have a conundrum for you:

A person does not believe in a religion, however, they are a fan of the Marvel movie universe. Can this person exist in the natural world bound by natural law? Or are they a paradox?

Are you asking if you are a paradox?
Yeah, but not for that reason.

[chris1089]

The thing is you already believe that god exists, and you’re using “outside of space time blah blah” to try to justify it when in fact logical beliefs are formed the opposite, you observe something and draw a belief from what you, or in most cases others, has observed to be true

I wasn't a Christian all my life. I think it's far more logical and complete than any other worldview I have seen.

They are describing all the macro molecules found withing 'modern' cells preforming by chance in the same area and bumping into each other to form a cell with no steps in between, rather than criticising any legitimate hypotheses involving sequential steps that exist.

Such as. How do you say you we got from A-Z without God?

That is simply not historically accurate, there are plenty of cultures who's creation myths don't involve a supreme god creating the universe. You can look it up, this is off topic. As well polytheism was the most common belief for thousands of years before so clearly polytheism must be the default and is therefore true until proven otherwise!Yes, the existence of God is already on the human mind. This is the "is there a God?" thread not the "Which God is there thread?" The suchness of many people believing in a thing is the same as an individual believing in that thing, repetition does not make truth so I am not impressed by the big number, I've seen bigger numbers before. And why are you demanding that I must explain what I just said we don't have a proven explanation for! Try to explain how your god created the universe.

I demand you explain as it is a flaw in your position that God doesn't exist - how did the world get here (assuming you believe it had a beginning. If otherwise we can discuss that.) I say "And God said, “Let there be light,”" This doesn't require more explanation, as I have already stated, due to God not being subject to our space-time continuum and being supernatural. He can use methods that can't be observed in our universe or explained using our science.

I don't immediately see a link between origins and the doppler effect. Can you explain?

I am referring to red shift, which is the same in principle as the doppler effect. This suggest the universe is expanding as stars further away from us are moving at a greater velocity. This suggests the universe is expanding and therefore had a beginning.

What prevents us from following the same thought process when it comes to existence itself? It is eternal, doesn't have a beginning or end, is not constrained by time. Removing God from the equation makes it much less convoluted, doesn't bring up a ton of other questions.

I don(this is quite an amusing repetition of the same root)

One question that remains and will always remain is why is there something rather than nothing? But the thought that the first thing that existed is a being as sophisticated as the God you believe in (whichever one it is) makes even less sense than the alternative, which is that the first thing that existed was very simple and slowly grew more complex. Either way, existence is paradoxical. God provides no answers there, only more questions.

How many times do I have to repeat myself. I already said God is eternal and doesn't conform to our space-time continuum. Therefore he is not the first thing to exist, as he is eternal. How is existence "seemingly absurd or self-contradictory." God provides an answer to how we got here (and also how life got here, the universe) among many other answers, which I have not seen answered by an atheist.

Religion is in many ways anti-intellectual. I don't think discussing it is, though. Understanding it and its success is a good lesson in how suggestible and blind to opposing perspectives people can be.

How is religion anti-intelectual? How do you measure success? Who are you accusing of being blind to opposing perspectives? I'm certainly not.

I'll make a separate post to reply to Jerom's that he posted just now.

[matty1248]

Ten minutes work from Carl Sagan puts half a lifetimes of Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens to shame

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfm0GCvsIVA

[chris1089]

So the universe at some point started existing. We do not yet know if that is just the way it is or if it requires some further explanation. However, I feel like logically it does not actually pose a problem to state the universe simply started existing. There are no actual logical problems with that statement, are there? There are no inconsistencies that arise from it that make no sense at all.

Yes you need to explain how the universe started existing. It does pose a logical problem. According to the laws of physics, an external force is required to change conditions. I can go into the specific laws if you want, but I assume your excellent Dutch education taught you that. No, God, or magical man as you call him, is an external force. As I have said before, the premise of God is that he is omnipotent. Therefore, although not limited to our space-time continuum, he can effect it. I don't think you get the premise that God can do anything and is in control of everything that happens.

From the limited human brain, it seems weird. However, many things about the universe are weird and unintuitive - from the behaviour of the smallest particles to the behaviour of the largest objects in our universe things behave very unintuitively. Regardless, there isn't necessarily a requirement for something to explain the beginning of existence. Saying it just started existing seems the same to saying God created the universe - except that in terms of explaining it the former is better according to Occam's razor and seems slightly more satisfactory to me. Saying the universe magically started existing is basically equivalent to saying a magical man caused the universe to start existing, except that it removes the middle man.

Just because some things seem counter intuitive and are correct, this doesn't mean that you can justify anything that is counter intuitive. This is completely illogical. Take this example:
A is true.
A being true feels counter intuitive.
C is or is not true.
C feels counter intuitive.
Therefore C is true.
You are saying there is not necessarily a problem with this logic. There is. C might not be true. This is a logical flaw.

So then in all this argument simply states that if one subjectively requires explanation for the start of the universe - something that objectively speaking isn't actually necessary - then one would believe in some unknown thing(s) (whether there is a physical reason or some divine creature(s)) that provide(s) this explanation.

Yes you require an explanation for the start of the universe. See above.

[duckzilla]

How many times do I have to repeat myself. I already said God is eternal and doesn't conform to our space-time continuum. Therefore he is not the first thing to exist, as he is eternal. How is existence "seemingly absurd or self-contradictory." God provides an answer to how we got here (and also how life got here, the universe) among many other answers, which I have not seen answered by an atheist.

As far as I know, atheists have answers to every single one of these questions. It is just many different answers instead of a single one and these answers can be very plain.

I would say that the question, whether there is a god or not, is not very meaningful. To me, the question "Does it make a difference whether there is a god or not?" is more interesting. Maybe there is a god (whatever specific characteristics it may have, e.g. being eternal), maybe there is no god. Would this make any difference?


edit: why do we usually use a "he" in this context. Does God have a penis?

[chris1089]

How many times do I have to repeat myself. I already said God is eternal and doesn't conform to our space-time continuum. Therefore he is not the first thing to exist, as he is eternal. How is existence "seemingly absurd or self-contradictory." God provides an answer to how we got here (and also how life got here, the universe) among many other answers, which I have not seen answered by an atheist.

As far as I know, atheists have answers to every single one of these questions. It is just many different answers instead of a single one and these answers can be very plain.

I would say that the question, whether there is a god or not, is not very meaningful. To me, the question "Does it make a difference whether there is a god or not?" is more interesting. Maybe there is a god (whatever specific characteristics it may have, e.g. being eternal), maybe there is no god. Would this make any difference?


edit: why do we usually use a "he" in this context. Does God have a penis?

Well why doesn't someone enlighten me as to one of these answers? If they are so plain I'm sure you can explain them easily and readily to me. If you want a serious discussion why don't you ask serious questions?

[Snuden]

"And God said, “Let there be light,”

Is this serious talk or troll talk?

[chris1089]

Of course this is serious. However you are clearly trolling and not being serious.