Does God exist?

[LJP07]

First of all, the handbag argument above between Thunder and InfiniteNow has to stop, it's ruining the thread as a whole and should be stopped immediately. If you want to debate about something or argue about something, then PM each other and sort out this lovers tiff somewhere else. I think it's in the best nature of the thread and it's quite selfish to post these things when we are in a very good thread about "God"!!!!

==========================================================

 

Is there any theists here that would support that the Earth was created in 6000 years and life was created in 7 days by the human architect eye in the sky.

[InfiniteNow]

I think it's in the best nature of the thread and it's quite selfish to post these things when we are in a very good thread about "God"!!!!

 

That was exactly my point when I responded originally. It seems I failed miserably. My humblest apologies.

 

 

 

 

Is there any theists here that would support that the Earth was created in 6000 years and life was created in 7 days by the human architect eye in the sky.

Yes. According to this study done last week, it seems that roughly 40 - 60% of Americans believe this.

 

 

Republicans, Democrats Differ on Creationism

 

Between 43% and 47% of Americans have agreed during this 26-year time period with the creationist view that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.

 

 

[nutronjon]

That's a meaningless and specious question. What you are truly driving at is why does gas move, which is laden with subjective meaning and absent of objective relevance. We can tell you how gas moves, but the why is up to you, complete with your subjective filters.

 

 

What is your point?

 

 

This thread is about the existence (or, more appropriately, the lack thereof) of a purple unicorn... erm... leprechaun... erm... Thor... erm... Baal... erm... Zeus... erm... I mean... uhhm... god.

 

What a chicken **** reply to the question. Questions are what lead us through a series of logical steps. Like Socrates, I don't know anything, but I do believe a series of questions can be helpful. Answer the question if you can, and if you can't, there is no point in you replying.

[nutronjon]

I think he's looking for the "Original Cause", an age-old attempt at proving the need for some sort of deity. It kinda goes like this:

 

Why does a cue ball move?

Because you hit it.

Why did you hit it?

Because chemicals in your muscles allowed for it.

How did the chemicals get there?

From food you ate.

Where did the food come from?

From an animal that was killed and you bought from the butcher.

How was the animal killed?

With a gas gun.

Where did the gas gun come from?

...

...

...

and so on and so forth.

 

The argument is that everything has a cause, and, according to their reasoning, there was a First Cause, which "unambiguously" proves the existence of God.

 

Well, in some sense it might be, but to our current understanding, the First Cause was the Big Bang - evidence for that abound with the Hubble Flow, and with CMBR.

 

That's also the point where conventional science breaks down, and whatever the cause of the Big Bang was, is open for debate. With very little evidence either way. But if God does exist, and caused the Big Bang, that was the very last act of God we know of - he kinda lit the fuse to the universe bomb and exited stage left. Or not. Maybe it was the Vogons. Praying to a God which did only that and nothing since is kinda like an astronomer praying to a supernova. The supernova exploded, and the resulting expanding debris field looks pretty in his telescope, but... uhm, that's about it as far as how a distant supernova can influence your life.

 

Are you arguing God is not heat/energy that of the Big Bang? Why isn't that God?

 

Baruch Spinoza

 

The way that Spinoza argues it is that there is only one substance, and then that there is only one individual of that substance. In the tradition of Anselm and Descartes, God is a "Necessary Being," who cannot possibly not exist. Existence is part of his essence, and he cannot be without it. But existence is not the entire essence of God. Instead, the one substance is characterized by an infinite number of attributes. Besides existence, we are only aware of two of these: thought and extension. Thus, where Descartes had seen thought as the unique essence of the substance soul, and extension as the unique essence of the substance matter, Spinoza abolished this dualism, and the paradoxes it generated. Thought and extension are just two, out of an infinite number of, facets of Being. A reductionistic scientism that wants to claim Spinoza as one of its own typically overlooks this aspect of the theory: Spinoza's God thinks, and also is or does many other things that are beyond our reckoning and comprehension. Thus, although Spinoza was condemned by his community for the heresy of saying that God has a body (denying the transcendence of God common to Judaism, Christianity, and Islâm), God is nevertheless much more, indeed infinitely more, than a body.

 

 

As God is eternal and infinite, so are his attributes eternal and infinite. The things we see that are transient and finite are the temporary modifications, or "modes," of the attributes. This gives us the same relationship between things and the attributes as Descartes had between individual bodies and thoughts and their substances. A material thing is a piece of space itself (space is not the vacuum, but actually matter), the way an individual wave is identifiable in the ocean but does not exist apart from the water that it consists of. In the same way a specific thought is a temporary disturbance of the attribute (like the Cartesian substance) of thought -- or, we might say, of consciousness. The wave metaphor is apt: Our existence is a ripple on the surface of God.

[InfiniteNow]

What a chicken **** reply to the question. Questions are what lead us through a series of logical steps. Like Socrates, I don't know anything, but I do believe a series of questions can be helpful. Answer the question if you can, and if you can't, there is no point in you replying.

 

What color unicorn is more likely to be found in nature? Purple, or white?

 

 

My question is no different from yours. Your question is meaningless, irrelevant, and specious.

[InfiniteNow]

Are you arguing God is not heat/energy that of the Big Bang? Why isn't that God?

 

No. He is arguing that God is an unecessary addition to the process which offers zero value. He is arguing that the fact that we have a gap in our knowledge does not suggest proof for a god (of whatever definition). He is saying that there is zero reason for you to posit a priori that there is a god at all.

 

How are you still missing this simple point which has been demonstrated to you repeatedly?

[nutronjon]

Quit whining like a little girl.

 

You think god exists?

 

Prove it, or you're no better than a delusional child who believes in the tooth fairy.

 

Exxuse me! That was a sexist statement and should not be tolerated.

 

An argument contains some grain of knowledge, and you are attacking people without making anything like a legitimate argument.

[nutronjon]

"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. … Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." - Albert Einstein

 

It is an error to read one of Einstein's quote and assume he did not have a passionate relationship with God. Quite the contrary,

 

Einstein and God

 

In a recent book Max Jammer, Rector Emeritus of Bar Lan University in Jerusalem, a former colleague of Albert Einstein at Princeton, claims that Einstein's understanding of physics and his understanding of religion were profoundly bound together, for it seemed to Einstein that nature exhibited traces of God quite like "a natural theology." Indeed it is with the help of natural science that the thoughts of God may be tapped and grasped. 1 On the subject of Einstein and God Friedrich Dürrenmatt once said, "Einstein used to speak of God so often that I almost looked upon him as a disguised theologian." 2 I do not believe these references to God can be dismissed simply as a façon de parler, for God had a deep, if rather elusive, significance for Einstein which was not unimportant for his life and scientific activity. It indicated a deep-seated way of life and thought: "God" was not a theological mode of thought but rather the expression of a "lived faith" (eines gelebten Glaubens).

[freeztar]

It is an error to read one of Einstein's quote and assume he did not have a passionate relationship with God. Quite the contrary,

 

I was making no assumptions about Einstein's beliefs. I was merely reprinting a quote of his that I feel particularly aligned with.

[Pyrotex]

Exxuse me! That was a sexist statement and should not be tolerated. An argument contains some grain of knowledge, and you are attacking people without making anything like a legitimate argument.

I AM PYROTEX THE MODERATOR!!

READ MY WORDS AND TREMBLE!!

 

Technically speaking, InfiniteNow's use of the phrase "whining little girl" is not sexist, in light of the fact that little girls (and boys) do in fact often whine when things aren't going their way.

 

InfiniteNow has repeatedly attempted to make legitimate arguments, and they have been repeatedly ignored.

 

Nutronjon, not all of InfiniteNow's arguments have been legitimate. But again, neither have yours. The very subject of this thread does not allow for definitive statements or unassailable arguments. The existence of god is now and forever will be a matter of personal belief or choice. Get over it.

[Pyrotex]

It is an error to read one of Einstein's quote and assume he did not have a passionate relationship with God. Quite the contrary,

No, it is not an error.

Einstein himself spoke for himself. That takes precedent.

The other quote is by a third party, and is merely that person's interpretation, which cannot trump Einstein's own words.

[Thunderbird]

I AM PYROTEX THE MODERATOR!!

READ MY WORDS AND TREMBLE!!

 

Technically speaking, InfiniteNow's use of the phrase "whining little girl" is not sexist, in light of the fact that little girls (and boys) do in fact often whine when things aren't going their way.

 

InfiniteNow has repeatedly attempted to make legitimate arguments, and they have been repeatedly ignored.

 

Nutronjon, not all of InfiniteNow's arguments have been legitimate. But again, neither have yours. The very subject of this thread does not allow for definitive statements or unassailable arguments. The existence of god is now and forever will be a matter of personal belief or choice. Get over it.

God is an idea, nothing more, it can be a good, or bad. So it comes down to beliefs on what it means personally to be a good human., its just how we define ourselves. We are the only creating what we can imagine.

[InfiniteNow]

Exxuse me! That was a sexist statement and should not be tolerated.

 

An argument contains some grain of knowledge, and you are attacking people without making anything like a legitimate argument.

 

Ah. Of course. You are most certainly correct. There were a series of off topic, random quotations from people which had no direct bearing on the discussion being had, so I certainly should have called on all of my powers and skills of debate to formulate an argument against this. It clearly did not call for a brief and blunt editorial such as the one I offered in response to the final quote implying that kindness should overrule intelligence and reason, so let me give it another go.

 

 

Ladies and gentlemen of the hypography readership, much like a mosquito in a nudist colony, I am not quite sure where to begin. In this thread of now 370 posts on the existence of god, I have contributed heavily, but should have known better than to simply assume that my past posts on this topic would provide any context for my future posts.

 

For this, I offer my sincerest and humblest of apologies, and leave it to your arbitration whether or not my blatant and appalling offenses here justify a stoning, burning alive, or crucifiction.

 

Until that time, I will resubmit my argument in terms which show decency and respect to the ideas of those to whom I was objecting.

 

As we can see, looking back, a quote from Nietzsche was shared which illuminated the issue of blunder, whether man be god's blunder, or god a blunder of man. This prompted another quote to be shared by a member, and that quote came from Alexander Pope. It was a quote which well supplemented the quote of Nietzsche shared immediately prior.

 

This sharing of quotes began to accelerate, and dialog had ceased. It was beginning to look like an album of statements made by others, and the thread was suddenly indistinguishable from our Watercooler dialog under the title "Quotes," where users post quotes which have a certain significance to the poster.

 

Two quotes which followed that of Alexander Pope were shared by another member, and were suggestive of the fact that some very gifted and brilliant men were open to the ideas of mysticism and spirituality. The second quote was from one Albert Einstein, great scientist and humanist of the early 20th century. However, the structure of the quote placed the commentsof Einstein out of context, and, in my estimation, distorted their true meaning.

 

It would seem that I was not the only reader under this impression, as that quote was responded to with another, more full quote from Einstein which gave a clearer and more accurate perspective on his meaning. It was the response to this which prompted my own reply, a reply presently being admonished by nutronjon.

 

Ladies and gentlemen, the quote which followed the clarification given for Einstein's perspective was as follows:

 

When I was young, I used to admire intelligent people; as I grow older, I admire kind people.

 

Abraham Joshua Heschel

 

 

Inherent in the quote, one being shared in a thread discussing the existence or lack thereof of a god, was the idea that kindess was more important than intelligence, reason, and the need to scrutinize all ideas. This is an argument frequently made by those supporting the religious viewpoint, and also those who are arguing in favor of the existence of god (of whatever definition).

 

 

Working with engineers each day, I've taken into my approach to the universe an inherent "economy of motion," and efficiency if you will, and my response was short, to the point, and illuminated to readers of the thread my own personal sense of the problems with such an approach. In short, they were not the kind of sentiments that we should take seriously when we are attempting to address these issues, and I made a vain attempt to steer the conversation back on track.

 

If you will allow it, ladies and gentlemen, now that I have provided the context of my post, I will try to better articulate my original position.

 

Those who argue against anothers speech using the framework of censorship and forced kindness have succommed to an intellectual weakness which causes me palpable disgust. Repeatedly on these fora I have displayed a passion for the fact that one's right not to be offended does not supercede one's right to express ideas which cause discomfort in others. I have also demonstrated previously that the idea of offense is a subjective one, as items offensive to one person are not offensive to another. Since no objective definition can be applied to these labels, it is quite clear that these are not valid or appropriate parameters to use to put limits on a conversation. I went further even to suggest that this would be, in fact, childish.

 

As we all know, children often cry and engage in tantrum behaviors to get what they want, when they are losing a battle, and do so in order to prevent others from doing and saying things which they do not wish to see nor hear. They do so to escape positions of discomfort. My proposition is that sensitivies such as that have no place in a debate, especially not one about existence (or lack thereof) of god.

 

I then followed up by saying that if anyone believes there is a god, the onus is on them to supply evidence, and also to demonstrate how this belief brings any benefit to our knowlege base, to our ability to understand the universe in which we ourselves do exist. I also supplied an observation, suggesting that those who believe in god without evidence are no better than a child who believes in the tooth fairy, and that it is indicative of delusion.

 

Ladies and gentlemen, I thank you for your time, and submit to your arbitration the punishment for my offense. I can only hope you realize why my preference for economy of motion and efficiency of words works in favor of both myself and all of you, and was more respectful of everyones time. I personally find that my original succinct response put forth these points much more directly, were in themselves quite clear, and carried a certain rhetorical weight.

 

Since I've been called out on to the mat by nutronjon for not offering a 76 page treatise on why I disagreed with the quote about the importance of kindness over reason, I hope this makes up for my previous contribution. I will end this substantive argument in the spirit of kindness myself, and suggest that you STFU already, and quit wasting my time.

 

Thank you, and good evening.

 

Quit whining like a little girl.

 

You think god exists?

 

Prove it, or you're no better than a delusional child who believes in the tooth fairy.

[REASON]

Are you arguing God is not heat/energy that of the Big Bang? Why isn't that God?

 

Why would it be God?

[REASON]

.....Until that time, I will resubmit my argument in terms which show decency and respect to the ideas of those to whom I was objecting.....

 

Thank you, and good evening.

 

Don't you think you could be a little more succinct?

 

Geez!

[Moontanman]

Ah. Of course. You are most certainly correct. There were a series of off topic, random quotations from people which had no direct bearing on the discussion being had, so I certainly should have called on all of my powers and skills of debate to formulate an argument against this. It clearly did not call for a brief and blunt editorial such as the one I offered in response to the final quote implying that kindness should overrule intelligence and reason, so let me give it another go.

 

 

Ladies and gentlemen of the hypography readership, much like a mosquito in a nudist colony, I am not quite sure where to begin. In this thread of now 370 posts on the existence of god, I have contributed heavily, but should have known better than to simply assume that my past posts on this topic would provide any context for my future posts.

 

For this, I offer my sincerest and humblest of apologies, and leave it to your arbitration whether or not my blatant and appalling offenses here justify a stoning, burning alive, or crucifiction.

 

Until that time, I will resubmit my argument in terms which show decency and respect to the ideas of those to whom I was objecting.

 

As we can see, looking back, a quote from Nietzsche was shared which illuminated the issue of blunder, whether man be god's blunder, or god a blunder of man. This prompted another quote to be shared by a member, and that quote came from Alexander Pope. It was a quote which well supplemented the quote of Nietzsche shared immediately prior.

 

This sharing of quotes began to accelerate, and dialog had ceased. It was beginning to look like an album of statements made by others, and the thread was suddenly indistinguishable from our Watercooler dialog under the title "Quotes," where users post quotes which have a certain significance to the poster.

 

Two quotes which followed that of Alexander Pope were shared by another member, and were suggestive of the fact that some very gifted and brilliant men were open to the ideas of mysticism and spirituality. The second quote was from one Albert Einstein, great scientist and humanist of the early 20th century. However, the structure of the quote placed the commentsof Einstein out of context, and, in my estimation, distorted their true meaning.

 

It would seem that I was not the only reader under this impression, as that quote was responded to with another, more full quote from Einstein which gave a clearer and more accurate perspective on his meaning. It was the response to this which prompted my own reply, a reply presently being admonished by nutronjon.

 

Ladies and gentlemen, the quote which followed the clarification given for Einstein's perspective was as follows:

 

When I was young, I used to admire intelligent people; as I grow older, I admire kind people.

 

Abraham Joshua Heschel

 

 

Inherent in the quote, one being shared in a thread discussing the existence or lack thereof of a god, was the idea that kindess was more important than intelligence, reason, and the need to scrutinize all ideas. This is an argument frequently made by those supporting the religious viewpoint, and also those who are arguing in favor of the existence of god (of whatever definition).

 

 

Working with engineers each day, I've taken into my approach to the universe an inherent "economy of motion," and efficiency if you will, and my response was short, to the point, and illuminated to readers of the thread my own personal sense of the problems with such an approach. In short, they were not the kind of sentiments that we should take seriously when we are attempting to address these issues, and I made a vain attempt to steer the conversation back on track.

 

If you will allow it, ladies and gentlemen, now that I have provided the context of my post, I will try to better articulate my original position.

 

Those who argue against anothers speech using the framework of censorship and forced kindness have succommed to an intellectual weakness which causes me palpable disgust. Repeatedly on these fora I have displayed a passion for the fact that one's right not to be offended does not supercede one's right to express ideas which cause discomfort in others. I have also demonstrated previously that the idea of offense is a subjective one, as items offensive to one person are not offensive to another. Since no objective definition can be applied to these labels, it is quite clear that these are not valid or appropriate parameters to use to put limits on a conversation. I went further even to suggest that this would be, in fact, childish.

 

As we all know, children often cry and engage in tantrum behaviors to get what they want, when they are losing a battle, and do so in order to prevent others from doing and saying things which they do not wish to see nor hear. They do so to escape positions of discomfort. My proposition is that sensitivies such as that have no place in a debate, especially not one about existence (or lack thereof) of god.

 

I then followed up by saying that if anyone believes there is a god, the onus is on them to supply evidence, and also to demonstrate how this belief brings any benefit to our knowlege base, to our ability to understand the universe in which we ourselves do exist. I also supplied an observation, suggesting that those who believe in god without evidence are no better than a child who believes in the tooth fairy, and that it is indicative of delusion.

 

Ladies and gentlemen, I thank you for your time, and submit to your arbitration the punishment for my offense. I can only hope you realize why my preference for economy of motion and efficiency of words works in favor of both myself and all of you, and was more respectful of everyones time. I personally find that my original succinct response put forth these points much more directly, were in themselves quite clear, and carried a certain rhetorical weight.

 

Since I've been called out on to the mat by nutronjon for not offering a 76 page treatise on why I disagreed with the quote about the importance of kindness over reason, I hope this makes up for my previous contribution. I will end this substantive argument in the spirit of kindness myself, and suggest that you STFU already, and quit wasting my time.

 

Thank you, and good evening.

 

You got a lot of time on your hands infinite or are you just practicing your typing skills?

[C1ay]

Why isn't that God?

 

Because there is ZERO EVIDENCE that "God" is anything more than an ambiguously defined 3 letter word.