Is there something odd about God? Can anybody know anything about God?

[doG]

 

Then why the heck are you part of this debate? No one can comprehend an infinite entity not you or I, you asked for a definition I gave it and promptly dismissed it! No matter what definition I give you, you will always respond in the same manner, I never said my definition was correct or any other persons wrong because they differ from it

 

And what proof of this alleged infinite entity can you show? It's dishonest to ask others to believe in something there is no evidence for.

[hypervalent_iodine]

And what proof of this alleged infinite entity can you show? It's dishonest to ask others to believe in something there is no evidence for.

!

Moderator Note

No. We're not going down this path again.

[Alan McDougall]

I am extremely bad at logic but active atheists have told me that only philosophy

can say anything about the existence of a god and what one can know about such a god.

 

So Ontology what exists and Epistemology what we can know.

 

1. My fuzzy logic then tells me that there is no way to know if God exists or not?

2. There is logically know way to get any evidence for an existing god or evidence for

a non existing god either. the way they have defined god makes God beyond such evidence?

 

3. So if there exist a god then neither believers nor atheists can know that it exists at all.

 

 

I wild guess that some theologians have tried to solve this by saying

that the Concept God point to a theoretically possible god that may exist

so if there is one then the word God point to that real God even if there is no evidence for such a god.

 

I see that as a kind of cheating. Would be more honest if they admited that they are desperate

to at all cost postulate the existence of a possible god.

 

Now if my confused brain get's it right then the whole fight between theists and atheists

seems rather futile.

 

There is no way to know if a god exists or not. so to ask if somebody believe that god exist

seems to be about personal preferences on supporting an old tradition more than about

any real God. I mean the believers have no way to know if a god exists or not.

So what is the point asking them?

 

Maybe it is more about sorting people into categories.

 

1. You are a believer in superstitions about gods so I will be skeptical to anything you say.

2. You lack the believe in gods so now we only have thrillions of other superstitious belief to sort out

 

It is pointless is it not?

 

What is not pointless is the political power of religious traditions.

 

The political power of religion is strong enough to make several countries

to have restrictions on sexual education and easy to get contraceptices

so a lot of woman get more children than they want.

 

Abortion is forbidden or heavily restricted.

 

Seen from politics God is very much in power but the logical atheists

tells me that such realities are totally irrelevant to the question on God.

 

To them politically powerful gods are irrelevant. They are only imagined

and the logical atheist only care about an "existing" god.

 

Is that not extremely odd? What is the logical answer that we can have any knowledge

for an existing god.

 

the only evidence for a god that de facto have impact on our lives are the imagined gods.

 

The original post that started this thread is about this existence/non -existence of god and that neither theist of atheist could prove or disprove their side of the equation.

 

The moderator has put a stop to any comment relation to the existence of God, "so why is this thread still active", if we are not allowed to debate around the original questions and suppositions?

[dimreepr]

Alan, you're clearly passionate about your beliefs but do you really have to deliberately skew the OP's title/meaning just to fit your agenda?

[Alan McDougall]

Alan, you're clearly passionate about your beliefs but do you really have to deliberately skew the OP's title/meaning just to fit your agenda?

 

Take some time and read the original post again more carefully and you will notice the thread starter said discussing the existence of God was futile, and I agree with him absolutely, in light of that fact, why the heck is the silly thread still active, it serves no purpose, especially in an otherwise scientific centered forum. You know nothing about my beliefs or if I have any or if I am passionate about them. My passion is science and cosmology, in my opinion, a science based forum should not have a sub-forum on religion all it does is spread discord among the members.

 

I was acting as a "Devils Advocate", most of the time!

[john5746]

1. My fuzzy logic then tells me that there is no way to know if God exists or not?

2. There is logically know way to get any evidence for an existing god or evidence for

a non existing god either. the way they have defined god makes God beyond such evidence?

 

3. So if there exist a god then neither believers nor atheists can know that it exists at all.

I would expect a God that cares about humanity should be easily detected all the time and one that doesn't exist would be difficult to find. Just my opinion

 

There is no way to 100% disprove anything or really be certain either, but pragmatically, we must walk. So, do we walk as if there is an infinite future after life with some being that waits in judgement? I have never met anyone who lives as if this is the case. Everyone has petty concerns about this world - the suffering of themselves, others, etc. They act as if this life contains most of the meaning.

 

What is not pointless is the political power of religious traditions.

I completely agree its really a political struggle. This is the power of religion. It wraps everything with your personal emotions. Its as if we say that if you love your mother, you must be pro-gun. Therefore, if someone speaks against guns, they hate your mother and they want you to hate your mother.

 

 

Concerning death, well I doubt that I will experience this - what I mean is that I will only experience this life. So, my last moments might be suffering or painful, but at the end will be nothing for "I".

 

My body will of course continue to exist - my atoms, etc. If there is a soul, I doubt that it will continue to contain my memories - why would I think that? Everything else - bodies, planets, suns, galaxies, even the universe, seems to transform completely, leaving really nothing of its previous form left. So it would be with "souls" - they would either disperse or merge into one. Either way, the current "me" would be unaware of this, I would think.

 

since I wrote it I have had a cancer operation and will be totally absorbed in surviving.

So take it for what it is. one atheists way to try to understand the logic of god.

Good luck with your recovery - have faith in yourself and anyone or anything else that helps your recovery.

Edited December 18, 2013 by john5746

[John Cuthber]

 

 

Who would you rather have? A priest or jujuman? I

Is there any evidence of a difference?

Incidentally, I'd rather not have Dawkins present at my death.

He's older than me- think about it.

 

On the other hand, if you can arrange for a scientist- who actually knows how to do something about my poor health- turn up and fix the problem, that would probably be great.

If a priest could fix the problem that would also be fine by me. I have more sense that to be biassed on that issue.

 

However,as far as I know, no priest has ever actually achieved anything concrete in those circumstances.

 

Incidentally, for those who are concerned about the issue. re atheists and foxholes

They exist

http://militaryatheists.org/atheists-in-foxholes/

don't pretend there are none- you just end up looking silly.

[doG]

 

...a science based forum should not have a sub-forum on religion all it does is spread discord among the members.

 

 

I tend to disagree. Theists across the web seek out science forums to argue their case. A subforum here is a place to keep it all in one place and out of the mainstream discussion of science topics. It also offers the opportunity to expose these people to skepticism.

 

In my opinion it is OK to some extent if someone wants to and chooses to believe in some higher being but it also important for them to understand that they should question what they are told by others. So many believe for no other reason other than that is what they were told when they were raised. Many were also told(taught) that their belief or faith includes a certain amount of intolerance and hatred of the beliefs of others. This is a disease on society itself and needs to be dealt with through education, particularly the philosophy of science and the scientific method. There is nothing wrong with questioning what we are taught but blind faith can be quite a dangerous thing and everyone should truly understand that it is not a reason to believe in anything. The people who seek out discussions here will not learn that at any of the religious forums they might patronize, only places like these where some of us will engage them.

[Alan McDougall]

 

I tend to disagree. Theists across the web seek out science forums to argue their case. A subforum here is a place to keep it all in one place and out of the mainstream discussion of science topics. It also offers the opportunity to expose these people to skepticism.

 

In my opinion it is OK to some extent if someone wants to and chooses to believe in some higher being but it also important for them to understand that they should question what they are told by others. So many believe for no other reason other than that is what they were told when they were raised. Many were also told(taught) that their belief or faith includes a certain amount of intolerance and hatred of the beliefs of others. This is a disease on society itself and needs to be dealt with through education, particularly the philosophy of science and the scientific method. There is nothing wrong with questioning what we are taught but blind faith can be quite a dangerous thing and everyone should truly understand that it is not a reason to believe in anything. The people who seek out discussions here will not learn that at any of the religious forums they might patronize, only places like these where some of us will engage them.

 

The question is, should we believe that which we don't understand as the truth or dismiss it as a fallacy? The light speed constant is almost impossible to comprehend by most people and also the fact that subatomic particles can exist in more that one place at the same moment, which seems to defy logic and rationality, yet people who are not scientifically informed, except it as fact, because they have been convinced by more informed minds than them (Scientists of note) that it has been proven true, by scientific method. Yet these people have no idea how it is possible (In fact I don't think anyone understands quantum non-locality).

 

Are those who believe in a creator any different? Like the people mentioned above, as " scientifically uninformed", theists also don't understand how God could exist, yet they believe he does. What I am trying to convey, is that many people who are uninformed on science and scientific method "except the findings of science as factual", and "likewise many theists accept that the so call "research of theologians on God as factual" and that they have proven the existence of God (Which of course they have not).

 

It seems that some sort of irrational faith in authority, (namely, scientist of note and theologians of note) exist on both sides of the fence

 

In the past. scientists (Dark Ages) have insisted the sun revolved around the earth and their word was accepted, because they were perceived as an authority on the subject. Many theists accept the existence of God, based on the word of a supposedly more knowledgeable authority, Martin Luther is just one example.

Edited December 19, 2013 by Alan McDougall

[John Cuthber]

"In the past. scientists (Dark Ages) have insisted the sun revolved around the earth"

There was no science in the dark ages.

They didn't have the idea of "evidence based learning".

What they had was an old book which they were naive enough to believe and a faulty understanding of the laws of motion (Of course we are not moving- we would feel it).

 

 

The fact that people who don't understand what's happening can be talked into believing stuff by some sort of "authority figure" isn't in dispute.

The fact that both modern science and religion off such "authority figures" is also accepted.

The difference is that , in one case the authority comes from an understanding of how the universe works, and in the other case it's from an old book and lots of navel gazing.

 

Only on of those groups has any legitimate authority.

[imatfaal]

Further to John's point - figures of authority in science can be wrong, and they can hold back the subject - but, and it is a big but, they can and are challenged and knocked down. Science is not wholly immune from the power of orthodoxy and the stagnating effect of received wisdom; but science also has an antidote - empirical observation trumps anyone's opinion. Religion is almost completely the opposite - the longer something has been believed, the more ancient the progenitor, the less amenable to change is the dogma.

[Alan McDougall]

"In the past. scientists (Dark Ages) have insisted the sun revolved around the earth"

There was no science in the dark ages.

They didn't have the idea of "evidence based learning".

What they had was an old book which they were naive enough to believe and a faulty understanding of the laws of motion (Of course we are not moving- we would feel it).

 

 

The fact that people who don't understand what's happening can be talked into believing stuff by some sort of "authority figure" isn't in dispute.

The fact that both modern science and religion off such "authority figures" is also accepted.

The difference is that , in one case the authority comes from an understanding of how the universe works, and in the other case it's from an old book and lots of navel gazing.

 

Only on of those groups has any legitimate authority.

 

I accept nearly all that you have stated in your post, except that the supposition that there are authorities that understand how the universe works, because this is a partial truth.

[John Cuthber]

True, it's only a partial understanding. The scientists accept that they don't know the whole story- that's why there is still research going on.

On the other hand, the churches think they know everything- they say "It happens because it is God's will" and yet that tells them nothing.

[turionx2]

If you genuinely ask for love from a higher power, you will receive love.

 

If you have doubts when asking for love, you will not receive love.

 

Would be great if everyone stopped clumping God with religion.

[Moontanman]

If you genuinely ask for love from a higher power, you will receive love.

 

If you have doubts when asking for love, you will not receive love.

 

Would be great if everyone stopped clumping God with religion.

Sounds like a self fulfilling prophecy to me, but I have to ask if you have any evidence for the assertion I have highlighted in bold.

[John Cuthber]

To me, it looks rather like this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

[Moontanman]

To me, it looks rather like this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

That's what it is, I have had my coffee yet...

[Alan McDougall]

True, it's only a partial understanding. The scientists accept that they don't know the whole story- that's why there is still research going on.

On the other hand, the churches think they know everything- they say "It happens because it is God's will" and yet that tells them nothing.

 

The churches, I know something about , never state that they know "everything" because according to them God is infinite and no finite mind can comprehend the mind of an infinite entity. Yes you are right! some of them that can not understand why event has happened, avoid giving their own opinion by saying "it was the will of god".

 

These are the judgmental fundamentalists that I dislike intensely. This is not my position as a theist! I question everything, including blaming god for evil and natural disasters. Fundamentalists say it is blasphemy to question the will of God, I disagree and try to use my own brain in arriving at finding a rational answer. If god exists then he must have allowed us the freedom of choice, to question everything including his existence and apparent interference in human society. Maybe this god is the god of the Dutch Philosopher, Spinoza who was a deist, who believed or supposed that god might have created the universe, then distanced himself from it and allowed it to run on its own. This type of belief makes evolution more likely, than a god who is constantly interfering in human society and in the ongoing development of our planet and the universe at large. (I only use "he" for god for convenience)

That's what it is, I have had my coffee yet...

 

Am I really that complicated and confused, by the way I am not a "true Scotsman" I am a rather watered down version, originating from the British immigrants to South Africa out during 1820 also known in my country as the 1820 Settlers. My dads family came out from the beautiful lake district of Inverness

If you genuinely ask for love from a higher power, you will receive love.

 

If you have doubts when asking for love, you will not receive love.

 

Would be great if everyone stopped clumping God with religion.

 

I really agree with you, you can be a theist and belong to no religion!

[John Cuthber]

"The churches, I know something about , never state that they know "everything""

They merely claim not to get anything wrong

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

 

 

"I really agree with you, you can be a theist and belong to no religion!"

​You can also be an atheist with a religion.

But the real problem is the unevinced assertion.

[turionx2]

Sounds like a self fulfilling prophecy to me, but I have to ask if you have any evidence for the assertion I have highlighted in bold.

 

Its self verifying.

 

​You can also be an atheist with a religion.

 

Jainism?

[Moontanman]

Its self verifying.

That would indicate it's not true...

 

 

Jainism?

Buddhism, spiritualism, shamanism...

[Alan McDougall]

"The churches, I know something about , never state that they know "everything""

They merely claim not to get anything wrong

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

 

 

"I really agree with you, you can be a theist and belong to no religion!"

​You can also be an atheist with a religion.

But the real problem is the unevinced assertion.

 

 

That link reflects the idea of Papal infallibility, like I said "the churches I know about do not claim they know everything". I am not a Catholic and know almost nothing about their faith, but dismiss with scorn any idea that any human could be infallible as nonsense. I was involved with a church some 35 years ago and became completely disillusioned with the fundamentalist nonsense and fraud I found, within its walls. I am especially disgusted with idiotic TV evangelists, most of which in my opinion, are nothing more than a self righteous, lying crooks. But their dishonesty does not prevent me from remaining a theist, hopefully an open- minded rational theist, who simply wants some profound answers to the prime questions, "why is there something and not nothing?" Has existence always existed, or did it have a beginning (I am not just referring to our particular universe because there might be more).

 

Maybe god equates to existence and existence equates to god, god= existence, existence=god? and there is some sort of purpose, reason and underlying intelligence behind it all?

 

Does our human life have any meaning or are we just a cruel mistake of biological evolution , nothing more than a somewhat orderly, bag of watery protoplasm.? When I look into the eyes of a child, do I see a beautiful soul looking back at me, or just a mechanical machine perfected by countless epochs of evolution?

 

The existence of existence, how, why, who, when, what etc???

Edited December 20, 2013 by Alan McDougall

[John Cuthber]

I'm not a Catholic, nor a theologist, but I knew that their church always believed they were "Right".

 

It's clear that our outlooks on this are very different, but I'm pleased that we have at least some common ground.

" I am especially disgusted with idiotic TV evangelists, most of which in my opinion, are nothing more than a self righteous, lying crooks. "

 

"Does our human life have any meaning or are we just a cruel mistake of biological evolution "

No.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

[Alan McDougall]

I'm not a Catholic, nor a theologist, but I knew that their church always believed they were "Right".

 

It's clear that our outlooks on this are very different, but I'm pleased that we have at least some common ground.

" I am especially disgusted with idiotic TV evangelists, most of which in my opinion, are nothing more than a self righteous, lying crooks. "

 

"Does our human life have any meaning or are we just a cruel mistake of biological evolution "

No.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

 

I should have made my statement "Does our human life have any meaning or are we just a cruel mistake of biological evolution?" and added to it! Of course we are not a cruel mistake of evolution, evolution is not, compassionate or interested is us as individuals, neither is it a thing that is intelligent, it has no agenda, it simply exists as a reality of our particular planet.

 

Of course it is up to each individual to try and make some meaning and purpose of his/her life and leave behind a positive legacy, but in the light of the fact we only exist for a flashing moment relative to the age of the universe at large, it does seems to me that we are not given enough time to impact it in any significant way. Evolution has restricted us to a few pathetic years and then entropy takes over and we decay into the increasing chaos of the universe.

 

An afterlife,not that of any religious persuasion, a non-material and eternal place of existence outside linear time and space, would allow us to evolve into god-like entities of our own making. Maybe this is just a pipe dream, but it is a seductive one, that many folk look forward to after death. It takes the meaning and purpose of human consciousness to a new level with unimaginable possibilities.

 

Why cant we be more open to the possibility of an afterlife, without complicating the issue, by bringing in an odd-god of religion to mess up the possibility of some sort of existence beyond physical life. I am really open to the suggestion that we don't need a god to entertain the possibility of an afterlife.

 

There are serious discussion about the possibility of a multi- universe, alternate universes etc, including the possibility of inter dimensional realities and beings existence within them. In light of this is the idea of an afterlife so farfetched? Maybe the heavens religion speaks about are other word for these possible alternate realities?

Edited December 20, 2013 by Alan McDougall

[Alan McDougall]

Just to add how really odd god is to the thinking mind.

 

Assuming that God is all-powerful and answers prayers. Yet there are millions of children starving to death on our planet every year. Why would a perfect God answer the prayers of a Christian to find her dog, while at the same time allowing millions of children to starve? Do the thousands of obvious contradictions like this one in our world show us that God is imaginary?.

 

If God is real, it is apparent that there is something very odd about amputees. God is supposedly answering millions of prayers on earth every day, but he completely ignores amputated limbs and refuses to restore them?

 

What does common sense now tell us about a Bible that supports slavery in both the Old and the New Testaments? Given the fact that the Bible clearly condones slavery, and given the fact that the Bible is an all-or-nothing book, does it make more sense for you to believe that God wrote the Bible, or that primitive men wrote the Bible without any input from God? .

 

Any normal person is disgusted by religious sacrifice, and you would imagine that God would be also. Ritual slaughter like this has nothing to do with an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, prayer-answering creator of the universe. The idea of killing an animal, splattering its blood about and then burning its flesh is, quite obviously, absurd and ridiculous. In my opinion if God existed he would have nothing to do with animal sacrifice.

 

Why cant the God who created the universe supply those who are suppose to represent him on earth give them money from his unimaginable wealth, but, no he sits back as his followers beg , steal to get it at any cost from their congregations?