Do you believe in God?

[tkim11]

I grew up in a Catholic household and went to parochial schools, and I still question everything. The key is that it is "faith," for all those geniuses out there. You have to believe without proof, that is the idea. Anyway, I have no clue if God exists, but I do know that people believe because they are afraid not to believe in something which is ludicrous and actually makes me not believe in God more. It is a scary thought to think it is over when it is over, but that gives me more of a gut feeling that God does not exist. You are a fool if you deal with things in absolutes though, so the search is always on.

So true. Finally someone who knows what they are talking about. It's all about faith. Either you have it or you dont.

 

[dave_1970]

By this logic, God could not exist because his design is even more complicated than our own. If man could not arise through nature, then neither could God.

This argument isn't saying that God and Evolution cannot co-exist. It just states that all things in this world, including nature, have an unfathomably complicated design, and this design has to be the result of some superior being, rather than some perfect set of random circumstances.

How is the idea that God's design is more complicated than our own prove his non-existance?

 

[dave_1970]

So true. Finally someone who knows what they are talking about. It's all about faith. Either you have it or you dont.

Isn't that what I just said about 10 posts ago?


<HR style="COLOR: #fdde82" SIZE=1>The bottom line is that belief is something that is based on faith, not on evidence and proof. You'll be very hard pressed to convince a non-believer that god exists through proofs.

There is no proof, people "spiritually" believe in God or they don't.

That George Carlin bit is excellent however...

 

[roscoexxx]

This argument isn't saying that God and Evolution cannot co-exist. It just states that all things in this world, including nature, have an unfathomably complicated design, and this design has to be the result of some superior being, rather than some perfect set of random circumstances.

How is the idea that God's design is more complicated than our own prove his non-existance?

You are saying that something so complex as nature had to be designed, but that God, who is even more complex than we are or this world is, just spontaneously appeared. If we had to be designed, why didn't God have to be designed?

 

[roscoexxx]

Oh and for the record, the Bible is mostly contextual, not literal. That is just in case anyone actually believed otherwise.

con·tex·tu·al (k

n-t

ks

ch

-

l, k

n-) [SIZE=-2]KEY [/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]ADJECTIVE: [/SIZE]

<DL><DD>Of, involving, or depending on a context. </DD></DL>What context is the bible depending on?

 

[roscoexxx]

This argument isn't saying that God and Evolution cannot co-exist. It just states that all things in this world, including nature, have an unfathomably complicated design, and this design has to be the result of some superior being, rather than some perfect set of random circumstances.

How is the idea that God's design is more complicated than our own prove his non-existance?

Because I am not always as articulate as I would like to be. Here is what God is imaginary has to say about the intelligent design theory.


You can actually answer this question yourself with a little logic. Here are the two options:

1. The complexity of life and the universe did arise completely spontaneously and without any intelligence. Nature created all the complexity we see today.
2. An intelligent creator created all of the complexity that we see today because complexity requires intelligence to create it.

The advantage of the first option is that it is self-contained. The complexity arose spontaneously. No other explanation is required.
The problem with the second option is that it immediately creates an impossibility. If complexity cannot arise without intelligence, then we immediately must ask, "Who created the intelligent creator?" The creator could not spring into existence if complexity requires intelligence. Therefore, God is impossible.

 

[dave_1970]

Because I am not always as articulate as I would like to be. Here is what God is imaginary has to say about the intelligent design theory.


You can actually answer this question yourself with a little logic. Here are the two options:

1. The complexity of life and the universe did arise completely spontaneously and without any intelligence. Nature created all the complexity we see today.
2. An intelligent creator created all of the complexity that we see today because complexity requires intelligence to create it.

The advantage of the first option is that it is self-contained. The complexity arose spontaneously. No other explanation is required.
The problem with the second option is that it immediately creates an impossibility. If complexity cannot arise without intelligence, then we immediately must ask, "Who created the intelligent creator?" The creator could not spring into existence if complexity requires intelligence. Therefore, God is impossible.

I understand what you are saying, but I think your making a false connection between God's creation and his existance. Maybe God always existed, maybe he was never created. Maybe he was created by another more intelligent God who was likewise created by another God, etc, etc. Who the hell knows?

The point is that what you call "Nature" in your first option I am calling God, rather than some crazy happenstance of random circumstances which came together to spontaneously create life.

I respect your argument, but there really is no end to this debate. For whatever personal or logical reasons people either believe in God or they don't.

 

[wolfie_cr]

you know the Earth you are living upon is very good proof that God exists, since he is the one that created it. And anyone who thinks the big bang theory or that the Earth just came into existence on a whim is not a very intelligent person.

I can promise you that it is not a coincidence that the Earth is just far enough away from the sun that we dont burn, and just close enough that we do not freeze.

And by the way, when you are speaking about the Creator, capitalize his name. It is "God", not "god" or heaven forbid "gawd"...Show a little respect

if we would be close enough to the sun so that we burn or far enough to freeze we would not be here to use such stupid logic to 'prove' something

read more from people who are according to you probably not very intelligent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

and by the way, under such premise we can have multiple gods or Gods if you like

 

[Rawpimple]

The truth of the matter is there is no real argument for or against. No one here, no matter how psychotic or schizophrenic you are, knows. You cannot prove it one way or another.

We do know this. We are all here together in this life. Why not just live your life, have some fun, treat others the way you would want to be treated, and try and do some good in this world. If you want to believe, fine. If you don't, fine. Whether you do or don't, have some fun and do a little good in this world.

 

[Buster]

About the `Lost Tomb' Dispute

"The Lost Tomb of Jesus," airs tonight at 9 on the Discovery Channel.

After the show, a panel of scholars, moderated by Ted Koppel, will debate the documentary's assertions.

 

[roscoexxx]

I understand what you are saying, but I think your making a false connection between God's creation and his existance. Maybe God always existed, maybe he was never created. Maybe he was created by another more intelligent God who was likewise created by another God, etc, etc. Who the hell knows?

The point is that what you call "Nature" in your first option I am calling God, rather than some crazy happenstance of random circumstances which came together to spontaneously create life.

I respect your argument, but there really is no end to this debate. For whatever personal or logical reasons people either believe in God or they don't.

Well, all I really have to say now is. There is no reason to believe God exists and there is no evidence God exists. Without reason or evidence it's really just wishful thinking isn't it?

 

[aclv1]

"are you trying to say jesus christ cant hit a curve ball?"


-harris

 

[Addict101]

Well, all I really have to say now is. There is no reason to believe God exists and there is no evidence God exists. Without reason or evidence it's really just wishful thinking isn't it?

Go read some of this guys stuff: Thomas Aquinas.

Seriously. He wrote some good stuff.

 

[X-Files]

Go read some of this guys stuff: Thomas Aquinas.

Seriously. He wrote some good stuff.

#'s 546-547 here:

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

 

[X-Files]

Well, all I really have to say now is. There is no reason to believe God exists and there is no evidence God exists. Without reason or evidence it's really just wishful thinking isn't it?

This guy i know has debated in online forums for years on the subject:

http://www.geocities.com/meta_crock/listGodarguments.htm

 

[X-Files]

Well, all I really have to say now is. There is no reason to believe God exists and there is no evidence God exists. Without reason or evidence it's really just wishful thinking isn't it?

Just one quote from the above site under the title...

Introduction to God Arguments.

"They argue for a rational warrant for belief in a creator who is necessary to the existence of the universe and all that is...Nor do they offer absolute proof of a creator, but they do offer rational warrant for belief which is strong enough to offer a prima facie justification."

http://www.geocities.com/meta_crock/IntroGod.htm

 

[roscoexxx]

#'s 546-547 here:

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

Here is #546:
ST. ANSELM’S ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
(1) God exists in our understanding. This means that the concept of God resides as an idea in our minds.
(2) God is a possible being, and might exist in reality. He is possible because the concept of God does not bear internal contradictions.
(3) If something exists exclusively in our understanding and might have existed in reality then it might have been greater. This simply means that something that exists in reality is perfect (or great). Something that is only a concept in our minds could be greater by actually existing.
(4) Suppose (theoretically) that God only exists in our understanding and not in reality.
(5) If this were true, then it would be possible for God to be greater then he is (follows from premise #3).
(6) This would mean that God is a being in which a greater is possible.
(7) This is absurd because God, a being in which none greater is possible, is a being in which a greater is possible. Herein lies the contradiction.
(8) Thus it follows that it is false for God to only exist in our understanding.
(9) Hence God exists in reality as well as our understanding.
(10) Therefore, God exists.

If you go by this logic you can prove the existence of the boogie man or the giant purple people eater.

 

[roscoexxx]

Just one quote from the above site under the title...

Introduction to God Arguments.

"They argue for a rational warrant for belief in a creator who is necessary to the existence of the universe and all that is...Nor do they offer absolute proof of a creator, but they do offer rational warrant for belief which is strong enough to offer a prima facie justification."

http://www.geocities.com/meta_crock/IntroGod.htm

My favorite rationalization is number 1:
TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT, a.k.a. PRESUPPOSITIONALIST (I)
(1) If reason exists then God exists.
(2) Reason exists.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

Now that's what I call a strong argument. Not.

 

[roscoexxx]

#'s 546-547 here:

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

You guys were being sarcastic right? I didn't get it at first. My bad.

 

[X-Files]

Here is #546:
ST. ANSELM’S ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
(1) God exists in our understanding. This means that the concept of God resides as an idea in our minds.
(2) God is a possible being, and might exist in reality. He is possible because the concept of God does not bear internal contradictions.
(3) If something exists exclusively in our understanding and might have existed in reality then it might have been greater. This simply means that something that exists in reality is perfect (or great). Something that is only a concept in our minds could be greater by actually existing.
(4) Suppose (theoretically) that God only exists in our understanding and not in reality.
(5) If this were true, then it would be possible for God to be greater then he is (follows from premise #3).
(6) This would mean that God is a being in which a greater is possible.
(7) This is absurd because God, a being in which none greater is possible, is a being in which a greater is possible. Herein lies the contradiction.
(8) Thus it follows that it is false for God to only exist in our understanding.
(9) Hence God exists in reality as well as our understanding.
(10) Therefore, God exists.

If you go by this logic you can prove the existence of the boogie man or the giant purple people eater.

I was not impressed by that argument if it is actually a legit
summary of what Anselm thought since it came from a site
with "godlessgeeks" in the ady and states at the top of the
page "From the Atheists of Silicon Valley Humor Page".