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

Forums - General Discussion - Do you believe in God? Why/Why not?

 

Do you believe in any god?

Yes 63 36.21%
 
No 111 63.79%
 
Total:174
WolfpackN64 on 23 August 2018
LuccaCardoso1 said:
WolfpackN64 said:

Perhaps, but then you have a problem of the criterion. Did people attribute it to the same God because they innatly felt it to be the same phenomena, or did they already know the phenomena and thus attributed it to the same God?

Research any religion that was once popular. Every one of them will have multiple revelations of their own. Why do you think Christian revelations only started to happen after Christianity started to spread? Why isn't there a single people that believed in polytheism that makes reference to the Christian god, or any all-powerful single god, for that matter?

Since Christianity is a further development of Judaism, that's no entirely true. Human culture appears in many forms and the same is true for religion. Other circumstances, other culture and other interpretations. The wonderous thing is that many symbols and thoughts are pretty universal, even if not always compatible with their specific manifestations.



Around the Network
LiquorandGunFun on 23 August 2018

yes, and i feel there are many paths to god, not just one religion.

i keep it to myself and nod my head to others and their beliefs. i feel its personal.



 

Aeolus451 on 23 August 2018

It's amazing that people debate over proof when it can't be proven either way. Closing your mind to either possibility or other possibilities is not wise because you'll start to think of yourself as absolutely right and others as absolutely wrong. Anyone can be wrong regardless how strongly they believe or how well they argue.



palou on 23 August 2018
WolfpackN64 said:
palou said:

It's one model, of many, which can't be verified in any way. Basing an argument on that seems a little dubious. 

 

Regardless, I fail to see how one consequently would need to conclude in god. The strength of the model comes from the very fact that it creates no issues. Could you elaborate? 

In a chain of contingent beings (that can cause effects and have effects caused on them) there must be in the beginning a necessary being that can cause effects, but is not caused itself. Since the Big Bang is a contingent event, that would still not explain the universe. But this is and remains a metaphysical argument, not definitive proof of anything.

I do feel that that is making conclusions using intuition in a situation where intuition has no place to be applied. The Hawking proposal you talked about (which isn't inherently more true than there being no beginning - again, it's outside of what can be observed, and thus, in any way confirmed)  doesn't require a first event. I don't have the knowledge on the matter to describe it any better, but I estimate, neither do you...

 

Mathematically, even if you insist on time being finite, you don't require a first event. Think Zeno's paradox, with the turtle. (in reverse, let's say). So, let's say, time exists as long as Achilles hasn't reached the turtle; In that case, at any period that you look, there is something that follows; even if the total time spent by Achilles being behind the turtle is finite. 

 

I'll again insist that our brain is certainly not made to comprehend reality outside of the physical conditions that we can plausibly encounter; the beginning of the universe certainly isn't among that reality, specifically, time and space does not behave as we would intuitively comprehend it, so I find it rather dubious to make *philosophical* arguments, reliant on our direct logical intuitions, in that context. 



Bet with PeH: 

I win if Arms sells over 700 000 units worldwide by the end of 2017.

Bet with WagnerPaiva:

 

I win if Emmanuel Macron wins the french presidential election May 7th 2017.

WolfpackN64 on 23 August 2018
palou said:
WolfpackN64 said:

In a chain of contingent beings (that can cause effects and have effects caused on them) there must be in the beginning a necessary being that can cause effects, but is not caused itself. Since the Big Bang is a contingent event, that would still not explain the universe. But this is and remains a metaphysical argument, not definitive proof of anything.

I do feel that that is making conclusions using intuition in a situation where intuition has no place to be applied. The Hawking proposal you talked about (which isn't inherently more true than there being no beginning - again, it's outside of what can be observed, and thus, in any way confirmed)  doesn't require a first event. I don't have the knowledge on the matter to describe it any better, but I estimate, neither do you...

 

Mathematically, even if you insist on time being finite, you don't require a first event. Think Zeno's paradox, with the turtle. (in reverse, let's say). So, let's say, time exists as long as Achilles hasn't reached the turtle; In that case, at any period that you look, there is something that follows; even if the total time spent by Achilles being behind the turtle is finite. 

 

I'll again insist that our brain is certainly not made to comprehend reality outside of the physical conditions that we can plausibly encounter; the beginning of the universe certainly isn't among that reality, specifically, time and space does not behave as we would intuitively comprehend it, so I find it rather dubious to make *philosophical* arguments, reliant on our direct logical intuitions, in that context. 

Well, you can also argue from a causal chain instead, omitting the need to time in the argument (the time based argument is also known as Kalam) and this is the one most frequently used in Christian rational theology. The principle remains the same.



Around the Network
JWeinCom on 23 August 2018
WolfpackN64 said:
palou said:

I do feel that that is making conclusions using intuition in a situation where intuition has no place to be applied. The Hawking proposal you talked about (which isn't inherently more true than there being no beginning - again, it's outside of what can be observed, and thus, in any way confirmed)  doesn't require a first event. I don't have the knowledge on the matter to describe it any better, but I estimate, neither do you...

 

Mathematically, even if you insist on time being finite, you don't require a first event. Think Zeno's paradox, with the turtle. (in reverse, let's say). So, let's say, time exists as long as Achilles hasn't reached the turtle; In that case, at any period that you look, there is something that follows; even if the total time spent by Achilles being behind the turtle is finite. 

 

I'll again insist that our brain is certainly not made to comprehend reality outside of the physical conditions that we can plausibly encounter; the beginning of the universe certainly isn't among that reality, specifically, time and space does not behave as we would intuitively comprehend it, so I find it rather dubious to make *philosophical* arguments, reliant on our direct logical intuitions, in that context. 

Well, you can also argue from a causal chain instead, omitting the need to time in the argument (the time based argument is also known as Kalam) and this is the one most frequently used in Christian rational theology. The principle remains the same.

The Kalam is not an argument for Christianity.  Neither god nor Jesus is included in any premise or the conclusion. At best it gets you to a generic cause, but gives you no grounds to say anything specific about that cause.



palou on 23 August 2018
WolfpackN64 said:
palou said:

I do feel that that is making conclusions using intuition in a situation where intuition has no place to be applied. The Hawking proposal you talked about (which isn't inherently more true than there being no beginning - again, it's outside of what can be observed, and thus, in any way confirmed)  doesn't require a first event. I don't have the knowledge on the matter to describe it any better, but I estimate, neither do you...

 

Mathematically, even if you insist on time being finite, you don't require a first event. Think Zeno's paradox, with the turtle. (in reverse, let's say). So, let's say, time exists as long as Achilles hasn't reached the turtle; In that case, at any period that you look, there is something that follows; even if the total time spent by Achilles being behind the turtle is finite. 

 

I'll again insist that our brain is certainly not made to comprehend reality outside of the physical conditions that we can plausibly encounter; the beginning of the universe certainly isn't among that reality, specifically, time and space does not behave as we would intuitively comprehend it, so I find it rather dubious to make *philosophical* arguments, reliant on our direct logical intuitions, in that context. 

Well, you can also argue from a causal chain instead, omitting the need to time in the argument (the time based argument is also known as Kalam) and this is the one most frequently used in Christian rational theology. The principle remains the same.

I fail to see the issue, then, that requires a god. You can have an infinite causal chain, in both finite in infinite time. 



Bet with PeH: 

I win if Arms sells over 700 000 units worldwide by the end of 2017.

Bet with WagnerPaiva:

 

I win if Emmanuel Macron wins the french presidential election May 7th 2017.

JWeinCom on 23 August 2018

The answer to this question depends on what you mean by god.

If you mean god as in the Judeo Christian god as described by a literal interpretation of the Bible, I would say I am very confident that such a being does not exist as it conflicts with what we know of reality.
If you mean the Judeo Christian god but the Bible is not literal, then I'm still pretty sure it's a no. It really doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
If you mean some vaguely defined god outside of our understanding, then there's no good reason to believe it exists. It could, but as we have no way of detecting it, I would disbelieve it.



setsunatenshi on 23 August 2018
mZuzek said:
setsunatenshi said:

that's true... it's just a shame that the arguments used to persuade atheists are still the same no matter which year you have the discussion :)

argument from ignorance, appeal to emotion, Pascal's wager, infinite regression,...

did I forget any?

By "ignorance", do you mean closing off different points of view and treating them all as wrong? Sounds like an accurate description of you.

Argument from ignorance is a classic logical fallacy (e. g. i can't see how X was made, therefore it must have been Y).

But you really showed a fantastic example of self ownage right there buddy :) 



setsunatenshi on 23 August 2018
WolfpackN64 said:
setsunatenshi said:

that's true... it's just a shame that the arguments used to persuade atheists are still the same no matter which year you have the discussion :)

argument from ignorance, appeal to emotion, Pascal's wager, infinite regression,...

 

did I forget any?

The arguments are many and they remain the same (with some new additions every once in a while) because while they aren't conclusive to hardcore atheists or skeptics, it's pretty hard to refute any one of them in their entirity.

all those "arguments" have been refuted time and time again, hence why it usually ends up on an appeal to emotion and the classic "well, it's just my faith" which pretty much ends any discussion.