Welcome to Gaia! ::

*~Let the Fire Fall ~* A Christian Guild

Back to Guilds

 

 

Reply Debate and Discussion
is their really a god? Goto Page: [] [<] 1 2 3 ... 4 5 6 7 [>] [»|]

Quick Reply

Submit

is their a god
  there is
  none
View Results

Bane Ad Vitam

Bane Ad Vitam's avatar

PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 3:41 pm
I believe so, and that should be good enough. If you don't I encourage you to look into Christianity, and, if you have looked into Christianity and don't agree with it, I encourage you to reconsider.  
PostPosted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:28 pm
Mechanism Wrote:
squeen_of_pades Wrote:
First off, does this make you on "the ends justifies the means" side of things, or by goals do you not mean any ultimate goals?

I'm not speaking about what the end justifies; (justice is an blurry concept to me anyway).
By goal, I mean any goal that you have. All of one's desires are goals, for example; goals with varying priority.

squeen_of_pades Wrote:
You prefer to take the good out of nature, I prefer to say the two are related.

I do not 'prefer to take the good out of nature'.
It's not a matter of preference, and I'm arguing that there never was objective 'good' in nature.

squeen_of_pades Wrote:
Both are opinions based on pure feeling and upbringing.

Depends what you mean.
--I'm fairly sure that I just presented you with a justified argument.

squeen_of_pades Wrote:
I can only argue, but there wouldn't be any reason, and I wouldn't be able to convince anybody of anything.

I beg to differ.

squeen_of_pades Wrote:
Because the good is more influencial then the consequences; because we have the ability to be compassionate.

I think that you still don't understand.
A major part of what I said is that whether something is 'good' utterly depends on consequences.
>"What's the difference between an objective morality existing and not existing?
>If doing good (or bad) does not have any consequence whatsoever, there is no difference."

That was, a consequence from the 'goodness'. (Which, one would assume, would be something that you want, otherwise why's it good?)

squeen_of_pades Wrote:
I donate to the poor = good
I'm out some hard earned cash = consequence

That's not what I mean by consequence.
And WHY is it good?
If there's not a reason, then how can it be so?


As long as there is this discussion on the differences between "good" and "bad", I'd like to bring you C. S. Lewis's claims in the first chapter of "Mere Christianity".

How do we define good and bad? Is good the things we do because we know it's right or because it's pleasurable to do it? Is bad the things we do because we know it's wrong or because it's not pleasurable to do it? On the contrary, most of the things that which we do are bad are pleasurable initially, and most of the things we do which are good we do because we know it is right.

If there is to be a distinction between good and bad, there must be something that tells us which is which. If we believe that good comes from a spirit, the Good Spirit as I shall call it, there has to be something bigger than the Good Spirit that defines why it's good. No matter how many times we say that it's good because it is, there ultimately has to be an absolute reason it's good. The same goes for bad. If we believe that bad comes from a spirit, the Bad Spirit, there has to be something bigger than the Bad Spirit that defines why it's bad. No matter how many times we say that it's bad because it is, there ultimately has to be an absolute reason it's bad.

If we believe that everything is relative and that there are no absolutes, we cannot be sure whether anything we do is for whichever reason. If we believe that there are no absolutes and are absolutely sure about it, we contradict ourselves. If we believe that there are no absolutes and, as a result, we must have some doubt in our statement, the possiblity of there being an absolute is increased drastically.  

rillegas08

rillegas08's avatar


lordstar

lordstar's avatar

PostPosted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 7:45 am
doubt raises uncertenty not probability  
PostPosted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 8:08 pm
smilies/icon_surprised.gif Logical proof of God (Taken from the ideas of theologists that I've read about)

Arguments:

Cosmological Argument.


1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.
4 Therefore, the explanation of the universe's existence is God.

This argument is logically valid, so the only question is the truth of the premises. Premise (3) is undeniable for any sincere truth seeker, so the question comes down to (1) and (2).

Premise (1) seems quite plausible. Imagine that you're walking through the woods and come upon a translucent ball lying on the forest floor. You would find quite bizarre the claim that the ball just exists inexplicably. And increasing the size of the ball, even until it becomes so co-extensive with the cosmos, would do nothing to eliminate the need for an explanation of its existence.

Premise (2) might at first appear controversial, but it is in fact synonymous with the usual atheist claim that if God does not exist, then the universe has no explanation of its existence. Besides, (2) is quite plausible in its own right. For an external cause of the universe must be beyond space and time and there fore cannot be physical or material. Now there are only two kinds of things that fit that description: either abstract objects, like numbers, or else an intelligent mind. But abstract objects are causally impotent. The number 7, for example, can't cause anything. Therefore, it follows that the explanation of the univers is an external transcendent, personal mind that created the universe - which is what most people have traditionally meant by "God."


The kalam cosmological argument. This version of the argument has a rich Islamic heritage.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Premise (1) certainly seems more plausibly true than its denial. The idea that things can pop into being without a cause is worse than magic. Nonetheless, its remarkable how many nontheists, under the force of the evidence for premise (2), have denied (1) rather than acquiesce in the argument's conclusion.

Atheists have traditionally denied (2) in favor of an eternal universe. But there are good reasons, both philosophical and scientific, to doubt that the universe had no beginning. Philosophically the idea of an infinite past seems absurd. If the universe never had a beginning, then the number of past events in the history of the universe is infinite. Not only is this a very paradoxical idea, but it also raises problem: How could the present event ever arrive if an infinite number of prior events had to elapse first?

Moreover, a remarkable series of discoveries in astronomy and astrophysics over the last century has breathed new life into the kalam argument. We now have fairly strong evidence that the universe is not eternal in past, but had an absolute beginning.


The teleological argument. The old design argument remains as robust today as ever. Advocates of the Intelligent Design movement have continued the tradition of finding examples of design in biological systems. But the cutting edge of the discussion focuses on the the recently discovered, remarkable fine-tuning of the cosmos for life. This fine tuning is of two sorts. First, when the laws of nature are expressed as mathematical equations they contain certain constants, such as the gravitational constant. The mathematical values of these constants are not determined by the laws of nature. Second, there are certain arbitrary quantities that are just part of the initial conditions of the universe - for example the amount of entropy.

These constants and quantities fall into an extraordinarily narrow range of life-permitting values. Were these constants and quantities to be altered by less than a hair's breadth, the life-permitting balance would be destroyed and life would not exist. Accordingly, we may argue:

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due either to physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, it is due to design.

Premise (1) simply lists the present options for explaining the fine-tuning. The key premise is therefore (2). The first alternative, physical necessity, says that the constants and quantities must have the values they do. This alternative has little to commend it. The laws of nature are consistent with a wide range of values for the constants and quantities for example, the most promising candidate for a unified theory of physics to date, superstring theory, allows a "cosmic landscape" of around 10^500 possible universes governed by the laws of nature, and only an infinitesimal proportion of these can support life.

As for chance, contemporary theorists increasingly recognize that the odds against fine-tuning are simply insurmountable unless one is prepared to embrace the speculative hypothesis that our universe is but one member of a randomly ordered, infinite ensemble of universes (multiverse). In that ensemble of worlds, every physically possible world is realized and obviously we could observe only a world where the constants and quantities are consistent with our existence. This is where the debate rages today. Physicists such as Oxford University's Roger Penrose launch powerful arguments against any appeal to a multiverse as a way of explaining away fine-tuning.


The moral argument. A numver of ethicists have defended "divine command" theories of ethics, which support various moral arguments for God's existence. One such argument:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

By objective moral values and duties, one means values and duties that are valid and binding independent of human opinion. A good many atheists and theists alike concur with premise (1). For given a naturalistic world-view, human beings are just animals, and activity that we count as murder, torture, and rape is natural and morally neutral in the animal kingdom. Moreover, if there is no one to command or prohibit certain actions, how can we have moral obligations or prohibitions?

Premise (2) might seem more disputable, but it will probably come as a surprise to most laypeople to learn that (2) is widely accepted among philosophers. For any argument against objective morals will tend to be based on premises that are less evident than the reality of moral values themselves, as apprehended in our moral experience. Most philosophers therefore do recognize objective moral distinctions.

Nontheists will typically counter the moral argument with a dilemma: Is something good because God wills it or does God will something because it is good? The first alternative makes good and evil arbitrary, whereas the second makes the good independent of God. Fortunately, the dilemma is a false one. Theists have traditionally taken a third alternative: God wills something because he is good. That is to say, what Plato called "the Good" is the moral nature of God himself. God is by nature loving, kind, impartial, and so on. He is the paradigm of goodness. Therefore, the good is not independent of God.

Moreover, God's commandments are a necessary expression of his nature. His commands to us are therefore not arbitrary but are necessary reflections of his character. This gives us an adequate foundation for the affirmation of objective moral values and duties.


The ontological argument. Anselm's famous argument has been reformulated and defended by Alvin Plantinga, Robert Maydole, Brian Leftow, and others. God, Anselm observes, is by definition the greatest being conceivable. If you could conceive of anything greater than God, then that would be God. Thus, God is the greatest conceivable being, a maximally great being. So what would such a being be like? He would be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, and he would exist in every logically possible world. But then we can argue:

1. It is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible wold.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. Therefore, a maximally great being exists in the actual world.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
7. Therefore, God exists.

Now it might be a surprise to learn that steps 2-7 of this argument are relatively uncontroversial. Most philosophers would agree that if God's existence is even possible, then he must exist. So the whole question is: Is God's existence possible? The atheist has to maintain that it's impossible that God exists. He has to say that the concept of God is incoherent, like the concept of a married bachelor or a round square. But the problem is that the concept of God just doesn't appear to be incoherent in that way. The idea of a being that is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good in every possible world seems perfectly coherent. And so long as God's existence is even possible, it follows that God must exist.



Of course, there are replies and counter-replies to all of these arguments, and no one imagines that a consensus will be reached. So just kind of look at these and decide for yourself whether or not God exists.  

Medanite

Medanite's avatar


Antique Nickel

Antique Nickel's avatar

PostPosted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 4:58 pm
There might be a higher power, but I tend to think it's incompetent and doesn't care. Like if you look at your compuer desk, there's a ton of incredibley small organisms there and you couldn't care less. Maybe we're the organisms to a larger being.

Though I don't know or care, just thought this debate was interesting.  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 8:09 pm
God doesn't want to kill everyone by revealing Himself, but He also doesn't want everyone to be saved.  

OneWithDunamis

OneWithDunamis's avatar


yashua_freak

yashua_freak's avatar

PostPosted: Sun Dec 14, 2008 9:02 pm
the proof of god being there is the fact that we have a concept of a god in our minds...while the human imagination is powerful...it cant create a concept out of nothing everthing we imagine is based off of elements we see in every day life...
we didn't come up with the concept of god on our own, how could we?
god is a being that can create a person from sand and breath air into it to bring it to life...a simple thing nothing complicated about it...but upon closer inspection we see that every single part of the human body is needed in the major function of the systems...everthing about the human body is a complicated machine the works so completely insink that even a second of delay on any part would cause a domino effect and cause everything else around it to callapse...who could imagine something like that up on there own...we cant.  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 3:03 am
SANGO25 Wrote:
the proof of god being there is the fact that we have a concept of a god in our minds...while the human imagination is powerful...it cant create a concept out of nothing everthing we imagine is based off of elements we see in every day life...
we didn't come up with the concept of god on our own, how could we?
god is a being that can create a person from sand and breath air into it to bring it to life...a simple thing nothing complicated about it...but upon closer inspection we see that every single part of the human body is needed in the major function of the systems...everthing about the human body is a complicated machine the works so completely insink that even a second of delay on any part would cause a domino effect and cause everything else around it to callapse...who could imagine something like that up on there own...we cant.


Well we can imagine the Flying Spaghetti Monster easily enough, the Author Peter F Hamilton in many of his books describes the entire history and sociaty including the genetic and physical makeup and evolotion of some species he introduces he will dedicated chapters to very complex and indepth back historys of there creation and evolution even going as far as to state how there planetry systems effected this growth.

That's immagination, the statememnt that God exists because we can imagine him is a stupid one, and if it were true you would have to conceed that the many God's of the Hindu's exist also, and of Rome and of the Kemetics., think these things through please.  

We Dont Negotiate

We Dont Negotiate's avatar


divineseraph

divineseraph's avatar

PostPosted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 3:57 pm
SANGO25 Wrote:
the proof of god being there is the fact that we have a concept of a god in our minds...while the human imagination is powerful...it cant create a concept out of nothing everthing we imagine is based off of elements we see in every day life...
we didn't come up with the concept of god on our own, how could we?
god is a being that can create a person from sand and breath air into it to bring it to life...a simple thing nothing complicated about it...but upon closer inspection we see that every single part of the human body is needed in the major function of the systems...everthing about the human body is a complicated machine the works so completely insink that even a second of delay on any part would cause a domino effect and cause everything else around it to callapse...who could imagine something like that up on there own...we cant.


That seems to be Descartes' reasoning- There is an inherent God-idea that must propagate from something, namely God. I don't like that argument though, it seems weak. I prefer his reasoning that says that to have degrees of something, there must be something of which to base it on- There would be no goodness without sin to justify it, there would be no darkness without light to cast shadows or exclude areas, no cold if there were no such thing as heat. Human beings are imperfect, and have flaws. Therefore, there must be something contrasting WITHOUT flaws. Whatever this perfect, immortal and flawless thing is is what we know as God.  
PostPosted: Thu Mar 05, 2009 2:53 pm
yes there is a God,saying there is no God and accepting evolution is like saying that your house evolved by itself from the dust of the land,its stupid and if people heard you say that...they would most likely send you to a mental asylum(lol),but no,our system today is un-tamable and "unstoppable" in the theories that they believe in,such theories like the big bang theory,the evolution theory,and even the al gore theory(there have been a whole bunch of contradictions to that one),theories arent certain(thats why they are merely theories),but what is certain is that there was and is creator for everything we see,we breathe,we touch,we smell

that is all for now  

Varda of the Stars

Varda of the Stars 's avatar

Magnetic Explorer

6,750 Points
  • Wall Street 200
  • Hygienic 200
  • Dressed Up 200

Ricette

Ricette's avatar

PostPosted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 8:57 pm
krystalmetalera Wrote:
yes there is a God,saying there is no God and accepting evolution is like saying that your house evolved by itself from the dust of the land,its stupid and if people heard you say that...they would most likely send you to a mental asylum(lol),but no,our system today is un-tamable and "unstoppable" in the theories that they believe in,such theories like the big bang theory,the evolution theory,and even the al gore theory(there have been a whole bunch of contradictions to that one),theories arent certain(thats why they are merely theories),but what is certain is that there was and is creator for everything we see,we breathe,we touch,we smell

that is all for now
Well houses did evolve, in a sense. We went from caves, to small lodges built of poles and skins, and then move done to mud huts, to cities of mud brick, and I hope you see where I am going.

Anyway your little bit on how denying God and accepting evolution is somehow equivalent to the whole house coming from dust, how is that even related? You are trying to make the entire argument of evolution seem irrelevant and ridiculous and I suppose thats your goal. As for you small rant on theories one could argue that religions of all types are nothing more than theological THEORIES on an uncertain probability of a higher God-being existing. And you can say faith make sit certain but only in a percentage of the populace, not everyone. Just because there are rocks and trees and things like that doesn't always mean a god being made them. We build houses, phones, things we use, and we are not gods. We are mere mortals. Do you think microbes on our devices have made religions based around us? All hail the great and powerful chemist who created us, o ye molecules of plastic? Though that could be cool....  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 10:14 am
I think there are many gods.
Prove me wrong.  

Xahmen

Xahmen's avatar


divineseraph

divineseraph's avatar

PostPosted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 5:14 am
In the beginning, there was but one singularity.  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:12 pm
divineseraph Wrote:
In the beginning, there was but one singularity.

Yeah, if you're a Young Earth Creationist.
Or, you can listen to science and realize that "in the beginning" polytheism was the widely practiced form of religion.  

Xahmen

Xahmen's avatar


divineseraph

divineseraph's avatar

PostPosted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 8:36 am
Zahwomen Wrote:
divineseraph Wrote:
In the beginning, there was but one singularity.

Yeah, if you're a Young Earth Creationist.
Or, you can listen to science and realize that "in the beginning" polytheism was the widely practiced form of religion.


Young Earth? I'm sorry, but doesn't the Big Bang theory state that before the universe there was a timeless, infinite singularity? This dates back what, 80 billion years or so?

If there is a singularity, there is one original creator. There may be many faces to this creator later, as there was initially one plasma-like matter that cooled and corrupted into the 114 or so known elements, but logically and scientifically there was but one original entity.

Which science are you using that is determined by original theologies?

And besides, the true original theologies started with a single Sky God and moved on to a prima-materia origin soup from which multiple gods rose. In both cases we start with one thing.  
Reply
Debate and Discussion

Goto Page: [] [<] 1 2 3 ... 4 5 6 7 [>] [»|]
 
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games