Does God exist or not exist?

[immortal]

With all of the diverse testimonies from the ancients to present about the various beliefs in a god into the modern era, it would seem neive to ignorea strong probablity, at the very least, that their is the existence of a supernatural realm of some kind and therefore a presence of some sort or sort of deistic beings humankind has learned to refer to as a god.

 

To ignore such a unbiquious extent and duration of such beliefs, purporteded dialogs, experiences and the enormous force of its influence throughout cultures on every continent of the world that were once entirely once enitriely culturally isolated form one anothe, would be tandamount to burying ones head in the sand. Lets face it folks, the universal belief in a god has always been there. That discount to avoid the need for a basic investigation into the subject would be similar to denouncing that the sun has risen daily since at least the beginning of recorded astronomical observation.

 

I agree, there are things in all the ancient religions of the world which cannot be dismissed so easily and it deserves an explanation and also a serious investigation something which both the scientific community and many of the scholars in the field really don't take it seriously.

[John Cuthber]

When I was at school, if 2 kids got the same wrong answer it was assumed that they were copying.

 

 

http://lolwtfcomics.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/christians-y-u-not-at-least-original.html

(It's not, of course, totally accurate, but it illustrates the point.)

[immortal]

When I was at school, if 2 kids got the same wrong answer it was assumed that they were copying.

 

 

Sometimes our assumptions can be wrong too, it might be that there is something wrong with our perception of reality just as there might be something wrong in our education system for kids making the same mistakes quite often.

[John Cuthber]

Perhaps, but it would be silly to assume that they were both "Inspired by the supreme being" without looking at the idea that they cheated.

[adam1]

If the "power of prayer" is actually real, then it is part of the nature that God (if He exists) created.

It is, therefore perfectly open to exploration by experiment.

The experiment was done.

It failed to show any effect.

 

This shows that the power of prayer is either small (i.e. below the detection limit of the experiment) or non-existent.

 

So praying is either pointless or nearly pointless.

 

Prayer, of course, is not a phenomenon of nature. It is a willful engagement of humankind directed at being that transcends the physical, empirically measurable elements and natuarlly derived processes of the physical universe.

 

The function of prayer, therefore, falls outside of the bounds of the criteia of the strict Scientific Method which applies to empirically measurable phenomenon and events ONLY. It is, therefore, beyond the criteria set forth by the sceintific community and their accepted forms of experimentation.

[Greg H.]

Prayer, of course, is not a phenomenon of nature. It is a willful engagement of humankind directed at being that transcends the physical, empirically measurable elements and natuarlly derived processes of the physical universe.

 

The function of prayer, therefore, falls outside of the bounds of the criteia of the strict Scientific Method which applies to empirically measurable phenomenon and events ONLY. It is, therefore, beyond the criteria set forth by the sceintific community and their accepted forms of experimentation.

 

In other words, it's all woo - and any "evidence" is a load of horse droppings.

[adam1]

I agree, there are things in all the ancient religions of the world which cannot be dismissed so easily and it deserves an explanation and also a serious investigation something which both the scientific community and many of the scholars in the field really don't take it seriously.

 

As you probably know, the scientific community does not even sanction, much less consider, investigations of any kind that relate to the supernatural or to a God.

 

This seems paradoxical in the sense that they are fully aware that men like Galileo, Coperniicus and Newton, all profound men of science, carried sincere and deeply rooted beliefs in a Divine Creator and Supreme being. These are the men, who today, remain as to be lauded by science for introducing and developing methods and mathemetics that transformed scientific inquiry and the human understand of the universe forever. You would think that the scientific community would begin to be mature enough to give recognition to the reality that their is a sound compatability between the belief in a supernatural being and good science.

 

Yet they contiune to promote a disparity between science and such beliefs rather than embrace a mutual pursuit that, in the cases of the profound examples of these men, brought forth insights of the physical universe and methods of inverstigation that are, even today, of immeasurable value to all of mankind. This, to me, does not speak of a God who wants to limit man's understanding but wishes to reward his inquiry and improve his understanding.

[Greg H.]

This seems paradoxical in the sense that they are fully aware that men like Galileo, Coperniicus and Newton, all profound men of science, carried sincere and deeply rooted beliefs in a Divine Creator and Supreme being.

 

Yes, they had deeply rooted beliefs, which matter not one whit when answering the question "Why are they important?" They are lauded because of their scientific achievements, not their ability to believe in the divine.

[Phi for All]

As you probably know, the scientific community does not even sanction, much less consider, investigations of any kind that relate to the supernatural or to a God.

 

This seems paradoxical in the sense that they are fully aware that men like Galileo, Coperniicus and Newton, all profound men of science, carried sincere and deeply rooted beliefs in a Divine Creator and Supreme being. These are the men, who today, remain as to be lauded by science for introducing and developing methods and mathemetics that transformed scientific inquiry and the human understand of the universe forever. You would think that the scientific community would begin to be mature enough to give recognition to the reality that their is a sound compatability between the belief in a supernatural being and good science.

 

Yet they contiune to promote a disparity between science and such beliefs rather than embrace a mutual pursuit that, in the cases of the profound examples of these men, brought forth insights of the physical universe and methods of inverstigation that are, even today, of immeasurable value to all of mankind. This, to me, does not speak of a God who wants to limit man's understanding but wishes to reward his inquiry and improve his understanding.

Science is concerned with the natural world. Why is it a disparity to place no importance on the supernatural? It's like asking your auto mechanic to take a look at your flying carpet.

 

As far as past great scientists go, they helped to add layers of knowledge to science, and as gaps in our knowledge are filled, God is displaced as unnecessary. We can't know what Galileo et al would think about God if they were alive today with all our accumulated knowledge, but I would wager that the roots of their belief in the supernatural would be less deep.

 

Ultimately, since science is the wrong tool to use on the supernatural, the question of whether God exists or not can only be answered, "There's no rational way to know." There is no compatibility between science and religion.

[Moontanman]

Science is concerned with the natural world. Why is it a disparity to place no importance on the supernatural? It's like asking your auto mechanic to take a look at your flying carpet.

 

I'm going to have to disagree, while science can't investigate with out gods cooperation it's also true that some gods are famous for doing things that science could test as evidence.

 

Stopping the sun in the sky would be a neat trick and quite convincing. Imagine some evangelical preacher who announces that his God is going to swamp the orbit of Mars and Venus to make them more habitable, he gives the time and date and it happens... yeah Yahweh!!!

 

As far as past great scientists go, they helped to add layers of knowledge to science, and as gaps in our knowledge are filled, God is displaced as unnecessary. We can't know what Galileo et al would think about God if they were alive today with all our accumulated knowledge, but I would wager that the roots of their belief in the supernatural would be less deep.

 

I think this is very true, at the time of those men not believing or at least not professing to believe was not a viable option...

 

Ultimately, since science is the wrong tool to use on the supernatural, the question of whether God exists or not can only be answered, "There's no rational way to know." There is no compatibility between science and religion.

 

If god exists and he can and does affect the natural world wouldn't his intervention be obvious? If the test for prayer had shown unequivocally, that prayer works if you pray to the right god wouldn't that have been very telling?

[adam1]

Science is concerned with the natural world. Why is it a disparity to place no importance on the supernatural? It's like asking your auto mechanic to take a look at your flying carpet.

 

As far as past great scientists go, they helped to add layers of knowledge to science, and as gaps in our knowledge are filled, God is displaced as unnecessary. We can't know what Galileo et al would think about God if they were alive today with all our accumulated knowledge, but I would wager that the roots of their belief in the supernatural would be less deep.

 

Ultimately, since science is the wrong tool to use on the supernatural, the question of whether God exists or not can only be answered, "There's no rational way to know." There is no compatibility between science and religion.

 

If you look at the empirical, measurable evidence that historically remains as a result of these three men of science I'm certain that, as person who apprears to trust in and rely on evidence, you will reconsider your conclusion that there is no compatibility between science and one's spiritual beliefs.

 

As you may know, science is as much an intuitive inquiry, whose conclusion are then subjected to empirical testing, as it is an exercise in reason and logic. It would seem a grevious error to discount, and even detach, the influencing factors and giudance that are invoved in the based investigation of ones life in nearly every realm of existence. Man is far from a simple automaton functioning rawly on logistical proofs. To then attempt to negate such intuitive influences or propose a conclusion of having no relevant means in the life work of these universally proclaimed, profoundly insightful champions of science would be either entirely naive or an intensional aviodance.

 

It can unquestuionably be said that each of these giants of science found a distinct compatibility between their SPIRITUAL beliefs and science. It was, unfortuately, a particular RELIGIOUS entirprize that took issue with the findings of Galileo and Copernicus. The God of these champions, however, seemed to have no problem with either their inquiry or conclusions.

 

I think you may agree that there can be a massive and distinct difference between the human pursuit of institutional religion and a genuine pursuit of God. Their testimonies indicate that these men pursued God. The unfortunate conditions of their day dictated they do that within the limits of a system that was then fouled within its own corruption.

Edited July 19, 2012 by adam1

[Phi for All]

I'm going to have to disagree, while science can't investigate with out gods cooperation it's also true that some gods are famous for doing things that science could test as evidence.

 

Stopping the sun in the sky would be a neat trick and quite convincing. Imagine some evangelical preacher who announces that his God is going to swamp the orbit of Mars and Venus to make them more habitable, he gives the time and date and it happens... yeah Yahweh!!!

The thread is about existence, not actionable demonstrations. AFAIK, none of the gods is willing to be directly observed, and anything claimed to have been done by them is more rationally attributable within the framework of the natural universe.

 

If you look at the empirical, measurable evidence that historically remains as a result of these three men of science I'm certain that, as person who apprears to trust in and rely on evidence, you will reconsider your conclusion that there is no compatibility between science and one's spiritual beliefs.

 

As you may know, science is as much an intuitive inquiry, whose conclusion are then subjected to empirical testing, as it is an exercise in reason and logic. It would seem a grevious error to discount, and even detach, the influencing factors and giudance that are invoved in the based investigation of ones life in nearly every realm of existence. Man is far from a simply automaton function rawly on logistical proofs. To then attempt to negate such intuitive influences or propose a conclusion of having no relevant means in the life work of these universally proclaimed, profoundly insightful champions of science would be either entirely naive or an intensional aviodance.

I'm not saying science is uninterested in the kinds of phenomena often claimed to be supernatural, or that scientists don't use intuition to aim their investigations. But the scientific method is designed to minimize the error that comes with intuitive leaps, to keep conclusions from being based on shaky grounds. When a phenomenon is explained, it becomes a part of nature, and God is squeezed out of another gap in our knowledge.

 

It can unquestuionably be said that each of these giants of science found a distinct compatibility between their SPIRITUAL beliefs and science. It was, unfortuately, a particular RELIGIOUS entirprize that took issue with the findings of Galileo and Copernicus. The God of these champions, however, seemed to have no problem with either their inquiry or conclusions.

 

I think you may agree that there can be a massive and distinct difference between the human pursuit of institutional religion and a genuine pursuit of God. Their testimonies indicate that these men pursued God. The unfortunate conditions of their day dictated they do that within the limits of a system that was then fouled within its own corruption.

You're highlighting the eccentricities of those giants of science within the framework of their own day's knowledge but claiming we should emulate them because their pursuit of God would remain unchanged today, with our present knowledge. Every generation of science gains new knowledge and drops what is unproductive. It doesn't matter what those historical figures believed spiritually back then. The bulk of their work that advances science and can be tested and used to predict further phenomena is well embraced, while the rest of it is given all the emphasis it deserves.

 

Why aren't you telling us to emulate Newton's pursuit of astrology and numerology? He was a giant of science, after all. Everything he pursued must have been valid.

[Moontanman]

The thread is about existence, not actionable demonstrations. AFAIK, none of the gods is willing to be directly observed, and anything claimed to have been done by them is more rationally attributable within the framework of the natural universe.

 

I see what you mean, and to be honest if indeed some being claiming to be god moved planets around I would still be thinking some sort of technology we can't understand...

[adam1]

Well lets try to return to the basic intent of the thread. Is there a god or not?

 

The collective evidence of overwhelming consistent beliefs in so sort of god or gods throughout the ages form diverse and once entirely disconnected and mutually isolated cultures suggest that it is a subject of ongoing pervasive magnitude among mankind. The chances of them all being wrong are extremely low. Therefore, the probabilities, in my opinion are the chances are very high...

[StringJunky]

Well lets try to return to the basic intent of the thread. Is there a god or not?

 

The collective evidence of overwhelming consistent beliefs in so sort of god or gods throughout the ages form diverse and once entirely disconnected and mutually isolated cultures suggest that it is a subject of ongoing pervasive magnitude among mankind. The chances of them all being wrong are extremely low. Therefore, the probabilities, in my opinion are the chances are very high...

 

The popularity of an idea does not increase the likelihood of it being true.

Edited July 19, 2012 by StringJunky

[Moontanman]

Well lets try to return to the basic intent of the thread. Is there a god or not?

 

The collective evidence of overwhelming consistent beliefs in so sort of god or gods throughout the ages form diverse and once entirely disconnected and mutually isolated cultures suggest that it is a subject of ongoing pervasive magnitude among mankind. The chances of them all being wrong are extremely low. Therefore, the probabilities, in my opinion are the chances are very high...

 

 

I feel very strongly the opposite is true, if there is a god and he communicates with men in any way there should be only one such god and only one book of his writings. No human author could possibly compete with such a being and he should tell every human being the same thing, all beliefs should reflect the fact there is a god... one god... all the same god but instead we see the opposite religion continuously splinters into ever more groups as humans struggle to understand what they feel must be true about god...

 

this tells me they are all most probably wrong... why would god be so obtuse that any two humans have a difficult time really defining god in a way that agrees 100% with each other?

 

I think the evidence of so many people believing so many different things about so many different gods points to it all being made up.....

[Severian]

It is fairly easy to prove that a god exists. Since religion is a personal matter I can choose to worship whatever I like. Therefore, I can choose a god that I can prove exists (for example, maybe the Sun). If you think the Sun doesn't exist, I won't try to convince you otherwise...

[iNow]

It's also fairly easy to use your logic to prove that unicorns exist. After all, you could choose to define a unicorn to be a toe nail clipping, and therefore... "See!! It exists!!!" Super approach, but it lacks any utility and merit in the real world. If that's all you've got for god(s), then you're grasping at some extremely short straws.

[immortal]

It is fairly easy to prove that a god exists. Since religion is a personal matter I can choose to worship whatever I like. Therefore, I can choose a god that I can prove exists (for example, maybe the Sun). If you think the Sun doesn't exist, I won't try to convince you otherwise...

 

If our ancients worshiped the Sun as a star in the milkway, something which we can empirically verify then religion wouldn't be a problem to science but the problem is our ancients worshiped the Sun as a deity, as an anthropomorphic God with his own pantheon, God is a person who resides inside everyone, this is where the problem lies and challenges the accepted notions of science and becomes incompatible with it having its own epistemology and methodology. If scientists doesn't want to investigate it then its fine but why make statements like "God is dead".

[adam1]

The popularity of an idea does not increase the likelihood of it being true.

 

 

It is more then mere popularity, it is continuous unbiquity... not just among the isolated ancient cultures but consistantly carrying throughout the intermediate ages and into the 'scientific' modern era. In otherwords, a massive percentage of the global population throughout the ages thoroughly believes that life consists of more than just molecules.

 

To not go beyond the physical realm to comprehend the essence of life is equivalent to essentially exist in a two dimensional reality. There is left, right, forward, backward but no up or down, no third demensional essence of life. When discussion of a third demension passes through their world it is seen simply as a flat, two dimensional line first appearing then passing through their plain of vision and vanishing. There is no perception of any dimension of depth to the subject that just passed by. The third demension is entirely imperceptable from their prespective of life.

 

So be it. One who is unwillling to consider that this third dimension of life exists will never look for it and therefore will never find it. One of the famous globally recognized spiritual founder put it this way, 'Seek and you shall find. . .' Conversely, Do not seek and you shall not find. The assurance is there which ever way you say it.

Edited July 20, 2012 by adam1

[StringJunky]

 

So be it. One who is unwillling to consider that this third dimension of life exists will never look for it and therefore will never find it. One of the famous globally recognized spiritual founder put it this way, 'Seek and you shall find. . .' Conversely, Do not seek and you shall not find. The assurance is there which ever way you say it.

 

I have no personal need for it...I'd rather find my answers based on what we know exists and work from there.... There are a few reasons for the immense uptake of religious ideas and one of those compellingly attractive reasons is the promise that life extends beyond the physical.

 

It is an idiosyncrasy of the human mind that it can construct what it wants to see...this is a pitfall of our nature that we have to be vigilant about if we want to discover nature as it really is.

 

I'd rather die knowing that I don't know the answers, but I tried, than kid myself that I do just to assuage some anxiety about the transience of my existence.

[adam1]

I have no personal need for it...I'd rather find my answers based on what we know exists and work from there.... There are a few reasons for the immense uptake of religious ideas and one of those compellingly attractive reasons is the promise that life extends beyond the physical.

 

It is an idiosyncrasy of the human mind that it can construct what it wants to see...this is a pitfall of our nature that we have to be vigilant about if we want to discover nature as it really is.

 

I'd rather die knowing that I don't know the answers, but I tried, than kid myself that I do just to assuage some anxiety about the transience of my existence.

 

'but I tried', is the most honorable and measurable statement in my opinion, that anyone can make. I appreciate your frankness and willingness to discuss these subjects. They are both, challenging, controversial and.... personal. The beauty of chioce is the exercise of the function itself. It is the one thing we all need to protect and defend more then any other. I vigilantly defend your pleasure to exercise your free choice in every matter every day. It is a pleasure to dialog with you String. Thank you

Edited July 20, 2012 by adam1

[James195101]

If it is the primal purpose of the conscious brain to search for manipulable causes of things (so that we can manipulate them for our benefit), then perhaps we should be tolerant of those concepts such as God which allow so many humans to better manipulate their lives. Why not accept God as a mental fabrication which is the cause of those things for which we do not have a conscious manipulable cause. For example, whilst Darwinian evolution is a true cause of our existence, it fails the test of personal manipulability, so that many of us only find peace of mind by supposing that God (who is somewhat manipulable through prayers etc) caused our existence.

[Severian]

If our ancients worshiped the Sun as a star in the milkway, something which we can empirically verify then religion wouldn't be a problem to science but the problem is our ancients worshiped the Sun as a deity, as an anthropomorphic God with his own pantheon, God is a person who resides inside everyone, this is where the problem lies and challenges the accepted notions of science and becomes incompatible with it having its own epistemology and methodology. If scientists doesn't want to investigate it then its fine but why make statements like "God is dead".

 

If you are going to require god to be a "person" you are going to have to define what a person is first.

[tar]

If it is the primal purpose of the conscious brain to search for manipulable causes of things (so that we can manipulate them for our benefit), then perhaps we should be tolerant of those concepts such as God which allow so many humans to better manipulate their lives. Why not accept God as a mental fabrication which is the cause of those things for which we do not have a conscious manipulable cause. For example, whilst Darwinian evolution is a true cause of our existence, it fails the test of personal manipulability, so that many of us only find peace of mind by supposing that God (who is somewhat manipulable through prayers etc) caused our existence.

 

James195101,

 

I do believe we are looking at this question "does god exist or not" from the same angle.

 

For simplicity, in tying together the above thought, with Severian's request to Immortal to define "person", I'll use the word "control" to stand for the above thought.

 

There are things we can control and things we cannot. As our knowledge grows our power to control does as well, for obvious reasons. There remains, as powerful as increased knowledge make us, the "rest" of the universe, which we have little to no control over. So the question arises, does anyone (a person?) have contoll over that which we do not.

 

If there is "no one" in control, then its hard to imagine why and how things could be so predictable and regular and understandable on such a grand scale, as they are predictable and regular and understandable. And it is difficult to imagine how it could be that we can control our local reality, if "no one" is in control. There must be, at least the person TAR2. And his family and his town, company, state, nation and global human associates who are "persons who can control".

 

Being that TAR2 is not supernatural, it must be natural for the universe to contain a person that controls. Personhood and associated will and power have been bestowed upon TAR2, by that which has naturally occurred prior and during TAR2's existence. No power that TAR2 posseses can be other than natural, and ALL power that exists must likewise be natural.

 

Yet TAR2 is not the only one in control, so personhood is not a singular and private affair. It, personhood, cannot be separate from nature, cannot exclude nature or be any different thing than natural.

 

It was noted that God, (this person in control of that which we are not), is forced into the smaller and smaller gaps in our knowledge, as our knowledge grows. Seems to me that that could only be the case if there was a god to consider. Which seems to be the case.

 

Therefore, God exists.

 

Regards, TAR2