Religion.

Because there's no reason to. Me existing is not evidence that a God made it so - that would be assuming the premise is correct in the first place, which is a fallacy.

 

Why? Hmm, that's a good question, well firstable because I don't believe "some guy decide to do all of the planet and just because he wanted to create it, he created a world." I am not a high fan of God and I don't think if that's correct or not, but that's what I believe and that's what I think of God. Well I am not a 100% atheist either because I believe that there was something that nobody will know and how it happened? Nobody knows that, I can't be sure of what happened millions and millions of years ago. Nobody will describe that even if they think it's 100% sure that there was an explosion and some mutations happened. It's just my point of view and I see it that way. But i respect Christians too, if they believe in something, as long as they don't touch me , they can do whatever they please.

 

He created the whole plan as a lesson to teach us all. and with a purpose.

 

That seems utterly irrelevant, and I feel a bit like a broken record, but let me ask again: how can you actually claim to know that? What evidence-based, logical reasoning do you have?

 

Sorry, if I'm butting in, but,

That's basically what happens everytime a religious person argues an atheist or the other way around. There is no evidence. But it is honestly also reasonably difficult to accept all these theories about how things came into being like the Big Bang Theory and etc.

We analyze waves, energy, particles, and matter trying to come up with these intricate explanations. But WHAT IF there was a supernatural force? Explanation complete. No need for all that extensive thinking.

Religion is simple and easy. While it can be argued it was invented for power and control (my opinion is that it was), let's all agree religion has done some good things for humanity (ignoring radicals).

It's given people something to believe in along with being an easy way to set moral standards. Jesus Christ was verified to exist. He was probably something between a magician and a con artist in my eyes. Same goes for all others that claim there is evidence to the supernatural. There's really no proof.

 

I can ask you the same question but tergiversating the question a little bit. How can you be sure that 'God' didn't create all of this?. Even if i am not a christian these little things are those whose nobody will ever know just simply bc nobody knew what happened millions of thousands od years ago. You guys will end up arguing just bc of religions. Just believe in ehatever you guys want. Just respect eachothers religions and opinions.

 

I'm afraid that convenient explanations that we want to believe in tend to be rarely what is exhibited in reality. It was once convenient to believe the world was flat. You cannot prove or justify a hypothesis simply because you can make that hypothesis - that's self-justification and an assumption that the initial premise is correct in the first place.

I'm not saying religion hasn't done good things. It's also done a lot of awful things (and not just "radicals"). The crusades were considered a holy war, for example, in which the majority were onboard for. Scientific minds were also burnt at the stake for herecy and witchcraft at the behest of the majority.

I'm really not quite sure what you're trying to say. All I'm asking is, if someone makes a definitive claim of something, how on earth can they rationally say it is the absolute truth without a shred of evidence? It's not a rational stance at all, so I find it perplexing.

I don't think you understand what a burden of proof is. I am not the one making a claim. All I am asking for is evidence for the claim that is being made, so that that claim can be considered in a rational light. I am not claiming a God doesn't exist or didn't create the earth, however saying that hypothesis is definitely correct without evidence would require a great deal of convenient assumptions, so frankly it's a much better stance to say that I simply don't know.

There's no shame in admitting you don't know something. In fact, that's the driving force of scientific research a lot of the time. The only shame is in not changing your opinion to fit the valid evidence at the time (or the lack thereof). Everything outside of that is generally considered a story. A concept. An idea. A hypothesis. Unless it can be tested and conceivably proven or at least validated in some small way, it will only ever remain that way.

 

That basically sums up how the winning statement of this discussion.

 

Descartes states that the sole fact you are able to conceive the thought of perfection must imply such a thing exists.
It correlates to Hume's concept of Bundle Theory, the parts of every object or concept that may be derived to by thought is real and exists.
Descartes used this to prove the existence of God, referring to this "perfect being" as the one who planted the idea of perfection to begin with. If I can think of it, it must exist, or at least do its parts.
It's hard to explain without going into too much detail, but I'll give it a shot.
I have an idea of God, a perfect being.

There must be as much reality or perfection in the cause of any thing as in the effect.
This applies not only to the existence of ideas, but also to the reality of what they represent. Not only must the existence of the idea be explained, but also what it represents.

The idea of God represents something so perfect that I could not have been the cause of this idea.

Therefore, God must exist as the only possible cause of the perfection found in my idea of Him.

Check: Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica), David Hume (Essays on Empirism and Skepticism), Descartes And the Evil Deceiver.

Then again these are all theories so whatever you want to infer from this is up to you.

from an older post of mine.

 

> I can perceive of an abstract and subjective concept called perfection
> Logically I have no basis for knowing what it is
> Perfection is relative to each person's ideas and opinions
> Arbitrarily narrow down ideas to something which fits preconceived notions
> Must be God
> God exists.

Faulty logic, I'm afraid.

 

I don't think you understand what a burden of proof is. I am not the one making a claim. All I am asking for is evidence for the claim that is being made, so that that claim can be considered in a rational light. I am not claiming a God doesn't exist or didn't create the earth, however saying that hypothesis is definitely correct without evidence would require a great deal of convenient assumptions, so frankly it's a much better stance to say that I simply don't know.

There's no shame in admitting you don't know something. In fact, that's the driving force of scientific research a lot of the time. The only shame is in not changing your opinion to fit the valid evidence at the time (or the lack thereof). Everything outside of that is generally considered a story. A concept. An idea. A hypothesis. Unless it can be tested and conceivably proven or at least validated in some small way, it will only ever remain that way.[/QUOTE]

I really have no points in there nor do I have anything to say but this, you make a clear point which should be followed. I think that I couldn't agree more with you, you've demonstrated that you have some clue of what you're talking about and I think that all you've said is true. Nothing else to say but congratulations sir.

 

Perfection (referring to the philosophical definition of the term) is not arbitrary nor is it relative, which should be self implied.
Bravo, you cracked one of the seminal theories of humanities' greatest philosophers in 6 points.
Perhaps your concept of perfection refers to that of looks and achievements, however what Descartes meant was an all-knowing and incorruptible being who could seed ultimate mathematical truths and laws within our minds, which would later be corrupted by the being he called "evil deceiver; who would cause him to question the very core the reliability of anything we can perceive through the senses. (the world could very well be a lie manufactured by this deceiver).

Aquinas stated in his work "Summa Theologica", that every moving object precedes a first action to its reaction. Hence, the must be a first motor that ensued everything else in motion. (before the first molecule)
Damascene later adds that "the knowledge of God is naturally implanted in all." Therefore the existence of God is self-evident.
Further, if god's existence were to somehow be demonstrated, it could only be from His effects. But because His effects are not proportionate to Him, since He is infinite and His effects are finite being that reality in itself is confined to laws and mathematical objectivity; so between the finite and infinite there is no proportion. Therefore, since a cause cannot be demonstrated by an effect not proportionate to it, it seems that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated.

it also seems you have misunderstood the core point of this theory, which is that the sole fact that I am able to conceive the mere thought or idea of perfection inside my human and finite mind, the manifestation of this idea, or at least its parts must exist. wether or not this is a god is unknowable, however the fact that something exists "a priori" because we are able to see its effects "a posteriori" is reason for it to be something that came before everything.

just restating some existent theories by highly renowned thinkers, i agree with some points and disagree with some too.

 

I know god exist from personal experience so. I believe he exists from all of the evidence their is.

 

Personal experiences is not proof. What evidence? The ones created by man? You're just a pawn in a plan sought to aspire fear and promote order. Although this isn't a bad thing, it's creating brain dead zombies as yourself from thinking rationally.

 

What do you call rational? Braindead? Their is no such thing as a braindead zombie when your with god. Fear is a gift from god because of what could be done to you for your sins. What sounds better then being with god? Nothing. Thats the explanation right there.

 

There* you're* than*

Stop trolling.

 

LOOOOOL I'm not trolling

 

After having a look through Ouranos's many spammy posts, I have come to the conclusion he isn't trolling.

He's just genuinely fucking retarded (not talking about his views, just him).


OT: Not religious. I have no issue with religious people until they shove it in your face. Believe what you want to believe and let no one tell you otherwise. Force people to believe what you believe in and you can fuck right off. Religion is the main cause of the world conflicts. There is no tolerance for another's beliefs sadly. ISIS, the first name jumping to mind... You don't have to agree with someone else, just tolerate and respect another person's views in the same way you want your views respected.

 

Does it really matter?

You're not going to convince people if X is real and Y is false.

Religion has a purpose but it offers nothing to me and I chose not to accept it as my answer for being.

I only believe in science.

 

First of all, i really liked and admired Swan's logic.

Secondly i want to ask to the people claims that there is a god.

I'll ask question with creation theory of Islam (I was raised like that and in Turkey you kind of have to be Muslim)

So god created all creation and people. And gave a part of himself which is our concious. And even from that time he/she/it whatever it is know that if we will go to heaven or hell.

So why some people have the 'good' concious while others have 'bad' concious . This puts us in a scenario where we are actors that play the script.
God sees and knows everything , isn't this the basic logic of all religions?

So let's ask my question to the believers.
Why do you believe a god which rolled dice to send you hell or heaven from the start of creation?

P.S = If i have grammer or vocabulary mistakes, I really appreciate corrections or notifications