Does God exist? (your opinion anyways.)

I say that everyone who believes in a God or any other supernatural being that is looking over us, is deranged.

Your opinion?

I wouldn't say people with a religion are deranged.

I think people developed religion to explain natural phenomena. Take the story of Saint Paul. He was riding along, when all of a sudden, he was struck down by a "divine light". From the effects, hearing an entity saying that he persecuted him, blindness, etc., it sounds like Saul was struck by lightning. The extreme trauma damaged his brain a little bit, so he imagined voices. This would also have caused his blindness. The damage to his brain probably caused him to change his ways, becoming a follower of Christianity.

Also, the Bible wasn't meant to be absolute truth. It was more of a rule book, and the idea of an entity that would punish them for wrongdoing most likely kept people from committing crimes very often.

Also, the Bible wasn't meant to be absolute truth. It was more of a rule book, and the idea of an entity that would punish them for wrongdoing most likely kept people from committing crimes very often.

I'd say that's the part of religious morality I disagree with. Selfish morality. Doing good deeds and being nice to others simply for your own personal gain in the afterlife. I don't believe in god/gods, but I try to follow the Golden Rule. "Do to others as you would prefer they do to you." I don't do it to avoid personal punishment in hell, I do it because it makes my friends and family's lives better, and that makes me happy.

EDIT:

There's actually a good Albert Einstein quote about this very subject. Was reminded of it by the lower posts.

Science, in consequence, has been accused of undermining morals—but wrongly. The ethical behavior of man is better based on sympathy, education and social relationships, and requires no support from religion. Man's plight would, indeed, be sad if he had to be kept in order through fear of punishment and hope of rewards after death.

I think its stupid that we still have religion. I respect peoples belief, but for the most part, religion stands for war and hatred over some "god" that there is no evidence for. Dont get me wrong, I dont despite you for believing in god, but just as I keep my views to myself (unless someone asks) please do the same. If you ask me: "do you believe in god?" and I respond with: "no." then saying I will go to hell its a pretty useless threat considering that I just told you that I do not share your beliefs. Although, I can have a discussion about the subject as long as people stays chill about it.

Thing is - it's impossible to know. Therefore the belief in God and belief that there is no God are equally a matter of faith.

@tuff117 - religion as in "belief in a higher being" does not in itself cause hatred and wars. Religion as in "ideology" does, just like any other ideology may do.

Regards

I think people who open their discussion by leading with "anybody who disagrees with me is deranged" should probably be punched. It's like walking up to someone and saying "Hi, I'm an unreasoning jackass."

That said, I don't believe that the question is answerable. I believe that IF such a being exists, then it is entirely unlike the tradtional depictions of human deities (who always seem to be overwhelmed by purely human concerns and emotions, like wrath and the desire to be adored).

If such a being exists, the evidence strongly suggests that it is uninterested in us as individuals, is indifferent to praise, prayers and entreaties, and has thought processes that we cannot even begin to fathom, such that no meaningful two-way communication with it is possible. It would be like ants communicating with a human - we can't get ants to understand what we want, and they can't understand what we want either. Most encounters just lead to the ants getting stepped on... if we even notice them at all.

Thing is - it's impossible to know. Therefore the belief in God and belief that there is no God are equally a matter of faith.

 

@tuff117 - religion as in "belief in a higher being" does not in itself cause hatred and wars. Religion as in "ideology" does, just like any other ideology may do.

 

Regards

Very true. I am aware of that the belief itself doesnt cause problems. But the way people choose to interpret some things does.

Just wanted to share this, and this seems like the appropriate thread. (long read, it's worth it.)

[attachment=0]Religion.jpg[/attachment]

Just wanted to share this, and this seems like the appropriate thread. (long read, it's worth it.)

lol, if that was Einstein, I respect him a lot less now. All the "student" is doing there is using wordplay and grammatical formalities to try and prove his point. The professor is right for example in saying darkness does exist. It's the lack of light. If we're in the habit of saying that items comprised of nothing don't exist, then I suppose deep space doesn't exist? How about caves?

Also, he's using some extremely dubious logic concerning evolution. Obviously none of us have witnessed directly the process of gene mutation and natural selection, but we very clearly can see these things in the fossil record, and as a result in living species. Implying there's literally no physical proof for evolution is just wrong. The "student" is once again not acting like a scientist. He's disregarding the scientific method of repeatable proof. Another example of this in the article would be inferring that the professor has no brain. Repeatable proof shows that humans have brains, and the professor is a human. Once again, the "Student" is just using wordplay as a replacement for an actual argument.

I would exort it as unwise to simply be picking fights because you wish to, Eedo Baba. Galileo, Newton, Bach, Kierkegaard, Von Braun and Wilberforce were all Christians too, you know.

I believe in God and specifically Jesus Christ his son, since it is far more reasonable and rational to presume that the observably orderly and coherent nature of the universe was created, than to presume that the observably orderly and coherent nature of the universe was abstracted randomly through absurd amounts of improbability, time and variation.

If I found a pocket watch on the side of the road, I think it is far more logical to assume "Oh, what a wonderful system that serves an interesting purpose and also looks nice too." than "What a curious chance-allocation of molecules."

I would exort it as unwise to simply be picking fights because you wish to, Eedo Baba. Galileo, Newton, Bach, Kierkegaard, Von Braun and Wilberforce were all Christians too, you know.

 

I believe in God and specifically Jesus Christ his son, since it is far more reasonable and rational to presume that the observably orderly and coherent nature of the universe was created, than to presume that the observably orderly and coherent nature of the universe was abstracted randomly through absurd amounts of improbability, time and variation.

 

If I found a pocket watch on the side of the road, I think it is far more logical to assume "Oh, what a wonderful system that serves an interesting purpose and also looks nice too." than "What a curious chance-allocation of molecules."

Not trying to pick a fight with Einstein. He was mathematically brilliant, but I had to state how ridiculous the logic in that image was. And on the subject of brilliant scientists being theists, I'd say that brainwashing our most brilliant thinkers is a mistake we're starting to correct.

Anyway, you refer to how the universe is surprisingly stable for something existing out of chance. This is a good point on it's own, but given some thought, it has it's weaknesses.

For example, let me bring forward the Anthropic Principle

The basic idea in the Anthropic Principle hinges on a concept of many universes, which the scientific community started theorizing on long ago. It states that if there are many many universes (perhaps infinite) with different laws of physics, then we, as conscious living beings, logically need to exist in a universe capable of creating and supporting such life. It's a hard idea to wrap your head around, but it makes sense in a way. A conscious being can't exist in a universe incapable of creating one, so the event of conscious observance (life) would be limited to stable, organized universes.

The same can be said for your watch example. The watch exists in this world because there are humans around to create it, just as life exists in this universe because the laws of physics conform to it's needs.

(There's also the fact that the universe isn't perfectly stable either. There are millions of things ready to kill us in this universe. Earthquakes, sunspots, galaxies colliding, flooding, tornadoes, asteroids... I'd say that's an argument that supports a natural system more susceptible to an imperfect-yet-stable universe, like the Anthropic Principle.)

PS: Once again, not trying to start a fight, I just like a good debate, and this thread is young enough that it hasn't devolved into a screaming match.

I say that everyone who believes in a God or any other supernatural being that is looking over us, is deranged.

Your opinion?

Way to start off the thread there.

Just wanted to share this, and this seems like the appropriate thread. (long read, it's worth it.)

 

lol, if that was Einstein, I respect him a lot less now. All the "student" is doing there is using wordplay and grammatical formalities to try and prove his point. The professor is right for example in saying darkness does exist. It's the lack of light. If we're in the habit of saying that items comprised of nothing don't exist, then I suppose deep space doesn't exist? How about caves?

 

Also, he's using some extremely dubious logic concerning evolution. Obviously none of us have witnessed directly the process of gene mutation and natural selection, but we very clearly can see these things in the fossil record, and as a result in living species. Implying there's literally no physical proof for evolution is just wrong. The "student" is once again not acting like a scientist. He's disregarding the scientific method of repeatable proof. Another example of this in the article would be inferring that the professor has no brain. Repeatable proof shows that humans have brains, and the professor is a human. Once again, the "Student" is just using wordplay as a replacement for an actual argument.

Einstein was only using the professor's argument against him.

Just wanted to share this, and this seems like the appropriate thread. (long read, it's worth it.)

 

lol, if that was Einstein, I respect him a lot less now. All the "student" is doing there is using wordplay and grammatical formalities to try and prove his point. The professor is right for example in saying darkness does exist. It's the lack of light. If we're in the habit of saying that items comprised of nothing don't exist, then I suppose deep space doesn't exist? How about caves?

 

Also, he's using some extremely dubious logic concerning evolution. Obviously none of us have witnessed directly the process of gene mutation and natural selection, but we very clearly can see these things in the fossil record, and as a result in living species. Implying there's literally no physical proof for evolution is just wrong. The "student" is once again not acting like a scientist. He's disregarding the scientific method of repeatable proof. Another example of this in the article would be inferring that the professor has no brain. Repeatable proof shows that humans have brains, and the professor is a human. Once again, the "Student" is just using wordplay as a replacement for an actual argument.

 

Einstein was only using the professor's argument against him.

Well, the professor's argument makes actual sense. You can't see physical proof of god. The student named several things that either exist as the lack of another object or you can see physical proof of.

Either way, the whole exchange seems very fabricated regardless. For example, who would have been transcribing this conversation? And why are there prose-ish embellishments like "pin drop silence"?

Einstein was only using the professor's argument against him.

Urban legend alert

Regards

Einstein was only using the professor's argument against him.

 

Urban legend alert

 

Regards

Yes, it's a lie. Einstein never did that.

http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp

Nor would the man that said the following ever have made such vapid observations as the "student" above.

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)

Christians should stop telling easily debunkable lies about famous scientists. (The lie about Darwin's deathbed recanting of his theories is bad enough.) It just makes you look even more bitter and whiny.

"Everyone who believes in a God or any other supernatural being that is looking over us, is deranged." "Christians should stop telling easily debunkable lies." (yes, there was some more context... I'm not very good at nuances : P)

I wonder whether this discussion will actually lead somewhere. It's not exactly new that the existence of God can neither be proved nor be debunked; that's why it's called faith. I don't think (as someone who is not religious) that someone who believes in a god is more or less stupid/deranged/mentally ill or whatever than someone who does not. I think that all of us know only so much; for most of what we 'know' we have to depend on faith as much as anyone.

A friend of an opinion closer to the ones cited above once told me, very upset, about the view of some religious people that science is just another religion. Though I am fully aware that there are many arguments against that, and a much more nuanced explanation is necessary, I like that way of looking at the world. In the end, we have to decide for ourselves in what way we should look at and understand the world.

I would say God exists - depending on your definition of God. Or, for you really stubborn atheists out there, God does NOT exist, depending on your definition of him.

I don't think so....the creation of "gods" in peoples minds are just things to try and escape from their life with

My opinion is that there could be a higher being, but it is highly doubtable. Look at Genesis. God comes out of nowhere and magically make things out of nothing. And isn't magic frowned upon in Christisanity? How did God get there? He couldn't have made himself. Now the Big Bang isn't any better. No random collection of gasses that couldnmt have existed yet can come together and create the universe. Apologies for grammer errors, I'm on my phone.

God doesn't magically come out of nowhere. He has existed forever. Which logically doesn't make much more sense to me. But the very nature of god, and infinity, isn't really possible for humans to comprehend. At least that's my understanding.

Even though it's been said to the point of monotony, you cannot prove or disprove the existence of an omnipotent being, there's very little real point in debating it. Although organized religion is another story, but that doesn't lead to anything good.

My lack of faith in god is probably due to my view of Occam's razor and because I don't really want to get up on Sundays. Perhaps sleeping in on Sundays isn't worth going to hell, but I'll cross that road if I come to it. Pascal's Wager is also interesting, but following that logic would mean going to church, and forcing myself to believe in something I don't. Meh.