Does god exist? and if yes then why they cant be seen in present time?

Discussion in 'Religion' started by goku1234, Nov 14, 2017.

  1. light_seeker

    light_seeker New Member

    Money:
    5⛀
    listen carefully you wil find the answer here

     
  2. light_seeker

    light_seeker New Member

    Money:
    5⛀
     
  3. Male_uk

    Male_uk Well-Known Member FCN Regular

    Money:
    11,128⛀
    What the fuck is this shit?
     
    Camay likes this.
  4. Demi_x

    Demi_x Weirdo FCN Regular

    Money:
    3⛀
    I agree with you but I feel like you presented a false dichotomy in the cotext of belief, it is true something exist or doesn’t exist, But when you reject belief in the existence of something it is not equivalent to stating the claim that it does not exist. So it is a perfectly valid position. The correct position is to not believe a claim until sufficient evidence has been met. If we believe in something we need reasons for believing in them, a burden of proof must be met.

    The reasoning has to do with our approach to epistomology. The more substantial the claim the more evidence is required to sufficiently demonstrate the claim, since extraordinary claims will require us to shift many of our perspectives on reality. We generally use the best paths to truth to figuring out those claims, and Arguments for God have not been reasoned well. If I have a jar of gumballs and tell you that it has an even number of gumballs, if you are not convinced by my argument that it is even it does not mean you believe it is odd. This is how atheism approaches ( at least most atheist) god.

    However, because a lack of belief in God also means that you likely wont agree with all the other subsets of the religion, many people will think this position is an assertion that God does not exist. It is on the person who believes that God exists or God does not exist to prove it.

    So you can easily say you do not believe God exist because there hasn’t been a sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it does, and in that sense you would be atheist since atheism is a lack of belief in God(s). Still, you don’t live your life in limbo as a “god has a 50 50 chance of existing or not”, you just don’t believe in it till it is demonstrated, its possible, but we have no idea to what degree, and we have never seen anything that suggests supernaturalism in the world so we should take it with a grain of salt, like many supernatural claims.
     
    MannyMan likes this.
  5. MannyMan

    MannyMan Well-Known Member

    Money:
    17,875⛀
    I was going to write something in here, but I've found that there's a type of cyclic recycling of opinions that I have contributed to and well after reading back all the comments it's obvious that there is no real conclusion to this question because it will forever be a subjective question. If you truly believe in a deity that rules your past present and future who am I to dissuade you from that belief system you've prescribed to? Asking for some kind of proof is kinda silly especially since this type of reasoning will always be seen as argumentative, thanks church of latter day saints, this is all your fault! :D.... Seriously, no amount of logical reasoning, you tube video fodder or supplications will change the mind of any individual that has a already predetermined mindset.... not impossible, just not likely. I know this is a discussion platform, but I see way too many people getting riled up over their views compared to others. It's up to you to decide, but do it as an adult having a conversation with another adult over some coffee. Ok carry on, sorry if I interrupted a serious discussion, just wanted to jump on this soapbox since it was just laying there on the ground.... :D
     
    Camay likes this.
  6. KingDavid

    KingDavid Buzzword vendor

    I don't understand how the idea of a Creator of the universe is unrealistic or fantastical. I think this comes from looking at the world too mechanically and being overly confident with our current scientific understanding of the universe. We've come a long way since the stone age, but we have a ways to go. In quantum physics, there's this thing called the Observer Effect. Simply by having a conscious being observing or measuring particles changes them. Reality itself doesn't exist without consciousness. Everything is made up of these fields that have their own properties. I think it points to creation, or at least simulation. This is some pretty crazy stuff. Quantum entanglement also says that matter can physically alter other matter across one edge of the universe INSTANTLY. So what would take us 14 billion years in a space ship to see, going the speed of light of course, would happen instantaneously - assuming someone or something can control them. How do these particles instantly know to react with one another? The prevailing theory is they're not actually that far, we just can't see the other dimensions. We're like ants on a single field, observing what little we can observe and reporting what we see - but we are restricted from seeing the truths of the universe. Even if we were told by an alien or God, could our human brains even understand 9 dimensions?

    I'm not saying it's illogical to doubt the existence of a Creator, but I think a lot of atheists are overly confident with their understanding of the universe. Say what you want about organized religion, I probably agree with you on most of it, but I don't think a Creator is harder to believe in than multiple universes or string theory, or anything else at the cutting edge of science. Either way, for too many years religion divided us. No reason to argue. Better to talk it out.
     
  7. Demi_x

    Demi_x Weirdo FCN Regular

    Money:
    3⛀
    atheism doesn’t posit that God does not exist, it is a position that you don’t believe the claim that God exist is true. These are not the same. It’s possible aliens exist, in fact, it’s pretty likely. But if someone told me they know aliens exist and they provided poor evidence, I would not be unreasonable to say that I do not believe. You either believe a claim or do not believe a claim, you can’t do both. That doesn’t the mean I am being an ignorant person who is claiming aliens cannot exist. people refer to this as agnosticism, but agnosticism simply refers to knowledge, which is a subset of belief. You can be an agnostic atheist, and this is the position the majority of atheist take and it is a reasonable position. Also, the claim of God is extraordinary. When you ask people to define the concept of God and then explain their reasons for belief there are almost always inconsistencies.


    Also, because things are mysterious is not evidence that God exists. We once believed that earthquakes were proof of God’s wrath, but now that we understand plate tectonics that is no longer the case. It’s called an argument from ignorance. The lack of knowledge in something doesn’t increase the probability of another claim, that claim needs to meet ita proof on its own, the right option is to say “i dont know”

    Also, I don’t understand how you tied The Observer Effect to the conclusion that reality does not exist without consciousness. In fact, the idea that the observer refers to a conscious being and that consciousness can affect matter is a commonly gross miscategorization of the concept and is widely rejected by the scientific community.

    I understand the world is fascinating, and it’s okay to say you don’t know. In fact, your position lines up more with atheism than you may believe.
     
    Camay and MannyMan like this.
  8. KingDavid

    KingDavid Buzzword vendor

    Sure. The only problem is I never said that. I never said, "atheists are wrong for saying they know for a fact there is no God!" You didn't read my words, you skimmed them, then excitedly prepared your response. It's sad to see people strawman arguments and others readily rush to leave a like, to promote their ideology and not force themselves to think, instead of actually paying attention. I said I don't think a Creator of the universe is anymore "out there" than anything else in the cutting edge of science, specifically quantum physics - infinite universes, string theory, quantum entanglement, etc. Again, I'm not arguing that atheists are wrong in being stubborn in their lack of faith, just that belief in a Creator isn't really all that weird, all things considered. Especially since science has absolutely no explanation what triggered the big bang. This isn't to say "therefore you ought to believe in God". Do you understand?
    I don't understand how this is relevant to what I said. I'm not saying you ought to believe in a Creator, just that it's not any crazier than quantum physics. This path you've took is your own doing. Pay attention.
    strawman.jpg

    Thanks for patronizing me, I know what agnosticism is, but it's more filler to add to your false assertion that I'm saying you ought to believe in a Creator. I don't deny that not believing in something is reasonable, but this proves my point. I believe that a large amount of atheists are too sure of themselves. They surround themselves with the material world, practically worship science and they act that we - humans - understand our surroundings. I'm saying I don't believe we do. The Observer Effect is anything but reasonable - a photon can be in multiple places at the same time, go back and choose another direction, it can behave differently simply by having a conscious person measure it. Are 9 dimensions reasonable? Are multiple universes? It's very abstract.
    I never said this either. I try to choose my words carefully. I said:
    I said I THINK. I subjectively believe quantum physics points to Creation or simulation - I am not making any objective claims. I'm not saying I know anything, or that this Creator is the God of Abraham, or any other god - and I think we could just be in a computer simulation, and the Observer Effect is like finding a glitch. Either way, you didn't understand the nuance of my sentence and I doubt you read it very carefully.
    Tell me what you feel I'm wrong about and why. Tell me how you interpret the Observer Effect and how you take observation affecting the outcome of these tests. What does this mean to you? You didn't use any science or arguments to prove your point. Please tell me more.
    I never said that I did "know". I never said I believed in anything objectively. You completely fabricated what I said and spun a bunch of bullshit and wrapped it up like you're sooo wise. Thanks for proving my point, honey!
     
  9. KingDavid

    KingDavid Buzzword vendor

    My opinion is wrong? I didn't know opinions could be wrong.
    I said I believe. If you believe I've come to a false conclusion, then tell me why my bias is wrong. I think you misunderstood me. I'm not making a moral judgement against atheists, or saying they can't raise kids and aren't healthy... no idea how you came to this conclusion... but it's important to understand my context. When I say (I believe) a large amount of atheists are "too sure of themselves", in that conversation, I'm saying they're overly confident in our understanding of the material world and deny the abstract and the subjective. Not all atheists do this, of course. Friedrich Nietzsche is perhaps the best critic of religion and he had this to say on there being more to life than a materialist view:

    Science as a prejudice.

    It follows from the laws of the order of rank that scholars insofar as they belong to the spiritual middle class can never catch sight of the really big problems and question marks; moreover, their courage and their eyes simply do not reach that far – and above all, their needs that led them to become scholars in the first place, their innermost assumptions and desire that things night be such and such, their fears and hopes all come to rest and are satisfied too soon. Take for example the pedantic Englishman Herbert Spencer What makes him "enthuse” in his way and then leads him to draw a line of hope, a horizon of desirability – that eventual reconciliation of "egoism and altruism” above which he raves – almost nauseates the likes of us; a human race that adopted such Spencerian perspectives as its ultimate perspectives would seem to us worthy of contempt, of annihilation. But the mere fact that he had to experience as his highest hope something that to others appears and may only appear as a disgusting possibility poses a question mark that Spencer would have been incapable of forseeing. It is no different with the faith that so many materialistic natural scientists rest content nowadays, the faith in a world that is supposed to have its equivalent and its measure in human thinking and human valuations, a " world of truth " at which we might be able ultimately to arrive with the help of our insignificant, four-cornered human reason! What? Do we actually wish to have existence debased in that fashion to a ready-reckoner exercise and calculation for stay at home mathematicians? We should not, above all, seek to divest existence of its rich ambiguity: good taste forbids it, gentlemen, the taste of reverence for everything that lies beyond your horizon! That a world-interpretation is alone right by which you maintain your position, by which investigation and work can go on scientifically in your sense (you really mean mechanically?) an interpretation which acknowledges numbering, calculating, weighing, seeing and handling, and nothing more - such an idea is a piece of grossness and naivety, provided it is not lunacy and idiocy. Would the reverse not be quite probable, that the most superficial and external characters of existence its most apparent quality, its outside, its embodiment should let themselves be apprehended first? Perhaps alone allow themselves to be apprehended? A "scientific" interpretation of the world as you understand it might consequently still be one of the stupidest, that is to say, the most destitute of significance, of all possible world-interpretations: I say this in confidence to my friends the Mechanicians, who today like to hobnob with philosophers, and absolutely believe that mechanics is the teaching of the first and last laws upon which, as upon a ground-floor, all existence must be built. But an essentially mechanical world would be an essentially meaningless world! Supposing we valued the worth of a music with reference to how much it could be counted, calculated, or formulated how absurd such a "scientific" estimate of music would be! What would one have apprehended, understood, or discerned in it! Nothing, absolutely nothing of what is really "music" in it!
    -- Friedrich Nietzsche - The Gay Science : Book V - Aphorism # 373
    I'm a fan of science, but it can't tell you how to live your life or how to treat others. Science is also more than vaccines and feeding the world; it's also H-bombs and creating the industrial society that you believe is killing the earth. That same "thirst for knowledge" can be used by evil forces, and it historically has, in human experimentation in Germany, Japan and the United States. Science is just a tool - it has no opinion of us or our morality, and that's why I'd stress the importance of religion and to a lesser extent philosophy in keeping us in check and governing our morals.

    If you want to save the world from your apocalyptic doomsday scenario - Mother Gaia isn't happy with us - then you might want to find real results. You're not going to stop climate change by buying different lightbulbs and not eating cheeseburgers. Climate change is natural, has happened long before we existed, and was never static - however, industrial society is speeding up the process. But lowering your carbon footprint won't reverse any processes, even if we all gave Al Gore our carbon tax $$$ and stopped polluting - there's no rewind button.

    What's the game plan here? Stop industrial society and live like the blue-cat-people of James Cameron's Avatar? Even so, the climate keeps on changing - even if at a slightly lower rate. Meanwhile this scenario can't exist, like in AOC's 'Green New Deal'. It's pure fiction and waste of time - the world isn't ending in 12 years and this won't affect anything but the economy. But there's nothing stopping us from making a butt-ton of money selling books, making documentaries and getting grants from the government! Besides it's a very progressive thing to do! I want to make sure the next generation understands that I, too, love the smell of my own farts! I'm a good person. I try to minimize my carbon footprint. ;)
    *cut to a wideshot of a Chinese factory spewing tons of C02 into the atmosphere every second*


    Instead, we need more scientific innovation in carbon capture technology, or something else to combat climate change - like simply moving our coastal cities and setting up in newly uncovered land in Canada or Greenland. The United States and China lead in scientific innovation, yet they both pollute the most. Even if we find a way to grab carbon from the air, the climate will still continue to change. The climate is indifferent to our struggles, like it always has been, but as humans we are great at adapting.

    I'm no climate scientist, obviously, and now I am starting to make objective claims on this topic. I could be wrong. But I don't think so. I think climate change alarmism is a liberal doomsday cult, popular among secularists to fill the void of a religion. Don't get me wrong, it's good to recycle, man-made climate change is real, but "leaving a smaller carbon footprint"? Sounds like meaningless virtue signalling to me. But good luck with that!
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2019
  10. Prim31

    Prim31 Guest

    Does God exist. Yes I’m sure he does . Why doesn’t he reveal himself openly? Probably because his perfection and holiness would be too much for us mere mortals to bear.
     
  11. TBig88M

    TBig88M Well-Known Member FCN Regular

    Money:
    199,522⛀
    Yes because if al those things are fake, you don't have to be affraid of it right? And offcourse you died before so you know for certain that there is nothing after life... Thank you for your clever certainties.
     
  12. James1543

    James1543 Guest

    I'm here to tell you there is a God there is a heaven and a hell and Jesus God's son is the only one that can forgive your sins so you can get into heaven without him you're already on your way to hell.
    But God is about love and if you don't choose him then you choosing the other guy.
     
    TBig88M likes this.
  13. Frankey

    Frankey Guest

    Whatever the case, it will end bad for the believers. If we can 100 percent prove that God does not exist, people will lose their faith. If we can 100 percent prove that God does exist, than what is the point in having faith at all
     
  14. Dcdevon

    Dcdevon Well-Known Member FCN Regular

    Money:
    59,034⛀
    I don't believe there is a God . People have the right to believe whatever they want. But I call bullshit on this peace and love nonsense. Thousands have died in the name of Jesus. Killed by Christians because they were Jewish, or Muslim , or anything not Christian. And to this day it teaches intolerance to those who believe differently. And it's believers wish to force their beliefs on others . Not a religion of peace and love in the least .
     
  15. Dcdevon

    Dcdevon Well-Known Member FCN Regular

    Money:
    59,034⛀
    ' Everybody want to go to heaven , nobody want to die ...Peter Tosh ...JS
     
  16. TBig88M

    TBig88M Well-Known Member FCN Regular

    Money:
    199,522⛀
    What?!!!!
     
  17. M_Bluey

    M_Bluey Well-Known Member FCN Regular

    I'm of the opinion Hitchens' Razor can also apply to atheism to undermine atheism.
     
  18. M_Bluey

    M_Bluey Well-Known Member FCN Regular

    The big questions will always remained unanswerable and therefore will always belong to philosophy. For me, Aristotle's prime mover is a nice concept.
     
  19. M_Bluey

    M_Bluey Well-Known Member FCN Regular

    Although this response is a valid challange to my turning tables and applying Hitchens' Razor to Hitchens' position, tbh.
     
    Demi_x likes this.
  20. M_Bluey

    M_Bluey Well-Known Member FCN Regular

    But for the unschooled like myself and others, watching say the double-slit experiment does make quanta seem delightfully mysterious. I keep meaning to try the Bohr Einstein Debates but know my knowledge lacks the milage to make it worthwhile.

    Probabilities until realization. I'll settle with that.
     

Share This Page