Does God exist?

[Isomotopes]

I am a non believer and i feel that god is the physical form that explains all things that man does not understand. Therefore i feel that if humans ever knew every thing then it would be the worst thing that could happen ever because man would know no fear as fear is not knowing things about what worries us therefore man would fear nothing and if man feared nothing then there would be no morality because man would not fear the consequences of evil. So i feel god is necessary but does not exist. However if god does show and prove that he exists i will quite happily disregard all that i have said here and wholeheartedly believe in him but until then i remain skeptical

[Boerseun]

...then there would be no morality because man would not fear the consequences of evil. So i feel god is necessary...

The greatest tragedy of our times is the hijacking of morality by religion*

 

Morality does not require religion to prop it up.

 

I believe every person is a moral being - the morals having been instilled in his youth, by his parents and society. It does not require religion. But it also does not mean that he's a good person - morals can be good or bad when you compare it to your own personal moral code. It's merely different, relative to yours. As yours is different to his/hers.

 

* Before I get castigated for plagiarism, yes - this is a quote. I simply forgot who said it, though...

[Isomotopes]

I understand what you say boerseun but i think that without the original fear of god and hell then there would be no morals because those where the only things that were feared so morality is/was originally by god. As for morality being instilled by parents that is true but where did morallity originally come from who first was taught what was right and wrong? I feel it was fear of an allmighty being or in this case god

[InfiniteNow]

i think that without the original fear of god and hell then there would be no morals because those where the only things that were feared

So, there was no fear of predators? There was no fear of being ostracized from our social groups and forced to survive alone? There was no fear of sickness, hunger, and thirst?

 

You think the ONLY thing we feared was some fairy tale about a purple unicorn and a hot place into which we might fall after death? Interesting.

 

I... erm... disagree.

 

 

so morality is/was originally by god.

Conclusions grounded in false premises are themselves false. You have presented a false premise above (the only fear that existed was fear of god and hell), and hence this conclusion is also false.

 

Further, you've unfortunately presented a logical fallacy known as a non-sequitur. Morality is more related to our evolved group behavior and need to fit in with our group than anything else, including the relatively recent phenomenon of religion and the stories it tells.

 

It's also insulting to those of us who don't believe in god, suggesting that since we don't believe in hell we are not, nor could not be, moral people.

 

I can think of a great number of immoral religious people, so that doesn't bode well for your hypothesis either.

 

I'm just sayin'... ;)

 

 

As for morality being instilled by parents that is true but where did morallity originally come from who first was taught what was right and wrong? I feel it was fear of an allmighty being or in this case god

 

That's a pretty depressing way to look at things. People only do good things because they are afraid of the punishment?

 

That's no world in which I'd want to live.

[Isomotopes]

Yeah now you put it like that it does sound right. I didn't mean to sound like i was saying that if you don't believe in hell you are immoral nor was i trying to say that only fear of god caused morality but i feel it did contribute.

[LJP07]

Does God exist? There is every possible chance that it doesn't exist but we can never disprove its existence. I think that personally it doesn't exist because of the fact that...well I'm not going to preach about it, Professor Richard Dawkins can reiterate everything I could possibly say here, look on youtube about some of his views and interviews and especially his programme called the Enemies of Reason which is entirely shown on youtube.

[nutronjon]

Nutronjon, reading the classics is all fair and fine. But if we had to hold a debate which included me throwing lines of classical literature at you, and you throwing lines at me, we're not discussing anything, are we? We're simply regurgitating lines attributed to famous writers of old, in other words, we're appealing to authority to win our argument.

 

It says much about your memory, and access to the classics.

 

It says absolutely nothing about your interpretation thereof, however.

 

I believe you were asked why you hold the convictions you do. Not why Cicero believed what he believed.

 

And if you say "I believe what I believe because Cicero said so", then that's not very satisfactory, either.

 

We want to hear of your convictions. The whole God/no God theory is as old as humankind itself. Surely you must have your own opinion regarding this matter?

 

Besides - many of the Classics shouldn't simply be blindly quoted - a lot of them hold their titles as "classics" merely from a historical perspective - many of their arguments have been discarded by philosophers, employing cold logic to arguments that have been accepted as the Truth for thousands of years.

 

I am in a hurry and should probably wait to answer you, but I hate waiting. We can not discuss something of which no one has knowledge, right? My efforts to discuss democracy have gone no where. Some knowledge of Athens and Sparta and needed to discuss democracy. Literacy in Greek and Roman classics is needed. If I don't share this information, what are the chances of many people gaining this knowledge?

 

It is my conviction that having a concept of God is essential to democracy, okay? Now the nature of that God is beyond our knowing, however, we can study nature and infer something about that God, okay?

[Boerseun]

I am in a hurry and should probably wait to answer you, but I hate waiting. We can not discuss something of which no one has knowledge, right? My efforts to discuss democracy have gone no where. Some knowledge of Athens and Sparta and needed to discuss democracy. Literacy in Greek and Roman classics is needed. If I don't share this information, what are the chances of many people gaining this knowledge?

 

It is my conviction that having a concept of God is essential to democracy, okay? Now the nature of that God is beyond our knowing, however, we can study nature and infer something about that God, okay?

When you're not in such a hurry, can you please elaborate?

 

I fail to see how you connect the dots here.

 

How can democracy require religion?

 

The word "Democracy" comes from the ancient Greek words "Demos" and "Cratos" - meaning "Governance/Ruling by the People". If you require those same said people to be religious before they can partake in the "ruling" bit, then, well, that is 180 degrees opposed to the concept of "Democracy". You don't give them much of a chance to express their own will in governance if you set parameters for who qualifies and who doesn't.

 

Please elaborate.

[modest]

PS. arguing for this understanding of God, will do more to end ignroance and superstition than the annoying polar argument that God doesn't exist,

 

But we should question God's existence - your implication that we shouldn't is not very Jeffersonian:

 

Question with boldness even the existence of a god

 

-Thomas Jefferson

 

-modest

[Cathryn]

I have put this forward in 'Nature as God' but is even more appropriate here. Yes God exists. God is energy. Science just can't describe it. That's a lack in science not God!

[C1ay]

Yes God exists. God is energy. Science just can't describe it. That's a lack in science not God!

 

What proof is there? How can you be absolutely sure? How can you know? To know there is a God requires more than a leap of faith.

[REASON]

I have put this forward in 'Nature as God' but is even more appropriate here. Yes God exists. God is energy. Science just can't describe it. That's a lack in science not God!

 

Actually, science is the way in which energy has been understood, described, categorized, and employed. If not for science, energy would have no meaning to us. Through science, we have developed a very clear understanding of different forms of energy.

 

What scientists won't do, is describe energy as god. What evidence is there that energy deserves that label?

 

This is nothing more than a way in which you have personally chosen to reconcile the notion of god, which is great for you. But this does not reflect any genuine lack in science.

[Cathryn]

The most interesting thing is that science itself is being looked at as 'proof'. What a HUGE laugh.:wink: Science and religion are equal as the are both opinions. Energy and God are both infailible. Both are pure and simple.

[Thunderbird]

Actually, science is the way in which energy has been understood, described, categorized, and employed. If not for science, energy would have no meaning to us. Through science, we have developed a very clear understanding of different forms of energy.

 

What scientists won't do, is describe energy as god. What evidence is there that energy deserves that label?

 

This is nothing more than a way in which you have personally chosen to reconcile the notion of god, which is great for you. But this does not reflect any genuine lack in science.

 

Actually Modern physics has shown that many of the ancients were correct in that they saw matter and energy are really one in the same.

[C1ay]

Science and religion are equal as the are both opinions.

 

Not at all. Science is an objective search for knowledge, for truth. Science draws no conclusions about the truth until there is supporting proof. Until then it continues to test its theories in search of results that support or refute its theories and it embraces that search regardless of the outcome.

 

Religion on the other hand draws conclusions on faith alone and castigates those that challenge them. It is not interested in the absolute truth, only subservience. It is not interested in any challenges to its proclamations of supposed truth.

[Cathryn]

What KIND of science are you talking about?

[Moontanman]

What KIND of science are you talking about?

 

There is only one kind of science, lots of different religions, sects, and gods but only one science.