By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Doe it really matter if God exists or not...?

 

I am

Theist 96 20.25%
 
Atheist 178 37.55%
 
Agnostic 96 20.25%
 
Spiritual but non theist 29 6.12%
 
Other 32 6.75%
 
God. 43 9.07%
 
Total:474
o_O.Q on 12 July 2017
JWeinCom said:
o_O.Q said:

 

people find it easier to relate to stories when they can more easily form a bond with the subject of the story, that's why personification was used in this context

to make stories about certain fundamental qualities of man more relatable and digestible through stories... and if people were more aware in our current era, they'd realise that the same thing happens frequently in our various entettainment genres like the movie genre

 

" whether or not that's the god of Christianity, we're talking about entirely different things."

 

the god of christianity is also a metaphor for concepts that extend beyond our subjective view as individuals and again in that case personification was used to tie the concept down and make it more relatable to people

but i suppose that over time people lost the original understanding and took personification literally

but you have to ask yourself what is more relatable - a story about all the things you don't understand or simply calling those things a father like entity with close connections to man?

 

"But that doesn't make them objective or good"

 

well i'd argue that if the concepts are concepts that are always present in civilisation then there is objectivity

 

for example conflict is something that is always going to occur between individuals in a society so if observations are made on the best ways to deal with conflict over a long period of time, they can then be put into story form to better communicate the conclusions reached

 

i suppose you could argue that this would still be corrupted by the subjectivity of man but all of our observations are, but we regardless still have to reach conclusions about things to operate properly

 

" it doesn't make god necessary."

 

well i suppose you could argue that the mode of delivery isn't the best but i don't know about that since even today its still the most common way we try to communicate values

"people find it easier to relate to stories when they can more easily form a bond with the subject of the story, that's why personification was used in this context

to make stories about certain fundamental qualities of man more relatable and digestible through stories... and if people were more aware in our current era, they'd realise that the same thing happens frequently in our various entettainment genres like the movie genre"

You keep explaining why people made these stories, but I understand that already.  What I don't understand is how this makes for objective morality.

"the god of christianity is also a metaphor for concepts that extend beyond our subjective view as individuals and again in that case personification was used to tie the concept down and make it more relatable to people

 

the god of christianity is also a metaphor for concepts that extend beyond our subjective view as individuals and again in that case personification was used to tie the concept down and make it more relatable to people

but i suppose that over time people lost the original understanding and took personification literally

but you have to ask yourself what is more relatable - a story about all the things you don't understand or simply calling those things a father like entity with close connections to man?"

The context of this topic is does it matter if god exists or not.  In that sense, god was clearly not being used as a metaphor, but an actual being.  If you're using god as a metaphorical placeholder for anything that we can't yet explain, you're talking about something different.

well i'd argue that if the concepts are concepts that are always present in civilisation then there is objectivity

I don't understand what this means.  We could take anger as a concept exists across all civilizations.  So what does that mean?  Is anger objective?  How does this lead to objective morality?

for example conflict is something that is always going to occur between individuals in a society so if observations are made on the best ways to deal with conflict over a long period of time, they can then be put into story form to better communicate the conclusions reached

i suppose you could argue that this would still be corrupted by the subjectivity of man but all of our observations are, but we regardless still have to reach conclusions about things to operate properly

Yup.  I could and would argue that.  I'm not disagreeing that we reach conclusions.  I'm disagreeing that those conclusions are objective, and that god can make them objective.

And of course there are still at least several hundreds of different opinions on how to best deal with conflict.  So that's certainly not an area where we've reached objective morality.

well i suppose you could argue that the mode of delivery isn't the best but i don't know about that since even today its still the most common way we try to communicate values

You would have to support the claim that its most common, since I'd argue that laws are a more common way to communicate values.

Even if we could determine that it was the most popular way, that does not mean the best way, does not mean it's an effective way, and certainly does not mean it's an objective way.

 

"The context of this topic is does it matter if god exists or not.  In that sense, god was clearly not being used as a metaphor, but an actual being.  If you're using god as a metaphorical placeholder for anything that we can't yet explain, you're talking about something different."

 

seems like you are putting words into the mouth of the thread maker here to me... he didn't put god specifically as a being in thread title

 

" I'm disagreeing that those conclusions are objective, and that god can make them objective. "

 

i gave a very clear example of objectivity in that concepts such as conflict are a constant in the human experience and must as a result be dealt with... that is an objective goal for mankind

 

"And of course there are still at least several hundreds of different opinions on how to best deal with conflict.  So that's certainly not an area where we've reached objective morality."

 

that's actually not true... generally the best solution is to produce a consensus... you come to a consensus when you have values to follow... which is the very purpose of the stories we are reffering to

otherwise if everything is rendered down to whatever subjective aims all of us have absolutely, then it is impossible to have a society and there can be nothing but conflict

 

"I'd argue that laws are a more common way to communicate values."

 

weed is illegal in america right? do you know of anyone who doesn't currently smoke or hasn't smoked weed?

do you always drive below the speed limit? i know i don't for sure

 

"Even if we could determine that it was the most popular way, that does not mean the best way"

 

well human history with regards to mass communication confirms that its both but if you disagree with that, that's fine



Around the Network
JWeinCom on 12 July 2017
o_O.Q said:
JWeinCom said:

"people find it easier to relate to stories when they can more easily form a bond with the subject of the story, that's why personification was used in this context

to make stories about certain fundamental qualities of man more relatable and digestible through stories... and if people were more aware in our current era, they'd realise that the same thing happens frequently in our various entettainment genres like the movie genre"

You keep explaining why people made these stories, but I understand that already.  What I don't understand is how this makes for objective morality.

"the god of christianity is also a metaphor for concepts that extend beyond our subjective view as individuals and again in that case personification was used to tie the concept down and make it more relatable to people

 

the god of christianity is also a metaphor for concepts that extend beyond our subjective view as individuals and again in that case personification was used to tie the concept down and make it more relatable to people

but i suppose that over time people lost the original understanding and took personification literally

but you have to ask yourself what is more relatable - a story about all the things you don't understand or simply calling those things a father like entity with close connections to man?"

The context of this topic is does it matter if god exists or not.  In that sense, god was clearly not being used as a metaphor, but an actual being.  If you're using god as a metaphorical placeholder for anything that we can't yet explain, you're talking about something different.

well i'd argue that if the concepts are concepts that are always present in civilisation then there is objectivity

I don't understand what this means.  We could take anger as a concept exists across all civilizations.  So what does that mean?  Is anger objective?  How does this lead to objective morality?

for example conflict is something that is always going to occur between individuals in a society so if observations are made on the best ways to deal with conflict over a long period of time, they can then be put into story form to better communicate the conclusions reached

i suppose you could argue that this would still be corrupted by the subjectivity of man but all of our observations are, but we regardless still have to reach conclusions about things to operate properly

Yup.  I could and would argue that.  I'm not disagreeing that we reach conclusions.  I'm disagreeing that those conclusions are objective, and that god can make them objective.

And of course there are still at least several hundreds of different opinions on how to best deal with conflict.  So that's certainly not an area where we've reached objective morality.

well i suppose you could argue that the mode of delivery isn't the best but i don't know about that since even today its still the most common way we try to communicate values

You would have to support the claim that its most common, since I'd argue that laws are a more common way to communicate values.

Even if we could determine that it was the most popular way, that does not mean the best way, does not mean it's an effective way, and certainly does not mean it's an objective way.

 


seems like you are putting words into the mouth of the thread maker here to me... he didn't put god specifically as a being in thread title

If we're talking about existence, the most reasonable interpretation is that we are talking about something that physically exists.  As he used the capital G to imply a name, the most reasonable interpretation is that he's talking about something personal.  We would call that a being.  He can correct me if he wishes.  I don't know why he would be asking if it matters whether or not a metaphor exists.  That would be silly.

i gave a very clear example of objectivity in that concepts such as conflict are a constant in the human experience and must as a result be dealt with... that is an objective goal for mankind

I'd hesitate to even call that an objective goal.  That might technically correct, but it's kind of pointless.  It's a necessity.  You might as well say eating or sleeping are objective goals.  And it's definitely not a moral system.

If you wanted to talk about the methods which we'd use to resolve conflicts...

that's actually not true... generally the best solution is to produce a consensus... you come to a consensus when you have values to follow... which is the very purpose of the stories we are reffering to

I'm familiar with a lot of those stories, and they're not all about how you should build concensus to solve conflicts.  Ask the Midianites how that concensus building worked out for them.

But anyway, the best solution is to produce a concensus is your opinion.  If it was an objective opinion we all shared, then all of the wars and crime in our past and present are quite puzzling.

otherwise if everything is rendered down to whatever subjective aims all of us have absolutely, then it is impossible to have a society and there can be nothing but conflict

No.  That doesn't follow.  Conflict will only happen when those subjective aims are contrary to eachother.  We can have completely separate aims, and not have any conflict so long as those aims do not interfere with one another.  And when those aims do come into conflict, some will think that building concensus is the right way to resolve it, and others will think that they should use other means, such as force. 

And doesn't that sound exactly like the world we live in?

 

weed is illegal in america right? do you know of anyone who doesn't currently smoke or hasn't smoked weed?

do you always drive below the speed limit? i know i don't for sure

Not sure what the point is. I said I think it's the most common way to convey morality.  Not that it's perfect or that everyone will follow it.  

well human history with regards to mass communication confirms that its both but if you disagree with that, that's fine

That's the kind of statement you need evidence for.



o_O.Q on 14 July 2017
JWeinCom said:
o_O.Q said:

 


seems like you are putting words into the mouth of the thread maker here to me... he didn't put god specifically as a being in thread title

If we're talking about existence, the most reasonable interpretation is that we are talking about something that physically exists.  As he used the capital G to imply a name, the most reasonable interpretation is that he's talking about something personal.  We would call that a being.  He can correct me if he wishes.  I don't know why he would be asking if it matters whether or not a metaphor exists.  That would be silly.

i gave a very clear example of objectivity in that concepts such as conflict are a constant in the human experience and must as a result be dealt with... that is an objective goal for mankind

I'd hesitate to even call that an objective goal.  That might technically correct, but it's kind of pointless.  It's a necessity.  You might as well say eating or sleeping are objective goals.  And it's definitely not a moral system.

If you wanted to talk about the methods which we'd use to resolve conflicts...

that's actually not true... generally the best solution is to produce a consensus... you come to a consensus when you have values to follow... which is the very purpose of the stories we are reffering to

I'm familiar with a lot of those stories, and they're not all about how you should build concensus to solve conflicts.  Ask the Midianites how that concensus building worked out for them.

But anyway, the best solution is to produce a concensus is your opinion.  If it was an objective opinion we all shared, then all of the wars and crime in our past and present are quite puzzling.

otherwise if everything is rendered down to whatever subjective aims all of us have absolutely, then it is impossible to have a society and there can be nothing but conflict

No.  That doesn't follow.  Conflict will only happen when those subjective aims are contrary to eachother.  We can have completely separate aims, and not have any conflict so long as those aims do not interfere with one another.  And when those aims do come into conflict, some will think that building concensus is the right way to resolve it, and others will think that they should use other means, such as force. 

And doesn't that sound exactly like the world we live in?

 

weed is illegal in america right? do you know of anyone who doesn't currently smoke or hasn't smoked weed?

do you always drive below the speed limit? i know i don't for sure

Not sure what the point is. I said I think it's the most common way to convey morality.  Not that it's perfect or that everyone will follow it.  

well human history with regards to mass communication confirms that its both but if you disagree with that, that's fine

That's the kind of statement you need evidence for.

 

"the most reasonable interpretation is that we are talking about something that physically exists."

 

so if i understand correctly you are saying that a supernatural concept is reffering to something physical?

 

" but it's kind of pointless.  It's a necessity.  You might as well say eating or sleeping are objective goals.  And it's definitely not a moral system."

 

you don't think one of the primary goals if not the primary goal of morality is the resolution of conflict?... well i don't know what to say to that

 

"I'm familiar with a lot of those stories, and they're not all about how you should build concensus to solve conflicts."

 

which i didn't say, the stories offer lessons for a wide variety of issues that affect the invididual and the society and they are largely misinterpreted sometimes with the foolish intention of dismissing them as nonsense

 

" the best solution is to produce a concensus is your opinion.  If it was an objective opinion we all shared, then all of the wars and crime in our past and present are quite puzzling."

 

do wars occur if there is a consensus between the two groups?

 

"No.  That doesn't follow.  Conflict will only happen when those subjective aims are contrary to eachother."

 

which is inevtiable since people are different right?

 

"We can have completely separate aims, and not have any conflict so long as those aims do not interfere with one another."

 

which would happen if everyone was exactly the same and there was no individuality right? but is that true of people or not?

 

"nd when those aims do come into conflict, some will think that building concensus is the right way to resolve it, and others will think that they should use other means, such as force. "

 

and how are you going to force everyone to behave?

 

"I said I think it's the most common way to convey morality.  Not that it's perfect or that everyone will follow it.  "

 

the point i was making is that we don't take our values primarily from the law

 

"That's the kind of statement you need evidence for."

 

well as i've said the history of the past great civilisations and their adherence to certain principles is evidence, if you want to dismiss that then that's ok



superchunk on 14 July 2017

As someone who does believe in the concept of God, I can also say that I don't think belief matters. But God's existence does as existence is God.

I guess it depends on your thought about God.

I believe that God is creation itself. God is the entirety of the existence. Basically you can break it down to the most rudimentary concept by saying we are all God. Because God is all. I see it as the collective sentient consciousness of the entirety of existence.

God permeates as Mother Nature, Science, Divine, Natural and Abstract. The nature of this existence is still beyond our full comprehension and that is key to why there have been so many flavors of religion as people attempt to conceptualize existence in terms they do know. Creating false limitations and marrying that to methods to order and manage society and the world they knew.

I think someday we'll create technology that allows us to definitively communicate with existence, with God. Just as someday (a lot sooner) we'll be able to use technology to meld the thoughts of a person to machine interaction and probably vice versa.



Rogerioandrade on 14 July 2017
Cubedramirez said:
Diest here. God exist. What God is can be debated but we know very little of existence to have a meaningful debate.

Exactly my thoughts, also.

I just people just speculate too much on the subject. Faith is personal. Period.



Around the Network
Scoobes on 14 July 2017
superchunk said:

As someone who does believe in the concept of God, I can also say that I don't think belief matters. But God's existence does as existence is God.

I guess it depends on your thought about God.

I believe that God is creation itself. God is the entirety of the existence. Basically you can break it down to the most rudimentary concept by saying we are all God. Because God is all. I see it as the collective sentient consciousness of the entirety of existence.

God permeates as Mother Nature, Science, Divine, Natural and Abstract. The nature of this existence is still beyond our full comprehension and that is key to why there have been so many flavors of religion as people attempt to conceptualize existence in terms they do know. Creating false limitations and marrying that to methods to order and manage society and the world they knew.

I think someday we'll create technology that allows us to definitively communicate with existence, with God. Just as someday (a lot sooner) we'll be able to use technology to meld the thoughts of a person to machine interaction and probably vice versa.

Well this is an interesting thought on God as a concept, which doesn't strictly adhere to any set religion whilst neither being at odds with any of them. 

You say at the beginning you don't think belief matters, so do you follow the rules of your religion strictly? (you identify yourself as Muslim if I remember rightly?). Or do you choose the rules you follow based on your personal beliefs and/or it gives you some sort of spiritual peace?




Get your Portable ID!

JWeinCom on 14 July 2017
o_O.Q said:

 

"the most reasonable interpretation is that we are talking about something that physically exists."

 

so if i understand correctly you are saying that a supernatural concept is reffering to something physical?

 

" but it's kind of pointless.  It's a necessity.  You might as well say eating or sleeping are objective goals.  And it's definitely not a moral system."

 

you don't think one of the primary goals if not the primary goal of morality is the resolution of conflict?... well i don't know what to say to that

 

"I'm familiar with a lot of those stories, and they're not all about how you should build concensus to solve conflicts."

 

which i didn't say, the stories offer lessons for a wide variety of issues that affect the invididual and the society and they are largely misinterpreted sometimes with the foolish intention of dismissing them as nonsense

 

" the best solution is to produce a concensus is your opinion.  If it was an objective opinion we all shared, then all of the wars and crime in our past and present are quite puzzling."

 

do wars occur if there is a consensus between the two groups?

 

"No.  That doesn't follow.  Conflict will only happen when those subjective aims are contrary to eachother."

 

which is inevtiable since people are different right?

 

"We can have completely separate aims, and not have any conflict so long as those aims do not interfere with one another."

 

which would happen if everyone was exactly the same and there was no individuality right? but is that true of people or not?

 

"nd when those aims do come into conflict, some will think that building concensus is the right way to resolve it, and others will think that they should use other means, such as force. "

 

and how are you going to force everyone to behave?

 

"I said I think it's the most common way to convey morality.  Not that it's perfect or that everyone will follow it.  "

 

the point i was making is that we don't take our values primarily from the law

 

"That's the kind of statement you need evidence for."

 

well as i've said the history of the past great civilisations and their adherence to certain principles is evidence, if you want to dismiss that then that's ok

so if i understand correctly you are saying that a supernatural concept is reffering to something physical?

No. I am saying that the author was not referring to an abstract concept, but to an actual entity.

If he was asking "does it matter if the concept of god exists" he would be asking an absurd question.  If you can think of a concept it exists, by definition.  The topic makes no sense if he was referring to conceptual existence.

At any rate, what I mean by god is something that can actually interact with reality.  If you're talking about something else, than any conversation is pointless because we're talking about different things.

you don't think one of the primary goals if not the primary goal of morality is the resolution of conflict?... well i don't know what to say to that

That's probably because you removed that half a sentence from its context so it seems that I said something  different than what I actually said.

which i didn't say, the stories offer lessons for a wide variety of issues that affect the invididual and the society and they are largely misinterpreted sometimes with the foolish intention of dismissing them as nonsense

Or they're interpreting them correctly and they are nonsense.

do wars occur if there is a consensus between the two groups?

No.  And you said that the purpose of religion is to build concensus upon a foundation of shared values.  So, if there is still all of this conflict, then either religion is not where we're getting our values from, or religion is doing a shit job of conveying these values.

which would happen if everyone was exactly the same and there was no individuality right? but is that true of people or not?

No idea what that has to do with anything. 

and how are you going to force everyone to behave?

Like I just said, different people are going to try and go about it different ways.

the point i was making is that we don't take our values primarily from the law

By that logic, we don't get our values from religion, since virtually nobody follows religious laws to the letter.  Probably not a single person.  

well as i've said the history of the past great civilisations and their adherence to certain principles is evidence, if you want to dismiss that then that's ok

I can't dismiss anything, because that's not evidence.  That's your hypothesis.  The evidence is the data that supports your hypothesis.  If you want to convince me you need to present actual evidence.  If you don't, then we can move on.



superchunk on 14 July 2017
Scoobes said:
superchunk said:

As someone who does believe in the concept of God, I can also say that I don't think belief matters. But God's existence does as existence is God.

I guess it depends on your thought about God.

I believe that God is creation itself. God is the entirety of the existence. Basically you can break it down to the most rudimentary concept by saying we are all God. Because God is all. I see it as the collective sentient consciousness of the entirety of existence.

God permeates as Mother Nature, Science, Divine, Natural and Abstract. The nature of this existence is still beyond our full comprehension and that is key to why there have been so many flavors of religion as people attempt to conceptualize existence in terms they do know. Creating false limitations and marrying that to methods to order and manage society and the world they knew.

I think someday we'll create technology that allows us to definitively communicate with existence, with God. Just as someday (a lot sooner) we'll be able to use technology to meld the thoughts of a person to machine interaction and probably vice versa.

Well this is an interesting thought on God as a concept, which doesn't strictly adhere to any set religion whilst neither being at odds with any of them. 

You say at the beginning you don't think belief matters, so do you follow the rules of your religion strictly? (you identify yourself as Muslim if I remember rightly?). Or do you choose the rules you follow based on your personal beliefs and/or it gives you some sort of spiritual peace?

I have identified myself as a Muslim, i.e. One who believes (in God and Muhammad as a Prophet). I still do. However, I now also call myself a Universalist Unitarian (UU) more accurately.

Read up on Sufi Islam.That is more along the lines of what I have written above. I do not follow the typical "rules" of Islam. I don't think they are "rules" but more guidelines. Basically, consider blinders on a horse. The rules of any religion are intended to be those blinders to keep you on a narrow "good" path. However, the Qur'an also specifically states that the only requirements are belief in God, the last day, and being a good person (this actually literally includes Christians, Jews, etc, by name in the text). Its kind of like the part the Bible where Jesus is asked which of the commandments is the most important and he states belief in God and the treatment of others. 

What it really comes down to is just being a good person to all. I think belief is actually secondary and not all that critical. This of course all ties into UU principles.