Does God Exist?

I don't get it. how can anybody that has read through this thread still think that believing in god is a valid view point. Lets recap

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
(PaulOtt)
The problem with asking for proof of God's existence is that you are placing a man-made system (the scientific method) above Him, and asking Him to be subject to it. This will never happen.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
(tman_ndsu08)
So what you're in fact saying is that there is no way to prove that god exists or doesn't exist. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
(PaulOtt)
Yes, when speaking of "prove" as defined by the scientific method. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
(larry)
Ain't you ever heard of "innocent until proven guilty"??!! The only damned thing the defendant has to do is deal with the evidence presented by the prosecution!! He/she/it ain't gotta prove innocence!! In fact, there is no Gawd Damed way for 'em to do that!
Prove you didn't put a condom over your head, once!! Come-on, fucking prove it!!

In the case of Gawd!! there has been no evidence presented!! None!! Hell, their ain't even anyting to argue with, given the total lack of evidence! Gawd **does not exist** until the plantiffs present their evidence, as I see it. And without evidence, I'm no more obligated to "prove" that "he" doesn't, than I am to prove that Dr. Taplinsky's hard-on medecine won't cure limp-dick and baldness. He's the guy making the claim.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

So as you people can now see, your argument has no merit. You are the ones making the outragous claim. That an all powerful being created all the universe and rules over all of man kind. conveniently this being also cannot be seen, touched, heard, smelled, or tasted. No evidence has ever been presented and people still think that it is a valid view point. STOP.

[tman_ndsu08]

The quest for god is like traveling on a road without an end.

Religion is not about traviling the road as a means to reach the end...it's about believing that the road has an end even though you can't see it (or hear it..etc).

People who say there is an end have no proof. People who say there is not an end also have no proof.

Arguing about who is right and who is wrong is like traviling the road (read: pointless).

[theophysics]

Back to Libertyminded...
If you really believe:
(((b) Which is far more remote, but a possibility nonetheless. Is that there are other intelligent species out there that might have been around for a while longer than us and have far more advanced technology. As of yet there has been no empirical proof, but you would have to have your head buried in the sand not to realize that there have been many things flying around our planet seen by very credible people that cannot be explained in knowable terms.)))


Then, my question to you is that:
Although we are gaining more and more knowledge in the area of space and other such things, we still cannot prove that there is any other kind of intelligent beings out there. I try to remain open-minded and believe that there is. Apparently you do too, for you said "you would have to have your head buried in the sand" not to notice such things. Not all Christians believe that there is only one planet of intelligent life forms out there. You can't just lump together a whole group of people and expect them to be the same and have the same ideology. That would be just like saying that "All Mexicans like tacos" or "All blacks like rap music" or better yet, "All atheists have no morals." That is just not the case. Back to the point, I do not think God would necessarily only create one "good" planet with intelligent beings on it. I think that it's possible that there are many. But yet... I have no proof.

To everyone else... You still haven't shown why it is so bad to believe in God. Is that too hard of a question to answer? WAIT... Maybe y'all need proof that it is so horrible of a concept. Well, you aren't going to find that.

[eburchelli]

If I were to chose a god, it would not be in church. That's the last place to go for truth. But if you like dogma and reworked theory, then go to church and get your fill.

[PaulOtt]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Solaris,)
I don't get it. how can anybody that has read through this thread still think that believing in god is a valid view point. Lets recap

. . .

So as you people can now see, your argument has no merit. You are the ones making the outragous claim. That an all powerful being created all the universe and rules over all of man kind. conveniently this being also cannot be seen, touched, heard, smelled, or tasted. No evidence has ever been presented and people still think that it is a valid view point. STOP.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

If you only accept what you can see, touch, hear, smell, or taste, then you are living a very poor existence, one devoid of everything that isn't tangible to the senses: love, anger, truth, reason, beauty, and life, to name just a few. You might be able to record the signs of something like anger, as in a raised voice, flushed face, and so on, but you cannot really prove someone is angry. Yet do you question whether anger really exists? This is the problem with trying to use the scientific method for that which exists beyond the sensory realm. And so much of what is important in life has nothing to do with our five senses. It has to do with the heart, mind, and soul. It has to do with God.

I am not saying that God cannot reveal Himself physically, because He certainly can. And please don't let the word itself, "God," confuse you. It is a name that I (and many others) use to describe the living force that created the world and is still at work within it to this very day. We can see the signs of His existence, but the truest evidence for His existence lies beyond what we can see and record.

[Poetic_Justice]

unfortunately, though i am a Christian, I have to agree with larry
too many Christians get caught in the democratic notion that numbers make right...
if numbers made right we should all be confucianists, or hindu, or perhaps muslim...
I think a lot of Christians on here should take a step back, look at the arguments against Christendom and try to counteract them, I assure you that there are arguments... It even says in the Bible that "The Heavens and Earth declare the glory of God" with a quote like that, it is impossible to say, God isn't logical, or God can't be shown by logic and/or experience... obviously He says in the Bible that He can...
So get out there and learn, we are called by God to do such.. don't jsut parrot what you have heard in church or from your minister, read the Bible, read epistemology... and learn...

[Pooeypants]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (PaulOtt,)

If you only accept what you can see, touch, hear, smell, or taste, then you are living a very poor existence, one devoid of everything that isn't tangible to the senses: love, anger, truth, reason, beauty, and life, to name just a few. You might be able to record the signs of something like anger, as in a raised voice, flushed face, and so on, but you cannot really prove someone is angry. Yet do you question whether anger really exists? This is the problem with trying to use the scientific method for that which exists beyond the sensory realm. And so much of what is important in life has nothing to do with our five senses. It has to do with the heart, mind, and soul. It has to do with God.

I am not saying that God cannot reveal Himself physically, because He certainly can. And please don't let the word itself, "God," confuse you. It is a name that I (and many others) use to describe the living force that created the world and is still at work within it to this very day. We can see the signs of His existence, but the truest evidence for His existence lies beyond what we can see and record.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Hmm, then I must say that I have the right to assume God doesn't exist.

We see our world and the universe through these senses, we use instruments to enchance and increase their ranges. If God cannot be detected then God may as well be an imaginary being, which is what I consider God to be now.

[Pooeypants]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tman_ndsu08,)
Larry, you still have no proof that god doesn't exist...only proof that some people are morons.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
He doesn't need to prove God doesn't exist, the case for proof of existence has yet to be presented.

[Poetic_Justice]

PP, would you say that sight, hearing, smell, touch, and taste are the only senses possible?

[Poetic_Justice]

actually, if neither side proves existnece or non-existence, then we are at an impasse... lack of proof does not prove non-existence, although one could say it shows probabilities...
seeing as neither side has absolute proof, it would seem that agnosticists are right for now at least...
philosophically speaking

[Pooeypants]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Poetic_Justice,)
PP, would you say that sight, hearing, smell, touch, and taste are the only senses possible?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Those are the five sense that we humans have identified and used. It is what we are limited to, unless one can prove otherwise.

[Poetic_Justice]

Well, my point is that God may not be detectable to those senses, but might quite easily be detectable to another sense, such as faith.
Perhaps we are not only missing the detection of God, but also the detection of extra-terrestrials, and other forms of energy, because of a lack of sensory perception...

[Pooeypants]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Poetic_Justice,)
Well, my point is that God may not be detectable to those senses, but might quite easily be detectable to another sense, such as faith.
Perhaps we are not only missing the detection of God, but also the detection of extra-terrestrials, and other forms of energy, because of a lack of sensory perception...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
But that doesn't matter, because if that were so, we still have every right to assume God doesn't exist. I could say there was a pink elephant out there which was very good at hiding from our sensors, thus that we can never detect the said pink elephant. But does it exist?

[Poetic_Justice]

Perhaps, but if someone had another sense in our society, and detected God, what would you say to them?
would you say congratulations, you're more evolved, or would you say that they're insane?
Perhaps we allow the net of insanity and eccentricity to spread to wide...
Perhaps we are normalizing ourselves too much to properly take use of the gifs among some of us.

[Pooeypants]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Poetic_Justice,)
Perhaps, but if someone had another sense in our society, and detected God, what would you say to them?
would you say congratulations, you're more evolved, or would you say that they're insane?
Perhaps we allow the net of insanity and eccentricity to spread to wide...
Perhaps we are normalizing ourselves too much to properly take use of the gifs among some of us.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
We get plenty of people who say they've seen aliens with sensors that do exist. What does that prove?

I'd say if God does exist then God IS the universe, the crude manifestations we've envisaged so far is all to do with us wanting to feel special and unique. Although in the grand scheme of things, relative to the whole universe we're as insignificant as a grain of sand.

[tusaki]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pooeypants,)
I'd say if God does exist then God IS the universe, the crude manifestations we've envisaged so far is all to do with us wanting to feel special and unique. Although in the grand scheme of things, relative to the whole universe we're as insignificant as a grain of sand.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

That's an interesting statement! In my opinion we are heading in the right direction here. But why do people always see themselves as being 'other' than god? Why not see ourselves as being part of 'god'? In a sense that the sum of all consciousness 'is' god?

[Poetic_Justice]

First, that is one definition of God, very Hindu-ish if I remember correctly... There are other definitions... There was some fancy name for that theory too... Panentheism? Pantheism?

In any case as long as one is not a nihilist, your definition would probably hold true for anyone of a secular or atheist frame of thought. I mean, if there is no other being outside the universe, and the universe has worth. Then the unierse is THE worth. It is the penultimate, in which case it would suitably be called God.

second, our significance all depends on what significance IS...

[tusaki]

Exactly :) I got my definition from buddhism, but that is a way-of-life which splintered from Hindu-ism.

But why question existance? Isn't it just a weird question? I mean, why not? why should we not exist?. existance just 'is'. Hehe, but I guess you can't change the nature of the beast. Why why why we always ask.

[Poetic_Justice]

Why, is a beautiful word... and uniquely human...
One of the msot interesting papers I ever read stated that sentience should be based on the ability to say "Why"

An inability to use a word like why, would relegate a creature to mere machinery-type comprehension.

But we're going off-topic eh

[PaulOtt]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pooeypants,)
Hmm, then I must say that I have the right to assume God doesn't exist.

We see our world and the universe through these senses, we use instruments to enchance and increase their ranges. If God cannot be detected then God may as well be an imaginary being, which is what I consider God to be now.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>Have you ever questioned why you assume your five senses are the highest authority? What aspects of our world are defined by the senses? Have you ever begun from the other end of the spectrum, and considered how God might be and how you might be able to detect Him without presuming an impersonal, repeatable experiment using your five senses (all the while not even believing that He exists) is the only way?

Just some questions to ponder.