The existence of God(serious)

[Thestickcreator]

There are many different views on the existence or non-existence of God. Who out of people such as Thomas Aquinas, William Paley and Ludwig Feuerbach. There reasons were:

Thomas Aquinas: argument: It is possible to use your reason to PROVE gods existence. The universe exists/or possibly only my mind. Everything is caused by something. So the universe must have been caused by something. Whatever caused the universe must have been caused by something.
But it doesn't make sense to go on asking "what caused that?" for ever. There must have been a "first cause". This first cause must have been God.

Possible replies to Aquinas: You decide!

Ludwig Feuerbach: Argument: It is possible to disprove gods existence, by explaining why people really believe in god. It is difficult for human beings to be happy. Our lives often make us anxious and afraid. We need the idea of God to reassure ourselves that everything will be all right. So our imagination helps us to invent a God to believe in. "What a man is in need of he makes his god."
We imagine this God to have certain charachteristics, based on our own wishes:perfect goodness, perfect intelligence, and so on. "What a man wishes to be he makes his God." The human imagination works like a projector in a cineman: it "projcts" a picture of God from inside our minds, and then convinces itself that God really exists "out there."

Possible reply to Feuerbach: You decide!

William Paley:Argument: William used a comparison to try to show that God must exist. He compared the universe to a watch.
Watch Universe
complicated complicated
many parts working together
seems to have a purpose obviously designed and made by mind.

Possible reply to Paley: You decide!

What a man is in need of he makes his god"

[Thestickcreator]

Can someone reply please

[distantgamer]

Reply to Aquinas: My does God have to be the first cause? Surely something as powerful and complicated as God would need to be "caused" by somthing himself?

Reply to Feuerbach: Though I don't agree that is possible to disprove Gods existance I do agree with the rest of the argument.

Reply to Paley: If the universe is so complicated that it had to be designed, then the mind that designed it must be even more complicated and therefore must of been designed. That is why the first cause argument fails.

[bluedemonspeedracer]

At 11/4/07 06:19 AM, Thestickcreator wrote: Can someone reply please

Well science technically is an agnostic practice, usually when you discuss mysterious and obscure feilds of science such as quantum theory, astronomy, and reletivity some phenomenas of nature can plausibly be described as a work involving god. aka What happend before The Big Bang? Just before scientists can come to such radical conclusions stating that god exists they have to first rule out all other options.

[Thestickcreator]

I believe that an argument towards Aquinas would be that even if there does have to be a "first cause", why does that have to be god (omnipotent, perfectly good, etc)? The universe might have been caused by quite a different kind of being, or by a group of beings working together.

For Feueurbach I would argue that even if it is true that we make use of our imagination to create an idea of god, this does not prove that god isNOT REAL. It is possible for something to exist in my imagination, and also to exist in the real world- e.g. The dog I would really like to have.

I think William Paleys idea was reasonable but there are more negative answers since none of this actually peoves that God exists fully.

[Thestickcreator]

It seems to be clear that although some of you have made contributions to my forum that loads of people are going to view this forum but only the intellectual are able to reply. So if you think you understand what I'm trying to say could you express your views on the existence of God

[Brick-top]

lol I tried to disprove the existience of God in one of my old blog posts.

I realised, just keep your mouth shut because people are happy believing whatever they want to.

[Tibyrius]

I believe in a mixture of both the big bang theory, intelligent design, and evolution.
God, an intelligent singular being created the earth through the big bang, the six days of creation yadda yadda, makes man a beast ( however seperate from apes) like any other animal however decides to give it soul, reason and emotion. I could go on but I don't feel like it.

Sounds kinda like scientology in way though i'll admit.

[bitium-ribbon]

I call myself religiously apathetic. I am agnostic enough to be unsure of whether a God exists, and I am atheist enough, basically, not to care.

What I do believe is that if there is a God, many people are trying to reach him in the wrong way. Basically the teachings of God - as they are written and accepted in most Christian and Muslim circles - revolve around just being good people. I also believe that if I were God and had created everything on the planet, I would want to watch them grow and prosper, as opposed to saying thank you all the time and asking for favours.

But my base view beyond religious apathy is that I have no problem with spirituality, but organized religion has a lot to answer for.

[Shaggytheclown17]

Hmmm, I for one most definitely believe in god.
Because everything that has happened in my life i feel are the stepping stones to who I am today, n I thank him great fully for that 8)

But of course, those who do not believe in "a God", most of those people who were not born into it are angry about something that happened to them n they question if god existed, why would he let such bad things happen? My theory to that is he cant help us, if you were god and you wanted to find out which of your creations held the most faith, what would you do?
God tests us, and its not Gods fault if you fail.

In closing I believe those who don't believe and do crimes against the law, better fucking hope there is no God.

[Thestickcreator]

If you want my opinion, I'd probably most agree with Ludwig Feuerbachs idea for using our imagination to create this so called GOD. But such a question cannot be expressed in just one minor poll. The fact is that whatever you believe is the answer to the GOD question, there is always going to be a counter-argument.

By the way, I've constructed some KEY WORDS which may help people understand the ideas more. For Aquinas: Universe, Cause, First Cause and Reason.
For Feuerbach:Need, Wish, imagination and projection. and
for Paley: Comparison, design, mind and purpose.

[200monkeys]

At 11/4/07 12:41 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote:
But of course, those who do not believe in "a God", most of those people who were not born into it are angry about something that happened to them n they question if god existed, why would he let such bad things happen?

Thanks very much Mr. Generalization. It's obviously not the blatant lack of ANY evidence whatsoever, or the contradictions of many religions, it's cause we're angrryyy. RAWR!

:My theory to that is he cant help us, if you were god and you wanted to find out which of your creations
held the most faith, what would you do?

And to that I respond, if I was an all knowing and all powerful god, why would I need to test people to know who was the most faithful? Being the all knowing biblical god, I'd already know the answer.

God tests us, and its not Gods fault if you fail.

If he created us imperfectly, it damn well is his fault. He could have created us without the ability to not believe in him.

In closing I believe those who don't believe and do crimes against the law, better fucking hope there is no God.

In closing, I think I'll once again return your words to you:

"I believe those who believe in god better fucking hope they're praying to the right one!"

[Tibyrius]

The omnipotence paradox.

Maybe he wants us to help and improve our selfs first, I'd rather be flawed than perfect its not very appealing to me actually.

Although this may seem like a contradiction to the omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience side of god, maybe his precongitive
attributes is limited and any certain action changes the event during that duration thus creating a new path of precongitive events which is unlimited due to the " Free will" theory.

Basically, he knows everything you do in advance however, you can change it however you create another path of events in which he already knows etc...

[200monkeys]

At 11/5/07 01:21 AM, Tibyrius wrote:

Maybe he wants us to help and improve our selfs first, I'd rather be flawed than perfect its not very appealing to me actually.

Being all powerful, could he not make us not needing improvement? Being perfect can't be unappealing because then it's not your perfect. Perfect is in the eye of the beholder, and I know plenty of people who would rather live in a house with a loving family than outside in a box begging for money all alone.

Not ONLY that, but also, if he would create us to help ourselves, then why does evil effect unevenly? If we were to be bettered, then why do some people feel more evils than others? Even if you're a god loving, totally happy at mind child born into a rich household in California with loving parents, you're definitely not exposed to all the evils that a god loving, not so happy child born in Africa with no parents forced to join the military at the age of 8 will be. Why test others harder if you love all things equally?

Although this may seem like a contradiction to the omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience side of god, maybe his precongitive
attributes is limited and any certain action changes the event during that duration thus creating a new path of precongitive events which is unlimited due to the " Free will" theory.

Well one, that's not the biblical god, so I suppose it's more likely than any others. I don't believe in ANY gods, but a limited one does make more sense in the grander scheme of things.

Regardless, are you sure we have free will? Every action you do is caused by something, and that something is caused by something else, and that something must be caused by something else, etc. etc.

Example: Your mom wants to take you out for ice cream. You've had ice cream before. You liked it. You are hungry. You accept eagerly.

Your mom wants to take you out for ice cream. You've had it before, but you didn't particularly like it, and you just had a hot dog. Last time you ate a hot dog and something else, you got sick. Feeling sick is bad. You don't really want ice cream now.

Now it seems like you have the choice between eating ice cream and not eating ice cream, but really it's all based on events that already occur, even if you don't realize it. Now, next time you're offered something, you may choose something based entirely off me saying you have no real choice just to disprove me saying you have no choice, but then that leads back to me trying to prove you have no choice.

It's a very grim outlook that I don't particularly like, but that doesn't mean it isn't true. Like the pessimistic outlook that every thing you do, you do for yourself. It seems selfish, but that doesn't make it any less true.

But that's beside the point...

[Shaggytheclown17]

At 11/4/07 09:52 PM, 200monkeys wrote:

Thanks very much Mr. Generalization. It's obviously not the blatant lack of ANY evidence whatsoever, or the contradictions of many religions, it's cause we're angrryyy. RAWR!

Religion is a choice not very hard to understand, people who are angry are people from different religions who say that the others are wrong, but they themselves are afraid they may be wrong.

And to that I respond, if I was an all knowing and all powerful god, why would I need to test people to know who was the most faithful? Being the all knowing biblical god, I'd already know the answer.

Well lets see, if you were to create something you thought was perfect, what would you think of it?
you'd think its perfect, but if it turned out to have flaws, you would go right back to the drawing board.

If he created us imperfectly, it damn well is his fault. He could have created us without the ability to not believe in him.

First off, he created us with free will.
Theres an easy answer to that, if you were god and you wanted to create somthing perfect, you wouldn't just create something, thats where he went wrong, he created angels who were supposedly perfect, thats how Satan and the fallen angels were made. They didnt have a choice, they went straight to hell when they stopped believing.
Thats why god created mortality, to teach us right and wrong, pain is one of thing things he teaches, love, anger, n sadness are others too.
If you wanted to create somthing perfect, you wouldnt just "BAM!" creat it, you would start from the ground up, thats what god is doing.
Read this carefully and think about it.

[200monkeys]

At 11/5/07 04:11 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote:

At 11/4/07 09:52 PM, 200monkeys wrote:

Thanks very much Mr. Generalization. It's obviously not the blatant lack of ANY evidence whatsoever, or the contradictions of many religions, it's cause we're angrryyy. RAWR!

Religion is a choice not very hard to understand, people who are angry are people from different religions who say that the others are wrong, but they themselves are afraid they may be wrong.

You seemed to miss the original poster's entire message. He said Atheists were just angry with religion because of something that had happened, which is a blatant error in any reasoning.

And to that I respond, if I was an all knowing and all powerful god, why would I need to test people to know who was the most faithful? Being the all knowing biblical god, I'd already know the answer.

Well lets see, if you were to create something you thought was perfect, what would you think of it?
you'd think its perfect, but if it turned out to have flaws, you would go right back to the drawing board.

But if he's an all knowing god, then he wouldn't be wrong.

2ndly, do you see him doing any "redrawing"? Seems like we've had suffering for all our history and have only gotten ourselves out of those situations, and STILL it goes on, in some places as bad or worse than ever.

If he created us imperfectly, it damn well is his fault. He could have created us without the ability to not believe in him.

First off, he created us with free will.
Theres an easy answer to that, if you were god and you wanted to create somthing perfect, you wouldn't just create something, thats where he went wrong, he created angels who were supposedly perfect, thats how Satan and the fallen angels were made. They didnt have a choice, they went straight to hell when they stopped believing.
Thats why god created mortality, to teach us right and wrong, pain is one of thing things he teaches, love, anger, n sadness are others too.
If you wanted to create somthing perfect, you wouldnt just "BAM!" creat it, you would start from the ground up, thats what god is doing.
Read this carefully and think about it.

First off, read my other post. I don't truly believe in free will.
Secondly, read my other post. It will provide the option of limited free will and why we have it, but still we aren't limited to the extent of helping us..
If I was an all knowing and all powerful god, I wouldn't need angels, nor would they be imperfect.
If I was creating something? Of course I would start from ground up. If an all powerful god was starting something, he wouldn't need such simple ways of doing something. He's all powerful and all knowing!
I read this carefully during responding to it, and thought about it a little, but still it seems like you're contradicting the bible to make your point, by saying he's not perfect and such.

If that's personally what you believe, cool. I'd say a majority of people say differently, but that's no professional poll, just an estimate from people I know and have spoken to.

This guy is amazing. Read his stuff...I've read about 5 of his essays, and I love them.

[Draconias]

At 11/4/07 06:04 AM, Thestickcreator wrote: Thomas Aquinas: There must have been a "first cause". This first cause must have been God.

Just as his own reasoning dictates, every cause has a prior cause. "God" is a complex phenomenon, though, arguably more complex than the Universe itself, so nothing can justify assigning (literally, violating your own reasoning) the position of First Cause to God.

Rather, the "First Cause" must be something so simple, so fundamental, that it does not exist, but simply is. In other words, eventually the First Cause reasoning must take you to the conclusion that some fundmental property of reality itself or Nothingness, as "existed" prior to the Universe is responsible for all of creation. Only a "state," not a "thing," can possibly be the First Cause, for any "thing" must have at some point become a "thing." Only a "state" is truly independent of time or creation; it is, rather than something that became.

Thomas Aquinas: Invalid Reasoning. God himself demands a Cause; he is an invalid First Cause solution.

Ludwig Feuerbach: The human imagination "projects" a picture of God from inside our minds, and then convinces itself that God really exists "out there."

Although this reasoning does not disprove any form of God, it does provide a valid alternative to the fundmental "proof" of any religion, that the God bestowed actual contact upon them at some unproveable point in time. Since religion is based on this proof of "God spoke to us, therefore he is," by providing another explanation ("You sought God, so you spoke for him") Feuerbach has gone towards "disproving" religion, not God. It is a valid point, though.

Feurbach: Valid point, but more of a "disproof of religion." Doesn't actually apply to "disproving God" at all.

William Paley: Watch Universe seems to have a purpose obviously designed and made by mind.

"Purpose" is something assigned by man, and not an inherent aspect of something. A Watch and a Waterdrop are equally predictable and capable of measuring time, but to which do you assign purpose?

(note, also, that at one time "water clocks" were used to keep time and "obviously" dripping water had a purpose)

Paley: Flawed reasoning. Purpose is something assigned by humans, not an inherent trait. Therefore, you can not say the Universe "must" have purpose or justify anything upon your assignment of purpose.

What a man is in need of he makes his god"

This one has been historically proven. See the history of Religion and the origination of various weather, fertility, etc. Gods.

[Shaggytheclown17]

Ok dude 200monkeys, I respect you for trying to get ur point across but it hasnt moved me to do anything more than make this reply, I still believe what I believe, and Im confident that Im right or at least its alot better than not believing in god at all.

[ntrokel]

All I ever need to say when this topic comes up is this: People say that god is merciful and good and kind to his people in the bible. But look around, the modern world is so filled with horrible people who get away with crimes against others. There are good people out there who suffer for no reason. Humanity is destroying itself from the inside out. If there is a god why isnt he doing anything?

[DraGoN-RaGe-9001]

Ah this question seems to pop up every where nowadays. Well I think of it this way. If god created the universe, physics, math, life, etc. then he must be a supreme being beyond our comprehension. I ponder how can simple humans who god created prove his existence or non-existence? How can we use our current knowledge and prove or disprove something like God? I mean just look how advanced a being must be to create something like the universe and we hope to figure out this being, I doubt it. So in conclusion we will not be able to prove a God or Disprove God. We only have theories with no concrete evidence. We can argue until our faces turn blue but no one will really know. I choose to live my life believing in god.

[Shaggytheclown17]

At 11/5/07 10:14 PM, ntrokel wrote: All I ever need to say when this topic comes up is this: People say that god is merciful and good and kind to his people in the bible. But look around, the modern world is so filled with horrible people who get away with crimes against others. There are good people out there who suffer for no reason. Humanity is destroying itself from the inside out. If there is a god why isnt he doing anything?

If you believe in god than you must believe that he can do nothing to us here, he cant help you physically
God made the world to test us so he can choose from the evil and the good, if you are good and your murdered, you obviously go to heaven but that person who killed you will go to hell.
They say there is no sin too big for god to forgive, so if somone killed you, and was truly sorry for it, than god would probably forgive him.
Its a question of who you are on the inside, wether living int his world turns you into a psychopathic killer, or a peaceful citizen, that is how he makes his choice i believe. You have to make the choice before he does, that the great gift we all have, we have a choice to be good or evil, and only us ourselves know deep down inside if were really sorry for somthing or not..

[ntrokel]

If you believe in god than you must believe that he can do nothing to us here, he cant help you physically
God made the world to test us so he can choose from the evil and the good, if you are good and your murdered, you obviously go to heaven but that person who killed you will go to hell.
They say there is no sin too big for god to forgive, so if somone killed you, and was truly sorry for it, than god would probably forgive him.
Its a question of who you are on the inside, wether living int his world turns you into a psychopathic killer, or a peaceful citizen, that is how he makes his choice i believe. You have to make the choice before he does, that the great gift we all have, we have a choice to be good or evil, and only us ourselves know deep down inside if were really sorry for somthing or not..

But then why in the bible and in Biblical times does god show up to the prophets and to lead his people and protect them. Was that god's 'heyday' and he could only show himself then but not now? What is so sifferetn between the jews and christians of biblical times and the jews and christians now? DO we not deserve to see god or somthing i mean really...

[Drakim]

At 11/5/07 08:23 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: Ok dude 200monkeys, I respect you for trying to get ur point across but it hasnt moved me to do anything more than make this reply, I still believe what I believe, and Im confident that Im right or at least its alot better than not believing in god at all.

What? Why? Why is beliving in God a lot better than not beliving in God?

And if you are confindent in what you belive, that must mean you have a good reason to belive. Might you want to share such a reason with us?

[SmilezRoyale]

Shaggy makes me want to be atheist. Lol.

[morefngdbs]

At 11/5/07 11:08 PM, ntrokel wrote: But then why in the bible and in Biblical times does god show up to the prophets and to lead his people and protect them. Was that god's 'heyday' and he could only show himself then but not now? What is so sifferetn between the jews and christians of biblical times and the jews and christians now? DO we not deserve to see god or somthing i mean really...

;
I think the 'reason' is probably video camera's.
That's right our ability to document something with video.
Sure any good production company can hire people to "make up anything" but that, can under closer examination be proven to be a hoax, its a movie, make him fly in post...get the green screen!
But live action news camera's etc, have a time code that is built in & it is why the images (evidence) can be used in a courtroom.

So since god didn't actually appear in a burning bush (buddy was probably suffering from halucinations)
He went forth and spewed his 'story' & the great unwashed/uneducated believes it.

Today he would have his 'vision' , grab his camera & shoot it, but when he came to , on viewing his video there wouldn't be anything there OR it would look very much like the old Big Foot footage.
Which only convinces me that a prankster ran across a clearing in a ape like suit.

Which is why big foot has never been found & god doesn't appear in front of the camera.

[Sajberhippien]

At 11/5/07 11:03 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote:

At 11/5/07 10:14 PM, ntrokel wrote:

If you believe in god than you must believe that he can do nothing to us here, he cant help you physically
God made the world to test us so he can choose from the evil and the good, if you are good and your murdered, you obviously go to heaven but that person who killed you will go to hell.
They say there is no sin too big for god to forgive, so if somone killed you, and was truly sorry for it, than god would probably forgive him.

I like it how they say that Jesus never sinned. Because according to the trinity, Jesus = God. And God does lots of stuff that would be sins if he was human. Killing and hurting tons of people for example.

Its a question of who you are on the inside, wether living int his world turns you into a psychopathic killer, or a peaceful citizen, that is how he makes his choice i believe. You have to make the choice before he does, that the great gift we all have, we have a choice to be good or evil, and only us ourselves know deep down inside if were really sorry for somthing or not..

So becoming ill prevents you from going to heaven? Psychopathia is, as you might know, a mental illness.

[200monkeys]

At 11/5/07 08:23 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: Ok dude 200monkeys, I respect you for trying to get ur point across but it hasnt moved me to do anything more than make this reply, I still believe what I believe, and Im confident that Im right or at least its alot better than not believing in god at all.

Which is why debating religion is pointless. People are still perfectly content against reasoning because it makes them feel happy singing songs in a big happy room, and feeling like praying will somehow change something.

I dunno why I debate religion...It gives me a thrill I suppose. But if you're just gonna think you're right no matter what you hear, I really don't know why YOU'RE debating it.

If you gave me solid proof of a God, or could somehow make him a believable figure, than sure I'd change my views. If there were some solid, 100% undeniable proof of god, there wouldn't be Atheists. (Well, of course the stubborn few who'd be like "LOL, THOSE FOTOS OF TEH MOON LANDINZ WER FAYK", but I'm speaking moreso for the majority).

[Drakim]

At 11/6/07 02:39 PM, 200monkeys wrote:

At 11/5/07 08:23 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: Ok dude 200monkeys, I respect you for trying to get ur point across but it hasnt moved me to do anything more than make this reply, I still believe what I believe, and Im confident that Im right or at least its alot better than not believing in god at all.

Which is why debating religion is pointless. People are still perfectly content against reasoning because it makes them feel happy singing songs in a big happy room, and feeling like praying will somehow change something.

I dunno why I debate religion...It gives me a thrill I suppose. But if you're just gonna think you're right no matter what you hear, I really don't know why YOU'RE debating it.

If you gave me solid proof of a God, or could somehow make him a believable figure, than sure I'd change my views. If there were some solid, 100% undeniable proof of god, there wouldn't be Atheists. (Well, of course the stubborn few who'd be like "LOL, THOSE FOTOS OF TEH MOON LANDINZ WER FAYK", but I'm speaking moreso for the majority).

Yeah, it's one thing that I've noticed over the years. While believers often proclaim undying belief no matter what, atheist are often quite open to changing their point of view. Atheists usually say that they don't believe in God simply because the world doesn't point towards a God, while a believer would rather say that if the world doesn't point to a God, the world must be in error.

It's funny in it's own way.

[nukechicken]

I believe in the sun because I can see the sun every damm day. And without it we would all die. But I do not worship the sun.

I do believe in a god.

www.google.com

All praise the FSM and his noodleness.

[Zackie]

Gods exists! believe...