Is there a God?

[ryguillian]

Is there a God?

—Ryan

[stevie]

the answer to your question cannot be answered with a simple yes or no, it can only truthfully be answered with a 8============D

in short - no

[steve jones]

Is there a god? Yes... and no. 

[perfect_pitch]

8============D

I'm not quite sure what the hell that is.... so I'm going to assume it is a smilie of someone wearing glasses and has a really long nose....     If it is anything different... I don't want to know... NO - Seriously - don't tell me.

My view point on this thread is (Now I don't fully stand by this comment but) God doesn't exist... but has been created to create a sense of morality in humans, and the fear that a higher being will judge you for your sins... if you are an evil person. It is a design to keep us under control - i think....

It also helps prevent a feeling of isolation.... here we are on this tiny wee planet floating in space and all about us is nothing.... just complete darkness and void...



Either that or a bunch of lazy scientists made it up, hoping that no one would ask how the universe was REALLY created.... It's the answer to everything....

Who created us - God
Who created the planet - God
Who created the Universe - God
Who created God - No-one - he was just there for all time...

Any other questions...?



I guess we'll never ever know. 

[zheer]

That is the first question i ask every time i look at my bank account.

[m1469]

Is there a God?

—Ryan

God's perceived presence/non-presence in our lives effect our perceived beliefs about God's presence/non-presence in our lives.

Our perceived beliefs about God's presence/non-presence in our lives effect God's perceived presence/non-presence in our lives.


However, theories do not change facts but facts do change theories.

And, there is a difference between mere belief and understanding :

Understanding is demonstrable (and trumps belief). 




....at least that's what I believe. 




m1469

[pianistimo]

i believe that "in Him we live and move and have our being."  the fact that our hearts beat proves it to me.  there's no battery.

[ryguillian]

I was inspired to start this topic after I stumbled upon Bertrand Russell's book "Why I Am Not a Christian". The word god seems to be meaningless nowadays; people use it casually and without any conviction. If I believed in such a thing (can we call it a thing?) then I would pick a different word: god is worn out.

—Ryan

[pianistimo]

yes!  there are many gods, but only one true God.  that's why it's so confusing.  i've never read bertrand russell's book, but am curious if he is a proponent of intelligent design.  along with life needing a life giver, i am a proponent of faith based belief.  you can't always prove to others the experiences in your life, but you can see for yourself answer to prayer.  i have had a lot of prayers answered.  some positively, and some i had to wait for the desired outcome ...but always answered. 

for me, the most inspiring part of the bible is the prayers of david.  he lived a realistic life with the same up's and down's of most people (except in a different time period).  the only difference is that he never put his trust completely in other men.  he always saved his greatest faith for God.  in other words, God was number one in his priority list of those to be friends with.  he considered God a personal friend and spoke to Him as such in His prayers.  he debated with God.  he made agreements.  he loved and praised as well as asked and wondered.  this is a relationship that is different than the average person has with God.  shorter prayers are the norm.  i think david took the time to pray longer to God and actually develop a sort of conversation that brought God into every aspect of his life.  for this, God was always present for Him, too.  i find this interesting and revealing.  that God wants a relationship that is not superficial and based on 'fear' but on respect and mutual trust.

[ryguillian]

Bertrand Russell has been dead for 36 years. He was the co-author of "Principia Mathematica" (while proven inconsistent, spawned Kurt Gödel's famous "Incompleteness Theorem"). I've only read the first few pages of the said book on Amazon.com and it seems that Russell argues the ambiguity of the definition of a Christian and that he doesn't believe in morality or God.

About some of the things that Pianistimo wrote:

[T]here are many gods, but only one true God.

Hypothetical gods? What? I don't understand blind faith.

[L]ife needing a life giver.

Perhaps in our human conception of things? We are born and die; we have developed a concept of beginning and end which may or may not be the nature of things on a more profound level.

[T]he most inspiring part of the bible is the prayers of [D]avid.

I've never read the prayers of David so I cannot comment.

The Bible is obviously a work of great historical importance; I am fascinated by its transition (and translation) through time and culture.

God wants a relationship that is not superficial and based on 'fear' but on respect and mutual trust.

I don't remember who said, "I'd rather be a God loving person than a God fearing person." While I do not personally believe in God (for semiotic and spiritual reasons) I think it's good advice: love rather than hate.

—Ryan

[stevie]

some of us are so blinded by our final destinations that we forget that it is the jouney that truly matters

[ryguillian]

ome of us are so blinded by our final destinations that we forget that it is the jouney that truly matters[.]

Quite.

[stevie]

ive always hated capitalism...im a commie at heart 

[chopiabin]

I do not believe that "god" or any "gods" exist except in the minds of those who blindly accept conventional social morality.

There are like 300 pages of religious debate threads etc. - they are well worth looking up.

[bananafish]

I don't believe in the Christian God and I don't want to prove or disprove anyone, because the essence of faith does not sway because of the facts, and that's true faith. Of course, it doesn't mean that one's faith is the truth either. So, there isn't a need to argue whether there is one, or multiple God/s, the importance is the way we carry ourselves in this life, and on this topic, I very much appreciate the Existentialists' way of believing there's nothing after we die, so we are responsible for every good and bad deed that we do. Instead of thinking it as a free meal to all the crimes, since we don't have to worry about any Karmas or judgments, but we should be extra responsible for all of our conducts, since we make all the decisions.

So, if there is a God, I thank he/she (black or white or whatever) for a life and I'm not going to blame you for anything, because we are the one responsible for all the evils and the goods. And, if there isn't one, I go on just like I do everyday: Standing, being responsible, think before I believe, fight for the deeds that I reason to be right (not just from something I read i.e. a little book, or my friend's mouth), and not collapse like a terrible addict when there's no religion to hold on to. We are everyday's artists.

[ryguillian]

I very much appreciate the Existentialists' way of believing there's nothing after we die, so we are responsible for every good and bad deed that we do. Instead of thinking it as a free meal to all the crimes, since we don't have to worry about any Karmas or judgments, but we should be extra responsible for all of our conducts, since we make all the decisions.

Are you familar with Frederich Nietzsche? It seems he thought man should transcend morality (Übermensch) and that mankind has outgrown the concept of God (Gott ist tot).

—Ryan

[chopiabin]

Nietzsche is my favorite philosopher. He wanted humans to become "supermoral" - where our instincts and natural desires and our will were finally joined. He wanted humans to be above social morality - the man "permitted to promise".

[princessdecadence]

Yes - 42.9 and No - 42.9 after my vote

There is a God and he's lovely.  Catholic.

[gilad]

only god knows

[chromatickler]

but only one true God.

datz rite

[bernhard]

Is there a God?

—Ryan

Define "Is"
Define "there"
Define "God"

(Preferably operational definitions )

In the meantime, mu. (Buddha's "poisoned arrow" sermon also comes to mind).

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[pianistimo]

because i haven't died and personally met God face to face, i would say that i agree that God is love (having experienced many blessings - as well as trials).  there is nothing in nature that shows me otherwise, and the curse at the time sin was brought into the world proves to me that God intended (even in nature) for the animals to be at peace with each other (and not carnivorous).  in the milleneum it says that the lion and lamb will be tame and the little child will not fear being bitten by snakes.  so, it must have been that way at the beginning of creation.

i know many people believe many different things.  part of it is culture and what you are taught.  part of it is having the gospel preached to you (as Christ said it would be spread into all the world, and then the end would come).  if you have the gospel preached to you - about renouncing sin and accepting Christ's sacrifice - i think you should think about it deeply.  what is there to lose?  the things we see on this earth are just a 'form' (i believe) of what is to come.  and, if we see through a glass darkly, we are going to see (as someone already said) beyond being born and dying.

i'm a fairly curious person, so i want to know all the possible outcomes - and this one sounds better than being the richest person on earth.  there's a limit to what pleasure brings on this earth - and looking at some of the richest people doesn't seem to bring any comfort.  they're just concerned about things every day.  i think peace is what people really desire.  the peaceful heart that one has when you are close to God.  He is true peace and not the kind of peace that fades into fear.  there seems to be two kinds of fear, imo, a righteous fear (respect) of judgement (for moral and religious reasons) and a fear that is not based on anything but our personal imagination.  now, someone could say, "well, you fear God - but what if his judgement is a part of your imagination."  dante's books typify an exaggerated hell.  i personally believe that God will burn all the 'tares' that grow up with the 'wheat.'  when they are burned, they are forever dead.  not forever tortured.  otherwise, his parable of the wheat and tares would be that the tares live forever too...thus, eliminating a need for Christ to give us eternal life (even if it was damned).  and, if God is love, he would not do an unloving thing.  terrorists would do that.

[pianistimo]

one other thing that i believe is that if you are Christian, your judgement is in this life (right now).  if you judge yourself by God's word, then you don't fear a judgement that is unfavorable in the future.  all are coming before the judgement seat of God, but not all will fear the judgement.  especially if you already have a close relationship.  that's what the parable of the 10 virgins is about.  five have oil and the other five don't.  that must be the oil of the Holy Spirit.  that is what gives them peace - and they are not shut out at the bridegrooms return and celebration.

[arensky]

I guess we'll never ever know. 

Not here at any rate. Maybe later....? 

[pianistimo]

but what if later is too late?  if people even have a mustard seed of faith and the rest they believe to be imagination - what can they lose if that one little seed is the thing that grants them access to eternal life.  as i see it, there's nothing to lose in having a mustard seed of faith.  doubting thomas didn't believe until he personallys saw the resurrected Christ (according to scripture) - yet, Christ didn't really embarrass him or anything.  he encouraged him to feel the physical body, yet it was taken up into heaven afterwards in a glorified one.  that's cool, to me, because we know this physical body is going to wear out.

[chopiabin]

Pianistimo - don't you realize that "having the gospel preached to you" when you are a child is the same thing as being taught something? Children's brains are malleable - you can convince them to believe almost anything - they can become racist or Christian or atheist or Buddhist based on what they are told as children.

Do you really believe that there was a time when lions and tigers were purely herbivorous? I mean, isn't that kind of childish?

[pianistimo]

but, we are told that unless we become as little children, we won't enter the kingdom of heaven.  which is harder?

[shasta]

Just be a good person.  Period.  And then it won't matter what's on the flip side.  If it's a God, great!  If it's external sleep, great!

[palika dunno]

Is there a God?

Yes, Ingolf Wunder, didn't you know? 

[leahcim]

but, we are told that unless we become as little children, we won't enter the kingdom of heaven.  which is harder?

You have to cry, crap yourself and throw up your last feed on his shirt?

[bernhard]

God intended (even in nature) for the animals to be at peace with each other (and not carnivorous).  in the milleneum it says that the lion and lamb will be tame and the little child will not fear being bitten by snakes.  so, it must have been that way at the beginning of creation.

I said it before and I will say it again: When is grass going to get a break? Here it gets to be chewed and eaten alive by the likes of lambs, cows, antelopes and zebras. And after the judgement, the lions, tigers, cheetahs and leopards will be at it too? Does this looks fair?

(which reminds me: If God didn't intend us to eat animals, why did he made them out of meat?)

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[bernhard]

You have to cry, crap yourself and throw up your last feed on his shirt?

On that thought, would it be sensible to let the little children near a catholic priest?

[chopiabin]

Just be a good person.  Period.  And then it won't matter what's on the flip side.  If it's a God, great!  If it's external sleep, great!

That seems a bit naive. Who defines what "good" is? Your statement assumes that there is an absolute morality, and it is clear simply by the moral disagreements among people that one does not exist.

Christianity's creation myth is based on denying and then punishing man for obtaining knowledge. So I guess it makes sense that one has "to be like a child" before going to heaven.

For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow - Ecclesiastes 1:18 

[pianistimo]

many proverbs state that we are to 'get wisdom...and understanding'  but they are always associated with the commandments.  to keep your parents words as a necklace is close to you.  basically, it's admonishing common sense for younger people.  and, there's places in timothy that admonish older women to teach the younger to love their husbands and children.  it's kinda basic stuff in our society and civilization - but overlooked sometimes, too.

i don't think God is against knowledge, otherwise He wouldn't have created it for us to explore.  the grass is not human or animal - it is vegetable.  unless you watch a lot of veggie tales or something, i would not be paranoid about eating it.  but, it does seem strange to us today, after so many years of seeing the food chain in existence, to suddenly watch it all disintegrate down to grass and straw.  on the other hand, it would be nice to know (especially for my nephews in alaska) that the grizzlies and moose would not be out there lurking around the trees.  and, for my little four year old not to be afraid to play with a snake. 

if you like the outdoors, it seems that it would be much better enjoyed without worrying about coyotes, wolves, and the like - attacking a rabbit (and you watching as they surround the poor thing).  or lions and antelope or zebras and whatever.  whenever national geographic puts that on, it makes me sick to my stomach.  yes.  i am a bambi lover. 

[bernhard]

the grass is not human or animal - it is vegetable. 

Don't vegetables have rights too?

[Tash]

i like what anselm of canterbury had to say about proof that god 'exists'

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/anselm/#2 has some random info

basically he said something like god ha to exist because we can't think of him not existing, saying you don't believe in him is acknowledging his presence, or something like that...

[pianistimo]

ok, bernhard - we'll give veggies the right to remain silent.  (just kidding)  i think you have some good points.  i mean, i don't particularly feel guilty when eating spinach or leafy veggies myself, but those waterchestnuts are really meaty.

[chopiabin]

That's just bad logic. The reason we have to think about god is that we live in a culture dominated by Christianity - someone who has never been taught to believe in it would never really have to consider it.

Christianity is crazy! Animals ARE what they ARE. Blaming the lion for eating the lamb is simply stupid. But Christianity has proven that the power of denial is almost limitless.

It is apparent that the Christian god is against knowledge - in the story Adam and Eve are punished for seeking and desiring knowledge!! Who is the most evil being in all of Christinaity - that's right, the one who offered to help man gain knowledge of himself, etc. The creation myth just shows to what degree the early Christian Church sought out to destroy all questioning of Christinaity. The religion itself is antihuman!! All selfishness, which is completely natural, is considered to be evil!! 

I honestly believe that human beings, just like any other organisms, have an innate fear of death.  Remember that the first religions were those that tried to appease the natural processes that terrified earlier humans. As we became more advanced and were much less susceptible to tornadoes and the like, we began to move toward the Christian god, who sacrifices his son for us instead of the other way around. Anyway, notice that nearly every religion has some form of afterlife, whether that be reincarnation, heaven, etc. Basically, I think that we are so terrified of death that we have created the idea of an afterlife so that the idea of death is easier to comprehend.

Do you think that just because something is depressing then it is not true? I have had teachers who say things like this. It doesn't make any sense. Just because something isn't easy or is depressing, if it is true, then it is true.

[pianistimo]

the tree of life is mentioned in the book of revelation as being a tree for the healing of nations.  there must be some knowledge that we are missing because there is no peace in the world.   we have all knowledge, but are without love.  that must be simply added.  i don't think God denies us knowledge (we have some), but he denied adam and eve access to eternal life if they chose to live apart from Him.  it's basically living without God that makes us put our own thought above His.  tragically, it just doesn't produce life.  if people knew how to live in peace they would not bomb cars, rape, pillage, (all countries included), maim, and the like.  if we put other's thoughts and feelings as high or higher than our own, then we would be able to live in peace.

[chopiabin]

Adam and Eve were denied Paradise for tasting from the Tree of Knowledge. How much more blatant could the symbolism be?

[rimv2]

the tree of life is mentioned in the book of revelation as being a tree for the healing of nations.  there must be some knowledge that we are missing because there is no peace in the world.   we have all knowledge, but are without love.  that must be simply added.  i don't think God denies us knowledge (we have some), but he denied adam and eve access to eternal life if they chose to live apart from Him.  it's basically living without God that makes us put our own thought above His.  tragically, it just doesn't produce life.  if people knew how to live in peace they would not bomb cars, rape, pillage, (all countries included), maim, and the like.  if we put other's thoughts and feelings as high or higher than our own, then we would be able to live in peace.

We are missing no knowledge. We are missing to integrity and desire to use the knowledge we have.

[chopiabin]

Here is a concise and relatively complete analysis of Nietzsche's views on morality and god. This was part of a paper I wrote last year on The Genealogy of Morality that I think is pretty good:

Nietzsche cast a historical gaze on modern morality and saw the development of a modern ascetic morality that was diametrically opposed to the instinctual desires of man. According to Nietzsche, we humans have been making ourselves sick since the beginnings of society, and our only hope to escape our self-imposed torture lies in overthrowing our current self-denying morality and replacing it with a “supermorality” that celebrates natural human desires.

   For Nietzsche, our self-imposed sickness is a complicated concept that began to develop when the demands of society forced humans to subjugate their natural desires to their wills, which, when compounded with the society-created idea of guilt, caused man to torture his own soul and create a self-denying morality. With the creation of society, man “[fell] under the pressure of that most fundamental of all changes he ever experienced – the change of finding himself enclosed once and for all within the sway of…peace” (56). Man found himself caged and “had to create out of himself an adventure, [and] a place of torture” (57) – he created a soul that was necessarily at war with the demands of society.

After man had been tamed enough through the use of punishment as a form of “memory creation,” the ideas of value, debt, and the marketplace (concepts that society demands to keep chaos from ensuing) appeared and sank into man’s sickly soul. The idea of guilt came forth as a grander and more distorted cousin of the concept of the exchange value of objects – man felt the benefits of living in a protective society, and, because his ancestors were the ones who created the society, man felt he had “to repay them through sacrifices and achievements, … [and] thereby acknowledge[d] a debt that was continually growing” (60). What eventually resulted was “the progenitor…transfigured into a god” (61) that, in the mind of man, demanded payment for every transgression against the norms of society, or, in other words, for every expression of man’s natural animal desires.

 As a means to escape his ever-growing society-created guilt, man began to “[take] all the ‘no’ that he [said] to himself, to nature, to naturalness, the facticity of his being and [cast] it out of himself as a ‘yes,’ as existing, corporeal, real, as God, as holiness of God” (63), and started glorifying those things which are ascetic and self-denying, and, up until then, weak and unhealthy.

What then? How does this affect modern man as we see him today? Precisely in the way man actually views the world and himself. Nietzsche sees modern man casting “the tired pessimistic glance” (43) towards his own nature and saying an “icy ‘no’ of disgust [to] life” (43). Because we constantly make ourselves suffer, we attempt to find relief in tedium and “mechanical activity” (97). In the rote exploration of the details of scientific or historical fact; the reading of a novel full of adventurous characters who take what they can of life; or even the intense yet unconscious stare of a child at a television screen; we see the human mind allowing itself to rest, to “self-anesthetize” (108) and prevent itself from actually “coming to consciousness” (108) of the terrible self-mutilation that we are constantly inflicting upon our own souls. When we finally do see any expression of man’s natural desires, we self-denying humans normally see it as another reason to “say ‘no’ to life” (43).

Why do we harmless humans find it so difficult to tear our eyes away from some act of cruelty, provided that it is inflicted under the guise of punishment? We, who are never really allowed to express our drive for power, find it extremely satisfying to see someone who is “permitted to vent his power without a second thought on the one who is powerless” (41) because this ability to express power is that thing we desire most deeply. We need to realize that temptation is not something that comes from the outside to tap us on the shoulder – it is man desperately trying to get out!   
   
So who are we then, simply slaves who now realize that we are in bondage? Does the ascetic morality that we have been breeding have any benefit to us at all? Nietzsche responds with a resounding “Yes!”. The “taming” (57) of man “with the help of the morality of custom and the social straightjacket [has made him] truly calculable,” (36) and is a necessary step on the path to becoming a human being free from any type of self-denying morality. Society’s enforcement of the self-denying morality through punishment has created a man who is predictable to himself, and is therefore “able to vouch for himself as future” (36). The problem with our current ability to promise is that it rests on the conditions of social morality and the continued existence of society itself, not on one’s own self- knowledge. The individual that Nietzsche sees as “the ripest fruit on [the tree of social morality is] the sovereign individual,” (36) who possesses “the extraordinary privilege of responsibility…[and a] power over oneself and fate [that has] sunk into his lowest depth and has become instinct” (37). The “sovereign individual” has overcome asceticism and relies on his desires as a moral guide – he no longer needs to have society telling him what is right and wrong. Our current self-denying morality actually helps us become this new species of “supermoral” man by giving us “more eyes, different eyes,” (85) so that we are able to view a problem from all sides and make an educated and fully conscious decision. What Nietzsche envisions as the pinnacle of humanity is an “atheism and a kind of second innocence” (62) that renounces our current society and God-dependent morality in favor of one that comes from within ourselves.

Rather than having our wills and our desires as separate and opposite entities, they would become one in the same – we would resemble prehistoric man in the fact that we would no longer be slaves to self-denial, but, instead of being amoral, we would be “supermoral” and “permitted to promise” (36) according to our own self-understanding. In the concept of the “second innocence,” we find Nietzsche the optimist and ultimate humanist – we are not some sort of broken creature as Christianity would have us believe, but rather an animal that simply needs to believe in itself and the value of its natural desires.
   

[bananafish]

Perhaps we should stop putting the horse before the carriage and start debating (like nice people) what this thread asks: Is there a God? I suppose by God, it is referring to the Christian God. So, let's get it started. (Even though, I do think that faith is what faith is, however blind it seens to the stranger, clear to the worshipper, but what fun is there to just let it get by like this?)

First, the definition of God is usually defined as: Omnipotent, omnipresent, and omni-benevolent.

The problems I have to accept these, therefore, accept the existence of the Christian God are as follows:

The forever problems of evil and freewill.

Do we govern every decision that we make? If so, we are responsible for all the evils in this world, but since God is all knowing, then why would he allow us to do evil deeds? But then, if he does able to deter our decision, then where's freewill? But ultimately, why does he make people evil in the first place? And I don't buy the Satan influence thing, beucase isn't God supposedly omnipotent? Why can't he just wipe out Satan and save the world (*aham* and stop Bush... )?

Perhaps the answer might be that we don't know what God's design is. Maybe the reason that Hitler massacred millions of Jews is to teach us, as we know by heart now not to be prejudice. But could such violence be ever justified? If what Hitler, or any other evils that exists in this world are all God's intentions and lessons for us, then would one willing to believe in such a violent God? Is he still all benevolent?

Well, these are just a few of my lots of reasons to reject the Christian God, but, as I said earlier, believe in your faith as long as it preaches the goods. But the thing we should bear in mind is that by tolerating freedom of religion, we also expects freedom from religion.

[bananafish]

err.. of course, I meant, not to put the Carriage before the Horse. 

[pianistimo]

i think all these messages are a reflection of the personal beliefs of each (and help us understand them).  i believe that adam and eve chose to decide what was good and evil for themselves.  if they hadn't made that choice, the nations would all believe the same things and there wouldn't be so many man-made religions (or based on a man or prophet or idol). 

nietchze believes in nothing but death after this life.  i personally think there has to be more.  otherwise it's fairly pointless and would lead to different thoughts on morality and ethics.

i don't think God created hitler to destroy the jews.  in fact, if anyone influenced hitler, i do think it was satan himself.

[ryguillian]

[Nietzsche] believes in nothing but death after this life.

The opposite of death is birth. What's the opposite of life?

f anyone influenced [H]itler ... it was satan himself.

What about his parents? What about reading the anti-semetic writings of Richard Wagner? Are we to take these all as manifestations of Satan? They seem quite man-made to me. Arbitrarily assigning blame to "satan" is a copout.

Otherwise [life is] fairly pointless and would lead to different thoughts on morality and ethics.

The purpose of life can be life itself; an outside "point" or "meaning" is unnecessary. As this post can contest, there are already different thoughts on morality and ethics.

—Ryan

[bernhard]

i believe that adam and eve chose to decide what was good and evil for themselves. 

Adam and Eve (Adam specially) were framed.

[pianistimo]

God gave them free-will.  i think they framed themselves.  there was a choice.  God's way, or their way.  they chose their own.  that cannot be framing.  that was a choice they made for themselves. 

if they had taken from the tree of life, there would be no opposite of life.  it would simply be life.  when death is 'swallowed up,' there won't be anymore death at all and pain and sufferring will be a thing of the past.  this too, seems kind of childish to believe, but i still believe it.  i think we don't understand this because we've not experienced it.

[perfect_pitch]

I would so laugh if SCIENCE (of all subjects) proved (conclusively) that God didn't exist - I think that would be bloody hilarious.

[bernhard]

God gave them free-will.  i think they framed themselves.  there was a choice.  God's way, or their way.  they chose their own.  that cannot be framing.  that was a choice they made for themselves. 

Nah. It was a clear case of entrapment. Any modern, civilised Court of Law would have dismissed the case against A & E straight away. And God would have taken a rap from the judge for trying to pull up this stunt.