Does God exist?

[Xero]

Simply Yes, How are we living?

Explain to me.

 

[malakadang]

Simply Yes, How are we living?

Explain to me.

There are many physiological, and biological processes that allow us to live. I'll start with we breath in oxygen, which goes to our lungs, diffuses into our blood stream, and is pumped around our body by our heart, and the oxygen (and other stuff) in the blood diffuse into the cells which, giving them energy, and allowing us to function.

 

[Noam]

I'll just build off of that and say the oxygen reacts with carbohydrates in your food to form ATP which stores and releases energy in a chemical form. Do this really fast and alot at once and you get a working body

 

[T V]

It's not an unanswerable question. When you claim a question is unanswerable, you are giving it respect from a rational point of view. You are treating an arbitrary concept with some sort of respect, and neglecting the onus of proof.

Put it this way if you clearly don't believe in Gods existence because there's no empirical evidence, logical proof, or what not, why would you ever entertain it as a feasible hypothesis? It deserves your respect no more than astrology or Scientology.Unlike God, at least for not believing in astrology, I won't necessarily have a 'bad day', or for Scientology be flooded with engrams. No, with God, I'll burn in eternal hell... unless I convert on my deathbed (depending on which flavour of God one believes in, there are many of the same God!)

you're right, though I still contend that the "ultimate truth" is beyond our knowing.

If we can keep from destroying ourselves and succeed in becoming masters of the universe through advances in science and technology, what becomes of us then? Will we become Gods ourselves, as if the concept of God was some kind of self fulfilling prophecy? (after all, weren't we "made in his image"?)

 

[ETPSales]

The word agnostic comes from "a" and "gnos". It means without knowledge. . Even the most devout followers can't truly know. Everyone is agnostic when it comes to the supernatural, whether they want to admit or not. Whether or not god exists is up to the individual. In most situations if something can't be proven or explained than it doesn't exist, but for some reason religion is an exception. The only problem I have with religion is if one tries to impose or intrude in another's beliefs or if their religion causes harm to another. Gun's are legal. Religion is legal. Using a gun for harm is wrong. Using religion for harm is just as terrible. If someone wants to take comfort in the fact that there is something higher than us, then you have no right to attempt to strip them of that belief.

 

[9th RS]

I do believe in a God, but there is no way of proving it. The concept, and imagination of God does exist, but God in itself does not.

 

[malakadang]

you're right, though I still contend that the "ultimate truth" is beyond our knowing.

Why? Logic is pretty straightforward, if the argument is valid and sound, then the conclusion MUST be the 'ultimate truth'. Since the universe is logical, and obeys the laws of logic, and since humans possess the faculty to reason with logic, we can find the ultimate truth.

If we can keep from destroying ourselves and succeed in becoming masters of the universe through advances in science and technology, what becomes of us then? Will we become Gods ourselves, as if the concept of God was some kind of self fulfilling prophecy? (after all, weren't we "made in his image"?)

Neglecting the practical impossibility of this, and the fact that we can't truly be 'masters of the universe' (existence is primary), we can never become " Gods' " in the monotheistic sense (because of the plural s). Also, God is omnipotent, which is a paradox, we can't possibly be that. God is omniscient, we can't possibly be that. God is omnipresent, we can't possibly be that. God is immutable, we can't possibly be that, and so on. You can define God as a pencil and claim he exists, and you can define God as a smart human, and say he exists. Either way, it's just semantics.

I do believe in a God, but there is no way of proving it. The concept, and imagination of God does exist, but God in itself does not.

You believe in God when you know he actually doesn't exist? Strange.

 

[Abarta]

I believe that there is an upper power, however mos of the times I'm convinced I'm an atheist, in my own eyes I cannot imagine life ending let alone "waking" back up after death and living an eternity of heaven/hell. It is all a choice but sometimes I think of it this way : If I am religious and there turns out to be no god I lose nothing if I'm religious and there is a god I get an eternity of happiness apposed to atheism if there is a god I might make it to hell.

 

[MassSeller]

I think god does exist

 

[T V]

Why? Logic is pretty straightforward, if the argument is valid and sound, then the conclusion MUST be the 'ultimate truth'. Since the universe is logical, and obeys the laws of logic, and since humans possess the faculty to reason with logic, we can find the ultimate truth.

Neglecting the practical impossibility of this, and the fact that we can't truly be 'masters of the universe' (existence is primary), we can never become " Gods' " in the monotheistic sense (because of the plural s). Also, God is omnipotent, which is a paradox, we can't possibly be that. God is omniscient, we can't possibly be that. God is omnipresent, we can't possibly be that. God is immutable, we can't possibly be that, and so on. You can define God as a pencil and claim he exists, and you can define God as a smart human, and say he exists. Either way, it's just semantics.

You say the ultimate truth is within our grasp, yet you don't believe we can obtain a mastery of the universe (thorough knowledge of it's workings, complete mapping of it's expanse, full understanding of its origin and it's fate, etc). To me that seems contradictory, as I woukd think you would need an absolute understanding of the universe to know "the ultimate truth".
Can you elaborate?

 

[malakadang]

You say the ultimate truth is within our grasp, yet you don't believe we can obtain a mastery of the universe (thorough knowledge of it's workings, complete mapping of it's expanse, full understanding of its origin and it's fate, etc). To me that seems contradictory, as I woukd think you would need an absolute understanding of the universe to know "the ultimate truth".
Can you elaborate?

By ultimate truth, with relation to God, I meant that we can find out whether God exists or not. So, we can find the 'ultimate truth' in this sense.

Also, by mastery of the universe, I thought you meant be able to control it, as opposed to knowing all there is about it. In which case, I still contest that it will never happen. While I agree we have the faculty to discover the truth, in principle, I simply do not think It can happen. Capacity does not translate to actualisation and reality.

You also wouldn't need to understand all of existence to understand a part of it. It's like saying we must understand all of the universe to understand whether atoms exist or not.

 

[T V]

By ultimate truth, with relation to God, I meant that we can find out whether God exists or not. So, we can find the 'ultimate truth' in this sense.

What would it take to disprove the existence of God then? I've seen you say a few times that God is a logical contradiction, and therefore cannot exist, however at it's essence, God (the Supreme/the Sacred) is supposed to be transcendent of our reality, so how can it be of any use to apply our logic to what is supposed to be beyond human understanding?

Also, by mastery of the universe, I thought you meant be able to control it, as opposed to knowing all there is about it. In which case, I still contest that it will never happen. While I agree we have the faculty to discover the truth, in principle, I simply do not think It can happen. Capacity does not translate to actualization and reality.

how can we have the faculty to discover the truth, not actually be capable of discovering it, and yet still know whether or not God exists, as you say we have the capacity to do?

You also wouldn't need to understand all of existence to understand a part of it. It's like saying we must understand all of the universe to understand whether atoms exist or not.

but we're looking for God here, not just atoms.

 

[malakadang]

What would it take to disprove the existence of God then?

You could use the scientific method and create some sort of null hypotheses (evidence of absence). Many theists would argue that God is unfalsifiable for whatever reason, so it's quite hard. Also, proving a negative is quite hard since most things that are logically possible.

I've seen you say a few times that God is a logical contradiction, and therefore cannot exist,

Correct, but remember this refers to an omnipotent God, which is the common permutation in the monotheistic claims of what God is (most people claim they are omnipotent).

however at it's essence, God (the Supreme/the Sacred) is supposed to be transcendent of our reality, so how can it be of any use to apply our logic to what is supposed to be beyond human understanding?

God is either bound by the laws of logic/is logical, or he is not. If he is not, then God is illogical, and he makes no sense. If people want to say they believe in things that make no sense, fine with me, I'd like to here them say it first. If people say no, God is logical, then we can discover his existence through reason in principle.

how can we have the faculty to discover the truth, not actually be capable of discovering it, and yet still know whether or not God exists, as you say we have the capacity to do?

I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Let's try this: Do you think humans have the capacity to discover whether God exists or not? Why?

but we're looking for God here, not just atoms.

Like I said, you don't need to understand everything to understand a part of it. It's a contradiction, because in order to understand everything, you must first understand all of its parts. You cannot a house without the parts that make it a house, such as a roof, the foundation, and so on. Knowledge is the same. You cannot understand everything in the universe without first knowing the parts of knowledge which go into that everything.

 

[T V]

God is either bound by the laws of logic/is logical, or he is not. If he is not, then God is illogical, and he makes no sense. If people want to say they believe in things that make no sense, fine with me, I'd like to here them say it first. If people say no, God is logical, then we can discover his existence through reason in principle.

that's right. As I said before, God's existence is beyond our undestanding

I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Let's try this: Do you think humans have the capacity to discover whether God exists or not? Why?

I was restating some of the points what you've said so far:

By ultimate truth, with relation to God, I meant that we can find out whether God exists or not. So, we can find the 'ultimate truth' in this sense.

While I agree we have the faculty to discover the truth, in principle, I simply do not think It can happen. Capacity does not translate to actualisation and reality.

And let me get this straight; You contest that we can know whether or not God exists, but we cannot comprehend the universe in its entirety. However, to me God is the universe and its entirety, and I do not believe that we as humans will ever come to fully understand it, basically for the same reason you said, "capacity does not translate to actualization and reality".
It sounds like we're arguing over two sides of the same coin, doesn't it?


But To answer your question:

if, as you say, capacity doesn't transalte into actuality, then whether or not we have the capacity to understand would be irrelevant (existence is primary right?); my assertion is that a higher order exists regardless of our individual beliefs. If that higher power is omniscient, then our discovery of it would have been forseen or planned with an intended purpose. What that purpose might be, I do not know.

Like I said, you don't need to understand everything to understand a part of it. It's a contradiction, because in order to understand everything, you must first understand all of its parts. You cannot a house without the parts that make it a house, such as a roof, the foundation, and so on. Knowledge is the same. You cannot understand everything in the universe without first knowing the parts of knowledge which go into that everything.

Right, that's what science does, isn't it? It seeks to understand nature and her parts in order to behold an understanding of the universe and reality.
Are we in agreement that we will never have a complete understanding of that reality?

 

[Issh]

Yes God does exist.

If you take for example a 'shirt'. Every shirt has a designer .. a creator.

Everywhere you look .. one can see creation, design and order.

We live in houses that did not just come to existence in a moment. An architect designed it, an engineer orderly calculated quantities and a contractor built it.

If such small things have a creator, why shouldn't our planet have a creator? Some one had to have created all the things in our universe.

Human beings are limited, God isn't.

 

[ignitiion]

Personally, i believe that God exists. I'd never be able to prove it to you, because believing in God is a faith, believing without seeing. But that's just my opinion.

 

[malakadang]

that's right. As I said before, God's existence is beyond our undestanding

God's existence is only 'beyond our understanding' if God is illogical by nature. This is a position no theist takes. Besides, if God is illogical it proves he doesn't exist. The universe is objective, and is what it is. It possesses no contradictions. An illogical entity by definition does, hence, God cannot exist in the universe.

And let me get this straight; You contest that we can know whether or not God exists, but we cannot comprehend the universe in its entirety.

In principle we can, but I just don't think it will ever happen for obvious reasons. I think I used 'can' incorrectly.

However, to me God is the universe and its entirety, and I do not believe that we as humans will ever come to fully understand it, basically for the same reason you said, "capacity does not translate to actualization and reality".

Ah, a pantheist? So, it is fair to say that you and I are Gods? The universe is existence, and we are existents. Also, capacity does not translate to actualization and reality means just because we can do something, doesn't mean we will.

It sounds like we're arguing over two sides of the same coin, doesn't it?

Not really; I'm arguing God doesn't exist, and we can know that he doesn't exist. You're arguing that God exists, and we cannot know that he doesn't exist. 2 opposites!

But To answer your question:

if, as you say, capacity doesn't transalte into actuality, then whether or not we have the capacity to understand would be irrelevant (existence is primary right?); my assertion is that a higher order exists regardless of our individual beliefs.

In this case, it would mean just because we can in principle know whether God exists or not, does not mean we will. Don't confuse it however, I believe we an know the existence of God, or rather his non-existence. Also yes, our beliefs are irrelevant to his existence.

If that higher power is omniscient, then our discovery of it would have been forseen or planned with an intended purpose. What that purpose might be, I do not know.

I take it that you think we will never understand Gods existence because he knows everything, and unless he purposefully set us on a course to know his existence, then we can never know it? Be careful, you are arguing away free-will.

Right, that's what science does, isn't it? It seeks to understand nature and her parts in order to behold an understanding of the universe and reality.
Are we in agreement that we will never have a complete understanding of that reality?

Will we ever? No. Can we, in principle yes. It's a fine distinction, but an important one.

Just because I can do something, doesn't mean I will do it. It's that simple.

Yes God does exist.

If you take for example a 'shirt'. Every shirt has a designer .. a creator.

Yes, and God created the shirt?

Everywhere you look .. one can see creation, design and order.

The universe is actually getting more and more disorderly, see entropy. Also, I do not know which human designed the ridiculously strong winds 2 days ago.

We live in houses that did not just come to existence in a moment. An architect designed it, an engineer orderly calculated quantities and a contractor built it.

Ok, man makes man-made things.

If such small things have a creator, why shouldn't our planet have a creator? Some one had to have created all the things in our universe.

There's a large difference between the metaphysical, and the man-made. Man makes a machine, he makes a house, he makes a shirt, and he makes a watch. Man does not make a volcano, he does not create rain, and nor an earthquake. Willful misinterpretation aside, these events have existed before man has existed, because they are not man-made. You are arguing a false analogy. You claim that because man-made objects are designed, that therefore metaphysical phenomenon are designed. It simply does not follow, you have not bridged that gap, you have assumed it.

In addition, AT BEST, your argument only posts the existence of a designer, not God as the best explanation. It says nothing about Gods omnipotence, omniscience, immutability, unlimited nature. Besides, if everything was designed, who created the designer? You cannot argue your induction that everything was designed, then special plead that your designer isn't without good reason.

 

[TheCheesyCheesus]

I really don't feel like saying something to start a religious uproar, but in MY opinion, no God exists. Don't get me wrong, I'm religious, but to say that God exists for a bunch of unprovable reasons seems sad to me.
I believe that religions are just beliefs created so that, well, people have something to believe IN. Something to give them hope, spark motivation, a reason to DO something.

 

[T V]

God's existence is only 'beyond our understanding' if God is illogical by nature. This is a position no theist takes. Besides, if God is illogical it proves he doesn't exist. The universe is objective, and is what it is. It possesses no contradictions. An illogical entity by definition does, hence, God cannot exist in the universe.

No no, I think you're misinterpreting what I've said; we cannot understand God completely for the same reason we cannot fully understand our universe (as I said, they are one and the same)

A different example: the uncertainty principle. It isn't of violation of the laws of physics, but at the same time it's different to how we experience reality, almost to the point of being surreal

Ah, a pantheist? So, it is fair to say that you and I are Gods? The universe is existence, and we are existents. Also, capacity does not translate to actualization and reality means just because we can do something, doesn't mean we will.

Yes, if it's fair to say your cells are concious beings.

Not really; I'm arguing God doesn't exist, and we can know that he doesn't exist. You're arguing that God exists, and we cannot know that he doesn't exist. 2 opposites!

let's say the coin itself is God's existence, the two sides are our stances as to whether we can know if he exists...well anyway, this is beside the point lol

I take it that you think we will never understand Gods existence because he knows everything, and unless he purposefully set us on a course to know his existence, then we can never know it? Be careful, you are arguing away free-will.

I'm not a big proponent of free will

Will we ever? No. Can we, in principle yes. It's a fine distinction, but an important one.

Just because I can do something, doesn't mean I will do it. It's that simple.

You're right, it makes all the difference. But what good is it to have the capacity to do something, if we're never going to do it? Without actualization, capacity seems meaningless; this somewhat applies to both of our stances.

 

[Tyro]

No no, I think you're misinterpreting what I've said; we cannot understand God completely for the same reason we cannot fully understand our universe (as I said, they are one and the same)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism
You're replacing a meaningful term (universe) with an almost meaningless one (God). It's just cowardly wordplay.

A different example: the uncertainty principle. It isn't of violation of the laws of physics, but at the same time it's different to how we experience reality, almost to the point of being surreal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)