Does God Exist?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by CyberShy
God will not 'punish' you for not believing in Him.
It's rather your choise.

Do you want to live with God for eternity, or without Him?

If you choise to live without Him (and thus without all the good He gives) you can't blame Him for that.

Which do I choose? There are so many! And they all have about the same amount of evidence for being real... none.

My concern isn't the specifics of any relgious doctrine, it's the claim that any religious doctrine is somehow more proven than another, when such proof is not there.

[Robert]

Pretty easy. Divine intervention would be something wherein the hand of a deity was the only possible explanation for an occurence.

The jewish people are the only people who got after 2000 years their country back, as being forseen by biblical prophets.

The entire thing that is happening in the middle east shows the truth of the Bible and for that reason the existance of the Biblical God.

To prove that God does not exist: Just destroy israel and all jews. It's as easy as that.

And for that reason it's not strange that that has been tried for 2000 years, and so far, in a miraculous way, it never worked.

And one doesn't have to be a prophet to forsee that more and more people will hate israel, and want to destroy it.

[Robert]

Originally posted by Sava
And they force fundies to use their brains... something foreign to most...

In fact it forces everybody to use their brains.
But you don't use your brains enough to see that, so you think that only the fundies use their brains.

Well, in fact they're the only ones who do indeed,
so in fact you're speaking the truth here without knowing it.

that's so sad

[Robert]

Don't you think it's a little too convenient that you have to wait until you die to find out if all the stuff is true and get the reward for being obedient?

So do I, and that's why God showed me already.
But if I say that you claim that I'm nuts.

Pretty strange way of reasoning.
First you say I'm an idiot for believing something I won't know until the end, but if I claim I already know I'm an idiot as well.

In fact I'm just an idiot if I don't believe the same thing you believe. Which is just plain fundamentalistic.
I thought nobody thought that way anymore since the middle ages.

According to the Bible, pi is 3, women should be subserviant to their husbands,

The bible has been written by people.
And of course the cultural environment got it's place in the Bible.

The Bible is not a book which says people should revolt against the dominant culture.
It teaches people to revolt against their sinfull nature.

it's okay to massacre women and children

it doesn't teach that.

[Ben Kenobi]

Faith is above cultural borders.

Cybershy:

Took me a bit to understand what you meant to say, but yes, Christianity invites all cultures and people. Christianity translates the Bible into the language of the people, whereas most of the others require converts to learn the language of the religion in order to participate.

Boris:

it's the claim that any religious doctrine is somehow more proven than another, when such proof is not there.

If all religions have equal value, and you do not believe Christianity, show me how one can disprove the truth of Islam or Buddhism.

[Agathon]

Look, even if God does exist, Christianity is still a crock of plagiarised crap. As I've remarked, much of it is basically a watered-down version of Platonism which has been made accessible so that everyone can be "saved".

Why is there a soul that survives death and which is corrupted by pleasures of the Flesh? Because they stole it from the Phaedo

Why do Christians commonly hold that there is another world behind this one - the kingdom of God. Because they stole it from Plato who thought the intelligible world was divine.

Why is there a holy trinity, rather than a holy duality? Well, the most plausible explanation I've seen is that it's an analogue of the Neoplatonic trinity of One, Intellect and Soul.

The difference? Well there are arguments for Platonism (some of which are quite good) and not everyone can achieve salvation in it. Plus, Plato is an infinitely more talented writer and thinker than the moronic, guilt-ridden peasants who wrote the Bible.

You don't need an argument to show that Christianity is not some set of ideas handed down by god, just look at its history of outright theivery from and dilution of so-called "pagan" sources.

[Robert]

"There is a lot of emotional speculation, but it's just that--speculation."

Of course there is speculation, but remember my speculation was just a response to your speculation.

That's great, but not relevant. Considering that Irish Protestants and Catholics don't see things this way, I don't think such feelings are universal among Christians.

I think you don't understand the problem of North Ireland. It's not a religional conflict. It's a conflict about power, and both groups use their 'religion' against the other group. Like they both use palastinian and israelian flags while none of them are palastinian or israelian.

How one lives in ones faith is very much a product of one's culture. South American Catholics live in their faith in a very different way than American Catholics do, often holding very divergent cultural and political values. Even within the U.S, Southern Baptists live a different cultural life than Northeast Presbyterians.

That's what I say.
The christian faith doesn't push any culture or way of living to it's believers.

This is nonsense. I can introduce you to several Muslim families I know whose existence is culturally far removed from those living in Iran, Pakistan or Indonesia. In fact, their cultural existence is pretty similar to middle-class Americans of any other religious stripe. I also know a large number of Hindus for whom this is the same. This statement is a baseless assertion that just shows your own cultural bias.

It's not. All muslims have to live to their 5 pilars (or whatever it's named)
Indeed, hindus live a very other way, but that believe system isn't centered around a god.

Which do I choose? There are so many! And they all have about the same amount of evidence for being real... none.

My concern isn't the specifics of any relgious doctrine, it's the claim that any religious doctrine is somehow more proven than another, when such proof is not there.

Read the Bible, read the Koran, read whatever religious scripture there is.
Read what is says about people, about the future (the current time) and see which one is the truth.
Of course your mind must be open to really find the truth.

Nobody will find the truth if (s)he doesn't want one particular truth to be the truth.

[Soul Survivor]

if you're looking for proof you will never find it

[monkspider]

Actually, believe it or not. It's not so difficult to find proof. The thing is though, the people who don't believe, have valid reasons for doing so, and have many important lessons to learn living such an existence.
As for the question of which religion is best that many here seem to be argueing about. The correct answer is whichever one brings you closest to God.

[Ben Kenobi]

Agathon:

much of it is basically a watered-down version of Platonism

I've already addressed this objection.

Why is there a soul that survives death and which is corrupted by pleasures of the Flesh? Because they stole it from the Phaedo

Yet Christ resurrected in bodily form, not just the soul. Where do the Platonists argue that the body resurrects along with the soul after death?

Why do Christians commonly hold that there is another world behind this one - the kingdom of God. Because they stole it from Plato who thought the intelligible world was divine.

The Hebrews also believed in a spiritual world, well before Plato. So did Plato steal the concept from them?

Why is there a holy trinity, rather than a holy duality? Well, the most plausible explanation I've seen is that it's an analogue of the Neoplatonic trinity of One, Intellect and Soul.

It's not in scripture but it explained some of the facts surrounding Christ's death and resurrection, as well as the events surrounding Pentecost better than any other explanation.

Christ predicted the arrival of a 'comforter', or the Holy Spirit, so Christians incorporated the concept of three persons inside one being, God.

The difference? Well there are arguments for Platonism (some of which are quite good) and not everyone can achieve salvation in it. Plus, Plato is an infinitely more talented writer and thinker than the moronic, guilt-ridden peasants who wrote the Bible.

Moronic? Somehow this seems below the platonic ideal for constructing arguments.

Plato is an excellent philosopher, and many of his ideas are shared by Christianity. However, there are important differences precluding outright plagiarism.

[reds4ever]

Any Religion = Obey these tenets and you won't end up being just a rotting corpse.

Religion just plays on the fears in Mankinds pysche.

[Robert]

Any Religion = Obey these tenets and you won't end up being just a rotting corpse.

No, christianity is: believe that Jesus Christ is God and love all mankind.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Now we are getting somewhere.

I don't think so, because people simply aren't grasping the core of the argument...

The evidence seems contrary, most people do have some spiritual void in their life, and they try a variety of ways to fill the spiritual void.

The fact that many people are drawn to seek a "higher power" isn't indicative of any truth there being a higher power. Many people are drawn to all sorts of beliefs (ghosts, aliens, psychic powers, etc.), but that doesn't make any of them true. Psychologists have postulated the human need for belonging to something grander than themselves is a biological trait, an evolutionary function that allowed human beings to consider the greater good of a society over individual needs or wants.

Feeling drawn to something "more" than one's self isn't about a supernatural being, necessarily. I feel drawn to a "higher purpose" in the sense that I believe I am more than the sum of my parts, and I wish to belong to a "greater" thing, as in a community of peers. That's not indication of divine guidance, just social need.

I'm going to quote Wernazuma's response as evidence that some 'atheists' seek a god-substitute to fill the void. You have to consider this when you determine whether many feel they have a void or not

"both these phenomena weren't atheist, because "reason" and "vorsehung" were higher powers, i.e. similar to a God concept."

Neither of these concepts had particularly wide following (in the sense that some assigned them near-spiritual qualities), and certainly aren't indicative of the majority of Atheists today.

Do all religiouscists believe to fill a spiritual void? I believe not. I know many people who adhere to religion out of tradition, expectation, opportunism, social desire and such. So it cuts both ways. Claiming all people believe in a higher power for the same reason is speculation.

Okay, here's the point I'm still getting at, what qualifies as evidence of divine intervention? Individual testimonies?

Such testimonies can't be serious proof of it, because it invariably relies on a "I know it in my heart" form of evidence. Sorry, but we have people of ALL religious convictions across the globe "knowing it in their heart." If a Muslim, Christian and Hindu tell me about their god speaking to them in their heart, telling them their way is correct, I can't take each of them seriously. Telling a person who has not felt such a thing that he should take their word for it is nonsense, especially since people have convinced themselves the worldover that a god has told them anything, including to kill and hurt people. Why should I dismiss those claims? It would be biased in favor of an unproven image of a particular god to do so!

Well, that assumes that the only force that exists must be God. Bad things can and do happen to Christians, sometimes even because they are Christians. Do you think a martyr gets control over when she gets her head lopped off? Hardly. So how do we determine the causes of suffering?

That's exactly the point--and it's not just suffering, it's good things, too. Nearly every person who has won the lottery and who is religious claims that it was an answer to their prayers, that God delivered a miracle to them. This is patently absurd, because that implies every religious person who prays and doesn't win is somehow unworthy of having their prayers answered, that God would be so caught up in the mundane matters of the world that he'd fix a lottery, and says nothing as to why people of different or no religious beliefs win lotteries, too. Could every Christian who wins the lottery be favored by God, but every non-Christian just lucky?

The same goes for cancer remission. We see religious people all the time claiming it was the answer to their prayers, that God wrought a miracle. But what about all the religious folks who don't recover and die? Were they less worthy of having their prayers answered? Less worthy than the atheists who also recovered?

The pat answer is "God works in mysterious ways." If you believe that, fine, but don't pretend these are proof of anything, since there is no consistent measure of a Christian or Hindu or Muslim being cosmically favored over someone of a different faith or of no faith. It's safe to say that there is no qualitative difference, on a cosmic level, of believing or not believing, which was my initial point.

Do non-religious people claim divine intervention? How can the ones without a religion attribute anything to God?

You're off the mark--it's not just comparing religious vs. non-religious, but the different religions as well. Regardless, see above, that explains what I was saying.

What will we be measuring, perceptions or reality? Will we use how people perceive things have happened to them, or will we record their experiences?

We can do all of that, but it won't change the fact that it's relying on something completely intangible--the personal testimony of someone, someone whose psyche could be doing all sorts of things. There are plenty of examples where people have believed in things strongly without them being true, the same way 5 different people can witness an event and all have strikingly dissimilar recollections as to what happens. It's about perspective. This boils down to it being categorically impossible to verify claims of religion, which is why it is safe to say there isn't any empiric evidence.

Again, even if bad things happen to a Christian, that does not make God responsible for these bad things. God is able to stop them, but God also allows people to make their own mistakes. Sometimes this means that believers will be tested and have to endure suffering.

And how do we tell which is which? How do we know what's Divine intervention, and which is just chance? We don't, we can't, ergo--such occurences aren't proof of anything. Which was my point.

So can attributing things to chance or luck also work as 'alternative' explanations?

"Luck" is too supernatural for me, chance is better. But again, how do we tell the difference between divine intervention and chance? We can't, ergo, there's no proof.

Generally, praying for God to have your cancer healed, and having God heal your cancer plays a role in attributing the act to God. In my own life, I've had some of my prayers answered.

And how do you know that, had you hadn't prayed, you wouldn't have also had the same occurances? How do you know your prayers being answered wasn't due just to chance? What about all those prayers that didn't get answered? What about other people who have had "blessings" without praying? What about all those people who haven't had any of their prayers answered?

Once again, until you can show a quantifiable difference in such occurences between believers and non-believers, there is no evidence of anything other than chance. Anything else is simply faith.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by CyberShy

Pretty easy. Divine intervention would be something wherein the hand of a deity was the only possible explanation for an occurence.

The jewish people are the only people who got after 2000 years their country back, as being forseen by biblical prophets.

The entire thing that is happening in the middle east shows the truth of the Bible and for that reason the existance of the Biblical God.

To prove that God does not exist: Just destroy israel and all jews. It's as easy as that.

And for that reason it's not strange that that has been tried for 2000 years, and so far, in a miraculous way, it never worked.

And one doesn't have to be a prophet to forsee that more and more people will hate israel, and want to destroy it.

Patent nonsense. There is no way of knowing that, if God doesn't exist, things wouldn't have turned out just the same.

What about the multitude of prophecies that weren't fulfilled or were flat out wrong? You can't just take one prophecy that appears to have been fulfilled and use that as a kind of evidence, because unless ALL the prophecies get fulfilled, it proves nothing. It's just speculating about something that could be a result of chance.

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by CyberShy

Any Religion = Obey these tenets and you won't end up being just a rotting corpse.

No, christianity is: believe that Jesus Christ is God and love all mankind.

.......and you get enternal life