The Existence of God

What religion are you, Habibi?

 

If we boarded the ship and found nobody there, and discovered the precise mechanism by which it was able to go back and forth without stopping, then yes, I would believe it. It would be very strange if I didn't.

 

I think if we can make air crafts that can do an unmanned recon mission there could be a ship that could travel without people aboard. This doesn't really seem to have any bearing on the existance or non-existence of a god though. By the way I am an avid disbeliever of the idea of a god watching over the earth like some kind of junior high ant farm experiment. The idea is very ridiculous.

 

I do believe in God.

I always think about

"God helps them who helps themselves"

Which i believe is true. If you whine and bitch to him about every problem, why would anyone want to help you?

 

And Albert Einstein said the atom bomb could not be completed... I think we all know how that turned out.

 

Both are essentially empirical, but from different viewpoints. One who believes in God will see all the good as a direct causation of "God". Empirical evidence is a fundamentally poor argument against religion, because the evidence is circular.

"X is comforting" implies that X may be a better alternative until "Y is proven to be true". Rationality simply means backed by reason, not neccessarily backed by truth.

 

there is no such thing as hell. Todays common perception of hell and Satan is very different from what it actually is in the bible. In the bible, Satan is merely God's worker. Read up on Job for more info. Hell not a fiery place if damnation. This idea of hell comes from Dantes Inferno. It was such a vivid book that Christians took it up.

So you see, the perception of "hell" was spawned from a man. Obviously it doesnt exist. People, like I, Believe in God because created us. Something had to start everything. That's God.

 

Haven't decided yet, pretty pathetic. Many things make me both believe and disagree.

 

Why do you believe in God?

Religion can in principle be empirical, but in practice it hardly ever is. I find that it's usually based upon "I had a vision", or "I grew up believing it".

X and Y are belief systems, though. They are things that are necessarily dependant upon evidence, not alternative actions to one another. When debating whether X/Y is true or false, the comfort level offered is simply not relevant to the discussion.

Is not hell referenced several times in the New Testament by Jesus?

Maybe something had to start everything, but how do you know that that something is your concept of God?

 

Shredderbeam you have gotten like 2k posts just from this topic. You have made your point lol....

 

Hell is not referenced by Jesus at all. It is said somewhere else in the bible, but is merely termed as a place not like heaven. There is no real description.
As for God starting it all, what disproves it?
I dont know you, but have you ever given serious thought to accepting God, or will you reject him until you find proof.

 

A vision would be a source of empirical evidence, though not neccessarily a source of GOOD evidence. I don't understand what you mean when you say that religion isn't empircal when practiced.

Of course X and Y are alternatives of each other, and mutually exclusive. To say one is true, the other must be evidently false. Discussions don't seek truth when a question is posed without a legitamate answer. The larger than life picture should be evaluated.

The question "Does God Exist?" is answered by:
a. I believe enough evidence has surfaced for me to do so
b. Not until more evidence is found

Neither of them really answer the question or will ever offer empirical evidence.

The real question of this thread is "Is the belief in God rational?"

 

New people come in every day.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080101131846AAqXnwO

Sounds like a place of pain.

What disproves it? Why would I believe in something unless it had been proven?

Visions fall under the "foundational" category, and may be a perfectly valid personal reason for believing in God - but as for empirical, they are not, for empirical requires that the evidence be testable and reproducible.

I mean that religions are generally not formed from empirical evidence.

In a thread where we are discussing whether or not God exists, truth is fairly important.

What else is there to evaluate?

Belief in God can in principle be rational, but it is generally not.

 

So only believe what you see Shredder? Accept things at face value, or do you ever delve into thought? Gl.
Your yahoo answers proves nothing- its out of context.
Also, what's the fun in living if you think that when you die its over? Wouldn't it be better to believe in life after death?

 

That's where you misunderstand. For someone religious, the fact that we exist or that the sun rises would be evidence that is both testable and reproducible.

Like I said, a lack of evidence is a poor argument against religion. Moreso, the use of circular logic is presumed.

The truth is that no one really knows. Are we done then?

When truth is obscured, the next best alternative is cause and effect. IE: What is the impact of religion on the human race?

Why not?

 

I wouldn't be here if I never delved into thought.

It's not out of context. Jesus clearly says that those who don't treat the least among us as we would treat Jesus will be thrown into fire. What else might be possibly mean?

When you hold a belief, you accept that that belief is true. You believe in it because you actually think that it is true. To believe in it because it has a comforting feature is an act of self-deception.

Yes, the sun rising or the existence of homo sapiens is certainly empirical, but a personal vision of God is not.

Why is a lack of evidence a poor argument?

What circular logic?

It cannot be known for certain, but we can certainly shade the probability either way to varying extents. Again: We are debating matters of empirical truth - truth, rather than comfort, is what is important.

I don't know, and I really don't see the significance. Either God exists, or he doesn't. Either there is enough evidence to make belief in God rational, or there isn't.

Well, look around! How many religious people are there that have rigorously evaluated their beliefs? What percentage of them merely believe because they were raised to believe?

 

I never said I beleived in God for the reason of comfort. I know there is no he'll, and I hope to live after I die, but God created us for some reason.

You seem not to be delving into this topic at all. Your arguments are extremely shallow. No proof= no god in your thinking.
Think about whee you are too. Trying to disprove Gods existence on an Internet forum...but I shouldn't talk.
I didnt come here to debate with you. Frankly, you are very repetitive. I must be too, its late here 12:25 am
Try to lighten up.
Edit: I dont think I've revealed my views for you to make such generalized assumptions about what I believe or what I dont believe in. I havent gone into specifcs.

 

Why did you ask that question, then?

I don't want to run through the entire hierarchy of logic, but suffice it to say that the basics comes before the advanced material. It's all very well and good to argue about God's essence, or whether or not his existence is necessary, but it's a waste of time if he doesn't exist in the first place. You need to start from the beginning - show that he exists, show that he's all-powerful, loving, and so on, and then you can run wild.

You didn't come to the debate forum to debate me?

I am repetitive because the arguments leveled against me are repetitive. There is no reason to re-invent the wheel, so I just use a set of standard responses.

I'm not in a bad mood or anything - this is just another logical debate with another forum member.

 

It's a poor argument because religion would argue that scientific evaluation is part of God's creation...That science is a fundamental creation of God. Thus circular logic...

Ok then, since you even bothered to mention it... what is the probability? 50%? 1%? If you can't answer the question than my point is proven, we don't know.

This isn't a question where one can be deemed more likely that the other - it's like string theory. You can make the pieces fit perfectly on both sides.

There is no emprical truth. This thread is just full of people convincing themselves that they know or don't know, which is completely arrogant. Who is to say that any particular belief is more wrong or right?

I like chocolate cake, therefore you must like chocolate cake too?

Humans aren't so simple. If I asked you, how do you feel, would you answer 50% confused, 25% happy, 10% sad, 5% tired...etc? Because God itself is a non-scientific observation, using the scientific method or evidence would be hardly relevant.

The evidence of God would vary in each indiviual, you cannot possibly disprove his existence, merely that the belief in a particular religion is unfounded. While the the CHRISTIAN God may be unreasonable, the CONCEPT of God is not.

Well, quantity. Humans are inherently rational beings, I find it peculiar that anything that is entirely without merit could've survived for so long, and in such large proportions.

 

We seem to have plenty of time to find out whether God exists or not.
There is a sense in finding God. You dont know Iif he is real or not until you try. I think you know what I mean. It would not be a waste of time at all to find out the existence of God. That's almost like not caring about the meaning of life. We must try to find answers, but not all answers can be found. Why not reinvent the wheel. I keep an open mind in debates like these.
I thought this was just a pill to say whetether God was existing or not. I'm almost sure this isn't in the debate section either.
But I do agree to your ideaology basedon logic. Logic is not always the answer. Perhaps try to argue on the side of God existing? Open your mind

By the way, how old are you? You seem to be educated.(to either freedom or shredder)

In response to freedom, Shredder raised a good point about accepting what is comforting. Millions of people may havebeen coaxed into eternal happiness because it is appealing. I'm not disagreeing, just trying my hand at Devils Advocate.