Do you think god exisists?

[Galatian]

Yeah yeah whatever funny how all the "atheists" are the ones who are having to get up all on the topic and prove that he dosen't exist lol >>

Wow, hold on. I always thought that those people who have a theory have to prove that is right. Ergo people who say god exist must have a proof for that.
Atheist do not need to prove anything because we don't think something might be the case without knowing it for sure.

But I have to admit: If everything fails I could go with the theory with God creating the Big Bang. I just wouldn't want to call that being god, because god is in my eyes a word that I connect to war, death and suffering as christian church has cause a few centuries ago and as president Bush is causing now claiming all those wars are god given. But enough of that

 

[Bill3000]

Actually, God is like Schrodinger's cat - until we can prove that he exists or does not exist, he both exists and doesn't exist.

If God is restricted by the laws of quantum mechanics, we're screwed.

 

[Atlas14]

No, God's name should be capitalized as it is a proper noun (I once started a thread on this . . . ) but capitalizing the pronouns involved is optional, You know.

God doesn't approve of me making crappy posts that confuse proper nouns with pronouns.

For me, it just seems very incredibly difficult to distinguish between messages from God and strongly emotional revelations/situations/relationships/etc. in addition to coincidences/phenomena.

 

[El_Machinae]

For me, it just seems very incredibly difficult to distinguish between messages from God and strongly emotional revelations/situations/relationships/etc. in addition to coincidences/phenomena.

That's what it has become in the modern world. The modern pastors, etc. are describing a subjective experience of what really happens in our heads. It's quite different from what the various Scriptures state what happened to the authors.

It seems like hand-waving to me

 

[drachasor]

Pascal's wager is crap because it only assumes that there is one religious choice, and that's where it fails miserably - but it's not meant to be used to believe in a particular religion, anyway. It also doesn't count as a true belief, and assumes that punishment and the reward are infinite, when they might not necessarily be so.

It also assumes god punishes unbelievers, which isn't necessarily the case. Maybe he punishes believers for being gullible gits.

 

[mdwh]

I picked other, i don't know if god does or not exist only because it can not be proven. IMO to say that for a supreme being not to exist because there is not any scientific proof is somewhat of a folly, there is not that much scientific proof that explains why we exist, at least not enough for anyone to be able to say exactly how we came into existance.

I don't claim that he doesn't exist. I just don't think that he does. For me to think that something exists requires some evidence.

If someone asked me the same question about fairies or unicorns, I'd answer "No", and I'm sure you would too. I wouldn't say "Maybe", because clearly it's not true that "I maybe think they exist". I don't think they exist.

 

[Birdjaguar]

God alone is.

Not only is that boy smart, he's clever and nearly perfect.

 

[Perfection]

Not only is that boy smart, he's clever and nearly perfect.

Actually, I'm completely Perfect.

 

[holy king]

Maybe. Maybe not. As yet no one can prove God exists or vice versa, AFAIK.

i cannot prove pink unicorns exist or vice versa either, does that lead to the assumption you have to be unsure about the existance of pink unicorns?

 

[onejayhawk]

Actually, I'm completely Perfect.

The definition of Perfection. Or should we say, the exemplar.































Which is a great comfort to the rest of us.

J

 

[malclave]

Wow, hold on. I always thought that those people who have a theory have to prove that is right. Ergo people who say god exist must have a proof for that.

I disagree. If I try to convince you of my belief, then I should provide support for my argument... just like people who try to convince me that God does not exist should provide support if they want me to accept their theory as fact.

But I do NOT need to "prove" anything to anyone in order to have faith.

Atheist do not need to prove anything because we don't think something might be the case without knowing it for sure.

I thought that was agnosticism, rather than atheism?

 

[warpus]

I disagree. If I try to convince you of my belief, then I should provide support for my argument... just like people who try to convince me that God does not exist should provide support if they want me to accept their theory as fact.

Yeah, but atheism is the lack of a belief, so there is nothing to prove.

Now, if somebody believes that God doesn't exist, then you can ask for a reason, supported by some sort of evidence, which lead to this conclusion.

A subset of atheists share this belief, but not all of us do.

 

[frob2900]

But I do NOT need to "prove" anything to anyone in order to have faith.

And an atheist doesn't need to prove anything regarding their disbelief in God. (although for sure, any kind of reasoned argument will fall against a believer in a specific deity, although not necessarily fully on the side of the nonbeliever)

Now, if somebody believes that God doesn't exist, then you can ask for a reason, supported by some sort of evidence, which lead to this conclusion.

Since it's arguable that there is no evidence for or against the existence of a (suitably camoflaged) God, then it is certainly more reasonable to choose the position which does not add a bunch of arbitrary assumptions (such as a specific mythology). It's just not reasonable to worship a deity given a lack of evidence for or against their existence. It might be emotionally appealing, but that's all.

 

[malclave]

Yeah, but atheism is the lack of a belief, so there is nothing to prove.

Ah. I had thought atheism was a belief in the nonexistence of a deity, and agnosticism was the lack of a belief (one way or the other).

And an atheist doesn't need to prove anything regarding their disbelief in God.

I agree, given the same stipulation (that one is not attempting to persuade another).

 

[warpus]

Since it's arguable that there is no evidence for or against the existence of a (suitably camoflaged) God, then it is certainly more reasonable to choose the position which does not add a bunch of arbitrary assumptions (such as a specific mythology). It's just not reasonable to worship a deity given a lack of evidence for or against their existence. It might be emotionally appealing, but that's all.

I agree, and that's exactly the reason why I'm hard atheist when it comes to Gods with arbitrary assumptions, and soft atheist/agnostic when it comes to an undefined higher power.

Ah. I had thought atheism was a belief in the nonexistence of a deity, and agnosticism was the lack of a belief (one way or the other).

Some atheists have this belief - hard atheists. Soft atheists do not hold any common beliefs. The lack of a belief in any higher power is the only thing that all atheists have in common - a belief in the lack of a God instead only defines some atheists.

 

[frob2900]

I agree, and that's exactly the reason why I'm hard atheist when it comes to Gods with arbitrary assumptions, and soft atheist/agnostic when it comes to an undefined higher power.

Yeah, that's pretty much my position too. Although on occasion (generally following a few glasses of wine) I choose to actually consider the 'undefined higher power' assumption. It has some quite appealing qualities. I wouldn't under any circumstances call my position 'belief', though.

 

[warpus]

Yeah, that's pretty much my position too. Although on occasion (generally following a few glasses of wine) I choose to actually consider the 'undefined higher power' assumption. It has some quite appealing qualities. I wouldn't under any circumstances call my position 'belief', though.

It's interesting to wonder about for sure; it's one of the things that attracted me to philosophy.

 

[aneeshm]

I don't know. And I don't know whether or not it is for me to decide that or not.

I do know, however, that we are not only that which we appear, trying to find our limits. We are Gods, remembering the powers that we already have, but which we merely have forgotten.

 

[holy king]

I do know, however, that we are not only that which we appear, trying to find our limits. We are Gods, remembering the powers that we already have, but which we merely have forgotten.

yeah, i'm sure we are ;-)

 

[Cuivienen]

Ah. I had thought atheism was a belief in the nonexistence of a deity, and agnosticism was the lack of a belief (one way or the other).

No, agnostics are those who believe but don't know which religion to believe in.