Evidence for God (2 Viewers)

[IowaSaintsFan]

Those cute little loopy tidbits of nothing entertain some people and can even illicit some retarTed conversational retorts.

If there is no creator, then why is there nothing instead of something? What is nothing? Is nothing the absence of something or is nothing, in and of itself, something. Or, is all of this just linguistic break dancing?

You just gave a philosophical reply to a scientific question. My question was straightforward. Your answer was not. Don't try to minimize the validity of the question by calling it "cute" or using the term "retarTed" in your reply. I have seen it so many times: Atheists/Agnostics trying to paint the creationism worldview and it's proponents as uneducated or trite--resorting to personal attacks instead of just following the evidence wherever it leads. Hopefully a reasonable and sincere person can see through what they're doing. But it's fine if you can't answer the question. It only proves my point.

 

[LSSpam]

The fundamental implied assumption made in that entire argument is that God was incapable of violating/altering the laws of Physics in any such way and still have a universe conducive to life.

Which is simply outright wrong logic. If God is omniscent and omnipresent, which all Christians assert, then he could have, in fact, arranged the universe in any such way as he wanted. The question then, for Christians, is not "how could a universe so precisely set be anything but evidence of God" but rather "why would God choose to precisely set the universe in such a manner?".

The incredibly expansive, tenuously balanced universe is not evidence of intelligent design, it is, actually, evidence of the lack of intelligent design.

 

[Brennan77]

From an academic/philosophical stand point, I think it's very difficult to make absolute statements in this regard. One can honestly argue for and against God. In one's heart, I think there comes a decision, a leap of faith in either direction. This will no doubt upset the resident atheists. But it's my opinion that atheism is as much a statement of belief as is an affirmation of God. One cannot disprove God anymore than he can prove Him by the same standards. Just my opinion.

 

[The Unrest Cure]

So, I guess if you call that "faith" then you might be right by definition, but I don't think any theist is talking about that process of thinking when he says he believes by faith. By faith, I think a theist means that they don't require any evidence or proof other than what they feel and know in their hearts and minds. And, there is nothing that I believe in relation to science, or anything else for that matter, that I believe only because I feel it in my heart (whatever that means) or mind.

How do you define "faith"?

Faith: confidence or trust in a person or thing (sourced from Dictionary.com)

There are many definitions for faith, some of which are limiting and some of which are all-encompassing. I think the above definition summarizes it pretty well. Faith can be based either upon proof, or upon a lack of proof.

The primary difference I can see in your belief in quantum physics etc. and my belief in God is that you believe your stance to be "probably correct" while I believe mine to be absolutely correct. You have more people that agree with you, to be sure. Of course, what is in my "heart" is entirely inaccessible to another, so there is no surprise there. Belief should engender confidence. What is worse: believing in something you anticipate to be disproven, or believing in something that cannot be proven? Because that appears to be the pet peeve you drive home.

Of course, that asks a question that science isn't interested in. Science deals only with the natural world and the machinations of that world. Religion deals with attitudes, human behavior, and the nature of being. There is room for both in the human mind, even if one prefers there not to be.

 

[LSSpam]

From an academic/philosophical stand point, I think it's very difficult to make absolute statements in this regard. One can honestly argue for and against God. In one's heart, I think there comes a decision, a leap of faith in either direction. This will no doubt upset the resident atheists. But it's my opinion that atheism is as much a statement of belief as is an affirmation of God. One cannot disprove God anymore than he can prove Him by the same standards. Just my opinion.

The ultimate origin of existence is beyond human scope, so far as we can tell, yes. We can continue to push the existence point further and further back, but there is always an origin point that is likely to remain outside our scope of empirical knowledge.

Ergo metaphysical answers, including the existence of a supreme being always have some validity. If you water it down enough, the existence of a "creator" cannot, and likely never will be, disproved.

However that the aforementioned "creator/supreme being" is as defined by Christian tradition is very, very much up for rational debate.

 

[dtc]

You just gave a philosophical reply to a scientific question. My question was straightforward. Your answer was not. Don't try to minimize the validity of the question by calling it "cute" or using the term "retarTed" in your reply. I have seen it so many times: Atheists/Agnostics trying to paint the creationism worldview and it's proponents as uneducated or trite--resorting to personal attacks instead of just following the evidence wherever it leads. Hopefully a reasonable and sincere person can see through what they're doing. But it's fine if you can't answer the question. It only proves my point.

Well, that was a swing and a miss. And, btw, the characterization of nothing as something, in and of itself, vs the absence of something is hardly philosophical.

Anyway, I was enjoying Loopyness.

 

[LSSpam]

One popular question I have heard posed to Atheists is:

"If there is no intelligent creator, then why is there something rather than nothing?"

If you can't answer that question, you're probably more of an Agnostic than an Atheist, and in my mind, a step in the right direction.

The question I have to flip around though is "what makes you so sure it's the Christian god as defined by the bible?"

 

[LSSpam]

Does it not bother any of the christians here that, in all likelyhood, if they had been born in, say, Saudi Arabia, they would almost certainly be Muslim? Like conservative Muslim no less. Or India, likely Hindu.

In essence, logically, your religion is a question of time and space, not faith. Let's not lie. However much faith you may have now, that's a function of being born into a Christian tradition. And were you born in a Muslim, Hindu, etc tradition you would almost certainly have just as much "faith" in those respective religions as you do now.

 

[Charlie Brizzown]

One cannot disprove God anymore than he can prove Him by the same standards.

No one can disprove the existence of any god or any other mythical character, even if the person who made him up admitted to making him up. There is still a possibility that he exists.

But any god could always prove his own existence. Just show himself to the entire world, even to people who previously denied his existence. Walk on water, walk through walls, turn water into wine, bring a person back from the dead, snap his fingers and cause the entire world to flood, snap his fingers to give a blind man back his sight.

I can see why some people are convinced there is a higher being who created the universe, I don't fault anyone for that belief. I just don't see why people believe in specific gods described in the Bible, Quran or other popular religions of our time.

 

[Charlie Brizzown]

Does it not bother any of the christians here that, in all likelyhood, if they had been born in, say, Saudi Arabia, they would almost certainly be Muslim? Like conservative Muslim no less. Or India, likely Hindu.

In essence, logically, your religion is a question of time and space, not faith. Let's not lie. However much faith you may have now, that's a function of being born into a Christian tradition. And were you born in a Muslim, Hindu, etc tradition you would almost certainly have just as much "faith" in those respective religions as you do now.

Amen.

Most people's god is the one their parents told them about. Of course there are exceptions.

 

[Taurus]

I'm not sure what the importance of that question is? I mean the answer is basically "because things do exist." The reason "why" they exist isn't really relevant to anyone other than a theist. From a philosophical point of view if they didn't, we wouldn't exist and there would be no one to even ask the question. Beyond that, we know that matter can neither be created or destroyed so it makes sense that it has always existed and it always will.

The short answer is "Why not?"

 

[Sarcastic]

One popular question I have heard posed to Atheists is:

"If there is no intelligent creator, then why is there something rather than nothing?"

If you can't answer that question, you're probably more of an Agnostic than an Atheist, and in my mind, a step in the right direction.

The anthropic principle rears its head in every one of these discussions. I find it infuriating. The problem is the assumption that someone/thing had to create everything. Maybe everything just IS. Do you really think you understand what it means for something to BE? I don't. And I don't think you do either.

The question of whether we have an intelligent creator, and the determination of the meaning of life, are two different discussions. Science deals with everything back to a millionth of a nanosecond after the Big Bang. Before that is not a concern (to science).

So there are not only two opinions here. It seems everyone on this board either believes there is no God and nothing happens when you die, or God created everyone and everything 6,000 years ago, disguised everything to look like it came from evolution, then hid the dinosaur bones and created DNA just to trick us.

One more thing that irritates me. Agnostic does not mean you do not care if there is a God. Agnostic = lack of knowledge. It means you believe, rather sensibly, that we are not capable of understanding the divine nature of our universe. It means that I'd love to know, I just don't, and I can't. I don't try to figure out God, just like penguins don't discuss quantum physics.

EDIT: To clarify, I AM agnostic. Meaning: I believe primarily in science, but I'm open to the idea that someone or something created the laws that science and physics must abide by. There are things that we can't understand that are attributed to a god. But there are also things we DO understand, that we can prove empirically, that don't make sense in a random universe. See the Uncertainty Principle.

 

[V Chip]

You just gave a philosophical reply to a scientific question.

It's not really a scientific question. "Why" is not a scientific question when it isn't used in the sense of "what is the cause of?" as in "why did the glass break when it hit the floor?" It's being used as a philosophical "Why do we exist as opposed to not exist?" or "why do we have consciousness as opposed to not?"

And anyways, the question doesn't show agnostic/atheist vs theist (which also is incorrect and a pet peeve of mine regarding the definition of atheist and agnostic, but I'll let it go), it's just a thought exercise. Saying "because there just is; otherwise we wouldn't be here" is just as good an answer as "because of God" or "because of FSM" and shows no great understanding of theism/atheism.

I have seen it so many times: Atheists/Agnostics trying to paint the creationism worldview and it's proponents as uneducated or trite--resorting to personal attacks instead of just following the evidence wherever it leads. Hopefully a reasonable and sincere person can see through what they're doing. But it's fine if you can't answer the question. It only proves my point.

I guarantee you as many times as you have seen Atheists being rude or condescending I have seen at least ten to twenty times as many Theists doing so.

 

[antipop]

"because of FSM"

....

 

[krazy9000]

A fire breathing dragon lives in my garage...

http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm