What would it take to prove / disprove the existence of God?

[Elok]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
This imo is essentially true as well. However I don't see where the connotation that this is a bad thing arises. Humans obviously want to know why acting in a certain way is the right thing to do. In the religious case this is to appease God, in the secular case its to appease whatever ideal is held at the top. At least here with the secular you can argue the ideals that provide the best moral system for whatever ends. The religious one is completely arbitrary and unproveable.

But, in a secular system...what's the point? God, however unproveable, is at least worth "appeasing," as you put it. Ideals are just hypothetical concepts made up by people to stir our emotions. God at least has the possibility of existence. Ideals without any ultimate grounding in reality are absolutely certain to be mass-marketed delusions.

The ends are also frequently not that great once you stop to think about them. Is there a non-sentimental reason to, say, treat animals with kindness, or preserve endangered species? Unless you feel like being self-sacrificing, which is called noble but has no tangible benefit, you stand to gain more from just diving into the rat race and fighting tooth and nail for all you can get.

[Ben Kenobi]

The point is that one would expect religion to make a difference in a persons life and regardless of religion it does not. People are both good and bad regardless of their professed belief system thus it is a moot point to tie in moral life with religiosity.

Okay, you make an observation that Christians are not perfect, in fact there are certainly better folks who are not Christians then some folks who are Christians.

However, how then do you know that religion has not had an influence on a person's life? You are comparing one person to other people, and not that one person to what he was like earlier.

Now I also have to ask what do you mean by 'making a difference?' If you expect Christians to be perfect just because they believe in Christ, then you are going to be let down. How do you expect religion to change a person's life?

[Ben Kenobi]

Just because something has always existed does not mean it will always exist. No beginning does not have to mean no end.

That's a good point, but look at it this way. If you accept that God was uncreated and has always been here, how long a period of time is that? You cannot say that if God is uncreated that he has in fact existed for a finite period of time.

Don't we all possess knowledge of good and evil because that is what original sin was all about? Partaking in the tree of life and learning the difference between good and evil?

Yes, and one of the consequences of that possession of knowledge is that we also inherit original sin. The two are part and parcel.

Holding us to original sin no matter how far removed from the orginal in descedence is like crippling us from the beginning. It's akin to blaming me for a hereditry disease my great x10 grandfather brought to the family, or alternately holding me responsible for the debts my great grandfather acquired.

Let's hold here for a moment. You are right that we are in a sense crippled, but does that excuse our sins? Suppose we said we had no choice but to sin, would that necessarily be true?

What we inherit from Adam is the desire to do sin, the fact that we are weak is a part of us as human beings. Yet we cannot be excused for the sins in which we choose to commit, for that would be unjust.

As for the payment of the debt, would a creditor excuse a debt if it has been carried down from generation to generation? You inherit the debt from his father, even as he did from his own all the way through to Adam. Would it be just for God to excuse that debt without payment?

I don't think I put that argument forward, wasn't it Tiamat? Anyways in answer, there is no difference. But from that you cannot assume the existence of God. In this example it all depends on how the person defines their where their sense of wonder is derived from. In one case the person believes its God, in the other its from the beauty, the scale, what it implies/means, alsorts. People interpret different things onto the things they see, you cannot assume the existence of a God based on these.

No, but it raises important questions. If these feelings and desires do not arise through any conceivable evolutionary advantage, why are they there? Do they have a particular purpose? I don't buy the glib analysis that we all have our own interpretation of things, there are certain things that seem to have universal appeal, they inspire similar feelings among a variety of people.

I believe the term random to be a strawman. And yes I accept evolution. I also believe that there are things about the process that science can't tell us yet but shall oneday maybe.

I'm not even talking evolution. I'm talking about things like the regularity of the Earth's orbit, distance from the sun, physical things that all have a tremendous effect on the ability of the earth to sustain life. Evolution is on top of all of this.

Very interesting question really. IMO I have nothing against personal believers, people like you who have come to believe through education on the matter and will defend your beliefs. However I object to the christianity (any religion really) that comes to affect the whole of society through politics and laws. If a law cannot be given a secular rational basis it should be no law.

And the law was established on these basis? I agree with you that the law should not pit one religion against another, but I would not go so far to say as there must be an absolute distinction between a secular, rational outlook, and between a religious outlook. If you look at Western law, you cannot get away from the contribution made by Christianity in shaping the law in the form which we see it today. I don't know if you have studied jurisprudence, but the question of how did our laws come to be the way they are, is an excellent question.

I, if I ever discover religion in a meaningful way, will act accordingly but I will never (at least never hope to) hold that other people should live as I do.

If you sincerely believe in what your religion teaches, and took great joy and comfort from your faith, why wouldn't you want others to share in that joy and comfort? It isn't bad to want what you have enjoyed to be shared by others, it is only bad when you force someone to live the same way as you do.

People should come to faith through their own search not through others coercions. At the moment of my life I have no desire to search for God as I feel it would be fruitless and I don't need it right now, maybe later, if thats the case I'll search later. This is just my own personal look on that question.

Fair enough. I didn't choose the time and place of my reckoning, in a sense it chose me. In fact, I resisted certain things for quite awhile, I can remember leaving a Catholic church in first year of university very intimidated by everything. The same friends I met there ended up playing a huge role in my life later.

This of course assumes that God shares similar characteristics with us, which would be derived from the bible wouldn't it? Made us in Gods image doesn't it say.

A very good point. The argument you are defending then is that God does not in fact love what he has made or created. Since this is God, why would he bother to make us in the first place? If he does not like what he has made, why doesn't he scrap everything and start anew?

Lastly, the vast majority of us atheists/agnostics aren't close minded, we've looked at our evidence and deduced our conclusions, the evidence we see doesn't add up to a God. And isn't that exactly what we are doing here? Asking about God.

I don't think I ever said all atheists or agnostics are close-minded.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Elok


But, in a secular system...what's the point? God, however unproveable, is at least worth "appeasing," as you put it. Ideals are just hypothetical concepts made up by people to stir our emotions. God at least has the possibility of existence. Ideals without any ultimate grounding in reality are absolutely certain to be mass-marketed delusions.

The ends are also frequently not that great once you stop to think about them. Is there a non-sentimental reason to, say, treat animals with kindness, or preserve endangered species? Unless you feel like being self-sacrificing, which is called noble but has no tangible benefit, you stand to gain more from just diving into the rat race and fighting tooth and nail for all you can get.

Bad troll, bad.

It's too obvious since you must be aware of the fact that christianity over time has been one of the major forces behind animal abuse and mass extinction of spieces.

Well, there are a slim chance that you really doesn't know and are sincere - if it is so, then I'll say that you have a lot to learn yet before talking about ethic and moral.

[Ben Kenobi]

that christianity over time has been one of the major forces behind animal abuse and mass extinction of spieces.

Oh, I suppose we were around at the time of the dinosaurs.

Puts an interesting twist on the creationist theories.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Oh, I suppose we were around at the time of the dinosaurs.

Puts an interesting twist on the creationist theories.

Ah, Ben, I'm a little dissapointed - you that are so good to quote passages of scriptures should be aware of the parts that claims that the earth and what's on in is for man to (ab)use. Plenty of christians has it fine morally and ethically with removing those paranthesis both now and in the past.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes, I'm aware of where it says in Genesis that man is given dominion over the earth. I don't see where this says that man should avoid proper stewardship.

I just find it odd to say that Christianity in just the last 2000 years is considered to be a dominant force for mass extinctions, compared to the variety of global disasters throughout history.

[Flip McWho]

Elok -

But, in a secular system...what's the point? God, however unproveable, is at least worth "appeasing," as you put it. Ideals are just hypothetical concepts made up by people to stir our emotions. God at least has the possibility of existence. Ideals without any ultimate grounding in reality are absolutely certain to be mass-marketed delusions.

The ends are also frequently not that great once you stop to think about them. Is there a non-sentimental reason to, say, treat animals with kindness, or preserve endangered species? Unless you feel like being self-sacrificing, which is called noble but has no tangible benefit, you stand to gain more from just diving into the rat race and fighting tooth and nail for all you can get.

I suppose here we need to provide for the difference between societal morals and individual morals. On a societal level the only point is to ensure that people all get along so society doesn't fall down, there need be no other point. The appealing thing about rational ideals as opposed to religious ones are that rational ones can be altered over time through debate. You can't debate the morals put forth through arbitrary (God) means. I admit that using God is a very good way for a moral system to enforce adherence but it feels like a cop out. God in the gaps of morality so to speak.

Secondly humans are sentimental animals (why this evolved - and this applies to the issue over the starry night as well - is another questin). Appealing to human sentimentality is just as valid as appealing to their sense of fear at a God. Also, consider the prisoners dilemma, more is to be gained through mutual cooperation rather than being a bastard.




BK -

If you accept that God was uncreated and has always been here, how long a period of time is that? You cannot say that if God is uncreated that he has in fact existed for a finite period of time.

Good point yourself. However it assumes time has a beginning (and hence an end). Though here you solve the issue by saying God exists outside of time, how can something die if it exists in a timeless plane. Though proving that God exists outside of time is another story. For the purposes I agree that God (as far as is defined in this thread) is eternal. Unchanging though I'll continue to debate.

Yes, and one of the consequences of that possession of knowledge is that we also inherit original sin. The two are part and parcel.

Ok, even though we didn't have the choice that Adam had? We inherit the choice by default. Rather, we inherit the knowledge by default and thus the blame (sin) as well. I get the logic I just don't accept that we should. Its kinda like blaming germans today for what hitler did just because they share the same country as a characteristic.

What we inherit from Adam is the desire to do sin, the fact that we are weak is a part of us as human beings. Yet we cannot be excused for the sins in which we choose to commit, for that would be unjust.

As for the payment of the debt, would a creditor excuse a debt if it has been carried down from generation to generation? You inherit the debt from his father, even as he did from his own all the way through to Adam. Would it be just for God to excuse that debt without payment?

Granted. However inheriting the desire to do sin does not necessarily mean we start off already fallen. That is what lumping us with original sin does, tar us from the start. You mention "sins in which we choose to commit" yet I at no point choose to commit the original sin, I obviously haven't. Sins we commit during our life time, sure punish away, but a sin we inherit simply because we share the same basic charateristic (descendence from Adam) leaves me wondering why.

No, but it raises important questions.

Aye that it does. However the answer does not have to automatically be God. This sense of wonder and the questions it raises is not an automatic proof for God.

I'm not even talking evolution. I'm talking about things like the regularity of the Earth's orbit, distance from the sun, physical things that all have a tremendous effect on the ability of the earth to sustain life. Evolution is on top of all of this.

Aye thats why I wish for the day when an alien race is discovered/discovers us. That'll put an end to the whole ID thing.

And the law was established on these basis? I agree with you that the law should not pit one religion against another, but I would not go so far to say as there must be an absolute distinction between a secular, rational outlook, and between a religious outlook. If you look at Western law, you cannot get away from the contribution made by Christianity in shaping the law in the form which we see it today. I don't know if you have studied jurisprudence, but the question of how did our laws come to be the way they are, is an excellent question.

Aye, the law is undoubtedly Christian in origin. Many of the laws however do have a rational reason behind them as well, or can be argued rationally once God is removed. I'm not arguing that the whole moral system of Christians is irrational, just that the first assumption isn't true (god existing). For example I applaud Christs message at the same time as I deny God's existence and Christs relationship to this existence. It does not, at least imo, detract from Christs message. However there are certain areas of the morality from God that doesn't make any sense and is just a cover for the fact that God doesn't like it. For example the whole gay thing.

If you sincerely believe in what your religion teaches, and took great joy and comfort from your faith, why wouldn't you want others to share in that joy and comfort? It isn't bad to want what you have enjoyed to be shared by others, it is only bad when you force someone to live the same way as you do.

The last sentence hits the nail on the head. I have nothing against you wishing to express and share that joy and comfort towards me. Just be prepared to debate about it. What I oppose is the force. Which comes when the morality is superseded into the political and legal system. For example a Christian party that will shape society in a Christian way. That is wrong, what about the people who don't believe in Christ? That, imo, is why politics and law should be rational based.

A very good point. The argument you are defending then is that God does not in fact love what he has made or created. Since this is God, why would he bother to make us in the first place? If he does not like what he has made, why doesn't he scrap everything and start anew?

A good comeback, however, it falls down in only one spot. It assumes God exists from the outset. If I assume God doesn't exist then God didn't bother to make us in the first place and there is no God to scrap everything and start again. You also forget about the fact that God might just not care, or that we are nothing more than a sideshow for God in which he just sits back and watches.

The last bit was in reply to this:

This is the problem with relying upon miracles to work on someone who's heart is closed.

Also dinosaurs didn't exist according to creation.

Also, is there actually any example where Christianity is directly responsible for the extinction of one specie let alone a whole heap? All it gives us is a rationale as to why we are at the top of the food chain.

[Flip McWho]

Elok -

Thinking further concerning morals. You follow the road rules in your country right? Whats the point in doing that? There is no God of the Road Rules that punishes you if you err (except the police but they barely count, they aren't that effective at getting everybody who breaks). So why do you follow the road rules? God doesn't mention anything about road rules.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I wish I could stay and debate.

Q.F.T. .

[Ben Kenobi]

Good point yourself. However it assumes time has a beginning (and hence an end). Though here you solve the issue by saying God exists outside of time, how can something die if it exists in a timeless plane. Though proving that God exists outside of time is another story.

You've laid out the logical argument why God is timeless. I don't have anything more I need to add.

For the purposes I agree that God (as far as is defined in this thread) is eternal. Unchanging though I'll continue to debate.

Okay, I argue if he is omnipotent and eternal, that he would also be unchanging. He could not become greater or weaker, since that would mean that he was not omnipotent at some point in time.

I get the logic I just don't accept that we should. Its kinda like blaming germans today for what hitler did just because they share the same country as a characteristic.

Germans themselves would consider it their national shame, even though folks nowadays are not responsible for the actions committed during the second world war. Part of the reason for this is because the holocaust was not the action of one man. In terms of original sin, none of us are really seperate, we have our families that we grow up inside.

However inheriting the desire to do sin does not necessarily mean we start off already fallen. That is what lumping us with original sin does, tar us from the start. You mention "sins in which we choose to commit" yet I at no point choose to commit the original sin, I obviously haven't. Sins we commit during our life time, sure punish away, but a sin we inherit simply because we share the same basic charateristic (descendence from Adam) leaves me wondering why.

A good point. Fallen in the sense that we are not as we ought to be. It's one of the reasons why Christians say that Christ was more truly man than we are, since we are hampered and limited by original sin. We fall prey to temptations brought forth, we are tempted moreso then Adam because of this original sin.

Aye that it does. However the answer does not have to automatically be God. This sense of wonder and the questions it raises is not an automatic proof for God.

No, and nor is it meant to be. But the answers to these particular questions are evidence I think in favour of his existence, even as they are certainly not incontrovertiable.

Aye thats why I wish for the day when an alien race is discovered/discovers us. That'll put an end to the whole ID thing.

It will change so many other things as well. I'm sure after even a hundred years we would still be grappling with the consequences of the intial contact. What if the aliens themselves believe in intelligent design, and their technology is better?

However there are certain areas of the morality from God that doesn't make any sense and is just a cover for the fact that God doesn't like it. For example the whole gay thing.

I've heard arguments from natural law, that start by asking what is the purpose of sex? If one were to simply observe nature, I'm sure you would come to the conclusion that the primary purpose of sex was for reproduction.

It assumes God exists from the outset. If I assume God doesn't exist then God didn't bother to make us in the first place and there is no God to scrap everything and start again. You also forget about the fact that God might just not care, or that we are nothing more than a sideshow for God in which he just sits back and watches.

The second point is far more salient. You are right that there are three positions: first that God loves us and cares for us, secondly, that God hates us and wants us to suffer, and thirdly, that God does not care and lets us do as we please.

For the deist position, does not necessarily presume that God does not care about us, only that he refrains from intervening on the world. However, most folks would say that effectively means he does not care about us, since he will not help us with our suffering. I think the same question arises, why bother with creating a universe if one has no stake in the outcome?

[Elok]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
Elok -

Thinking further concerning morals. You follow the road rules in your country right? Whats the point in doing that? There is no God of the Road Rules that punishes you if you err (except the police but they barely count, they aren't that effective at getting everybody who breaks). So why do you follow the road rules? God doesn't mention anything about road rules.

By "road rules," do you mean traffic laws? Well, I don't drive, but I imagine I would. There'd be plenty of justification; "render unto Caesar" is usually interpreted as a directive to obey earthly rulers insofar as they do not require us to sin. Also, most of the traffic laws are around for a reason. Speeding, for example, endangers yourself and others, which is certainly a sin.

Re: Societal vs. individual morals...you're oversimplifying, I think. Most religions have a significant theological tradition which enables them to discuss the applicability of commandments to specific instances. The discussion is considerable and lively even in the most rigid fundamentalist churches. The core commandments used for argument remain the same, yes, but I don't see how exactly it's possible to start a moral system from nothing. There has to be an end value to aim at, or the idea of morality is meaningless.

God's not just the way of "enforcing adherence," He/She/It is the point holding it all together. God's the reason these systems work. Secular ethics have been going on for quite some time now (at least since the Enlightenment in the western world), and none of the systems I've encountered were at all impressive. They get more and more vague and useless with each successive generation. Just look at Moore, for crying out loud. Those gaps God is ostensibly filling in just keep getting plainer and plainer.

Sentiment alone is unreliable. All sentiments tug at us in pretty similar ways, but frequently in different directions and for different reasons. Sentiment is the reason the crackheads at PETA fly into a rage when they see people drinking milk. A different sentiment makes certain other Americans want to kill the ACLU for "hating their freedom." How do you judge which is right? Another sentiment! And why is that sentiment correct in its judgment? Yet another sentiment, or just because it says so? And just how do you distinguish genuine moral concern from avarice or selfishness combined with denial and self-righteousness?

The prisoners dilemma does not always hold true in real life. It's obviously the case that sometimes you do stand to gain immensely from being a bastard, as you put it. The group doesn't benefit, but individual humans are not the group.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Yes, I'm aware of where it says in Genesis that man is given dominion over the earth. I don't see where this says that man should avoid proper stewardship.

Didn't say that man should avoid proper stewardship, just that christians has used that part as an excuse to exploit and eradicate.

I just find it odd to say that Christianity in just the last 2000 years is considered to be a dominant force for mass extinctions, compared to the variety of global disasters throughout history.

Tsk tsk. The subject is human extinctions, so I find it odd that you drag natures extinctions into the debate.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Japher
The real question oughta be; which way would you rather err?

Pascal's Wager is a silly reason to belief. It's like buying insurance. If I were god I certainly wouldn't be happy about this.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by CyberShy
Can you name such a miracle that would really make everyone a believer?

The old standby, a burning bush that talks to people, is as good as any.

As long as we can verify that there aren't any hidden gadgets in the bush afterwards. If the bush remains intact, that will be more impressive.