Is there a god/Allah/Supreme being?
Discussion
V6GTO said:Well, I will start by saying that it is practically impossible to present irrefutable evidence (i.e. proof) regarding the existence or non-existence of a God – if it were possible we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
By the way, I'm still waiting for a 'Believer' to put forward ONE bit of IRIFUTABLE EVIDENCE that God exists.
And a distinction that has to be made is that any evidence non-believers can present to disprove the existence of a God doesn’t actually do so – it merely provides an alternative to the belief in a God. A belief in God AND the aforementioned evidence can co-exist with no conflict, e.g. God and evolution, God and existentialism – it all depends on how you interpret the evidence.
So, it’s never that simple (for either you or I) to present our cases absolutely conclusively, because we are dealing with a subject that by definition is unseen, unheard and beyond the capacities of human intellect.
So, both of us can only try, and that is what I’m going to do.
I can only list these from a Christian context (because that is my experience), but rest assured equally compelling evidence exists for all the other major faiths in the world. 1. Many physical cities subject to dramatic events as told in the bible were long considered to be objects of fiction. But archaeological evidence has transpired to support the existence of these cities and the events that brought them to fame (or infamy). The most famous are probably Sodom and Gomorrah – evidence suggests these cities were indeed razed to the ground with incredible destruction, with no conventional explanation as to how it happened. Other cities since discovered include Jericho, Chorazin and Nineveh. The physical location and condition of these cities all corroborate strongly and are entirely consistent with the biblical accounts referring to them.
2. The Resurrection: In a groundbreaking idea first developed by CS Lewis and then expounded by the American lawyer and academic Josh McDowell (who in fact devoted a large chunk of his life to disprove the existence of God, only to realise after many years that he couldn’t and that all things considered the evidence for the existence of a God is greater. He then became a staunch believer), it is argued that there are only three possible explanations as to who Jesus was (it is unanimous that Jesus did indeed exist and he did indeed claim all that he was said to claim in the Gospels. The argument is whether or not he was true). He was either a Liar, a Lunatic, or a Lord. It basically goes on to discuss (in an extremely unbiased and objective manner based on historical evidence corroborated by multiple source texts and the known customs and cultures of the time) which of these Jesus indeed was. The conclusion was that he couldn’t be a Liar or a Lunatic – and he hence had to be Lord. I have read this and it makes very good sense to me; if you are interested (I cannot possibly quote everything here) go look up the passage in the book Mere Christianity by CS Lewis.
(I did write a third one down regarding the circumstantial evidence supporting the crucifixion and the resurrection but I realised I didn’t know enough to present a valid enough argument. I did read a lot though, and I remember coming away from it convinced, but I cannot quote that now because I’ve forgotten it! Maybe someone else can interject?)
Here’s the thing: ultimately you can refute all I say above fairly easily. And I can refute all you say fairly easily. And at the end of the day we’re both essentially dogmatic in our views, because this is by no means a black or white subject. But I base my faith on two things, which anyone has yet to convince me is wrong:
a) Personal experience. Now to non-believers, the whole “touched by God” thing really sounds like a load of tosh. And I don’t blame them – honest. I used to be exactly like that. The concept of spiritual stimulation is so far removed from modern thinking that it is inconceivable to think you can enter a “higher plane” and achieve some sort of connection with divinity – until that is you have experienced it yourself. I have, and nobody can argue with me regarding that. I believe I am not a product of mass delusion. I believe I am not a result of mind over matter. You may think these things (as is your prerogative), but ultimately I have had personal experiences that I am unable to describe any other way except to justify via divinity. I have had moments so profound and so warm that I personally believe cannot be explained by logic. I understand your scepticism; been there done that – but until you go through experience it cannot be explained to you. I realise this is a major cop-out and leaves us nowhere – but I guarantee you for me at least it is very real and very tangible, and worth every ounce of my faith. Of course experiences differ, but I can only go by my own, and based on that I believe.
b) The fact that many others who are far more well-read and far more scholarly than I am (or for that matter any of us are) have asked all the questions being asked here and gone through all the motions being discussed here and have arrived at one unequivocal conclusion: there is a God. There are people in this world who I utterly respect for their intellect, reason and realistic pragmatism but who are yet staunch believers. They include famous academics right down to regular folks with regular jobs. And this is not a case of blind following without question – it is more the fact that there are people far more able to answer the questions I also have who have experienced what I’ve experienced in point (a) above, and have arrived at the same conclusion I have – there is a God. I place a lot of value in this, because it implies that there is a solid background of reasoning behind their choices, but yet they chose to believe. I take comfort in that my own choice, therefore, has that level of credibility. Of course there are many other equally able folks out there who are non-believers – but each to his own based on his own experiences. All I can say is my experiences lead me to only one conclusion.
If we talk about specifically about physical evidence and the way things are moving, then yes, the conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt is that there is no God (or more to the point, you are not wrong to believe that there is no God). But unfortunately the world is not governed by science alone. Many things are still unexplained. Supernatural phenomena exists (I’m from Malaysia and can relate first-hand accounts of “ghost stories”). We have many scientific theories but very few laws. We don’t know everything. And I certainly don’t know what I felt in those moments except to ascribe them to the existence of a supreme being.
There is no answer to this argument folks, partly because we are just normal punters trying to deal with a topic that has divided academics for centuries, and partly because we are all to some extent convinced we are right and we are dogmatic in the way we convey that.
I utterly respect the way you react to religion and how it ruins the world, and from your observations and arguments I can totally understand your conclusion. I do not patronize you or feel sorry for you in any way. Your lack of belief does not make you any less human in my eyes. What I’m saying is that quite simply, my experiences differed from yours and my conclusion therefore differs from yours also. The one thing I will say is that I too used to be a non-believer.
At the end of the day all that I know is that we all love cars.
D
V6GTO said:
MOD500 said:
But it doesn't mean that people didn't believe that to be the truth before 1854.
How many people? or rather what percentage of the population? I would expect that a small percentage would have believed it for a long time, but more and more with time. What I'm trying to get at is that probably less than 10% of the population of the world believe that NOW, so how many believers does it take before it's spouted as fact? You must understand that people who believe the bible, and even fewer believe the church, are in a minority. Most of us can see reason. Most of us can think for ourselves, we do not need a backup plan to the questions 'Is this it?' and 'You mean that when I die that's the end?'
Morning
I explained the fact in my post that intense scrutiny and study was applied to concepts before they become dogmatic, the validity of a concept or doctrine is not inferred by a given percentage of people believing it as you are alluding to above.
Why do you speak in such a condescending and slightly aggressive tone telling me what I must 'understand'? I agree faith in Europe is on the decline, you speak as if I don't know this already, as if I am simple or something! But its an interesting point when people say the Church is outdated, etc.....the truths and doctrines of the Church have not changed over ~2000 years, but they are applied to modern topics such as stem cells, etc to give the Church's stance or position on the topic. So do we compare the Church against the world, or the world against the Church? The Church has not changed what its says, so the shift must have occurred in the world? Some disregard Christianity and its beliefs because it is contrary to the way they live their lives, some negate it because they see it as false or a lie and have evidence they feel supports their view, some have had bad experiences with faith and turn away from it. The reasons why people reject or ignore faith are very complex and cannot be reduced to merely not needing a back up plan as you mention above. The main reason I feel for people rejecting faith more these days is that they are better educated than previous generations, not because they feel they can sniff out the 'errors' as they see it of Christianity. But more they find replacements for faith in the modern world such as materialism, etc, and hence disregard faith choosing some values that are essentially contrary to Christian values. Don't get me wrong, all of us place value on material goods....cars, cloths, etc to a certain degree, but I am speaking more of the bigger picture. Many people don’t actively ignore faith, more there is no room for faith in modern life as it must compete with the many other influences and trends found in modern culture.
Further to what DeadLock was saying in his very well rounded post, an important thing to remember is that faith is essentially a very personal thing; a relationship between the individual and God, whatever creed the person follows. So it is very difficult for people to put into words what they experience with their faith, and the ‘thing’ that goes on within them that subsequently helps them ‘grow’ in faith. It’s not a cop out from giving ‘evidence’ as you demand, it is a fact. Plus there is no way anyone can give evidence of the existence of God within a post on PH. There are lots of websites around that can give all sides of the debate as you know. In the end having any faith is a ‘leap of faith’……..not seeing yet believing. This trust I suppose you could call it in God can only be God given in the first place as the Christian chap said a few pages back.
On a different note, is the Noble still due on Tuesday going by your profile? Its going to be a sleepless weekend I bet!
Best Regards
Martyn.
>> Edited by MOD500 on Saturday 10th July 11:34
-DeaDLocK- said:
But unfortunately the world is not governed by science alone.
So very, very wrong. It is ENTIRELY governed by science, albeit a science we don't fully understand yet.
-DeaDLocK- said:
Many things are still unexplained. Supernatural phenomena exists (I’m from Malaysia and can relate first-hand accounts of “ghost stories”). We have many scientific theories but very few laws. We don’t know everything. And I certainly don’t know what I felt in those moments except to ascribe them to the existence of a supreme being.
There are mushrooms that grow at the end of my garden, but only in one particular spot. I have no idea why they grow there, but that doesn't mean they grow there because that's where the pixies planted them...
A lot of this has turned specifically into a rant for and against Christianity... I wonder if any of you have ever studied other cultures and their religions...?
Pretty much every human race on earth has a religion of some sort. Most though do not worship a 'god' in the human sense, they worship the land and gods of 'things' around them.
Its odd that these races have these "religions" - they appeared to exist before we as westerners travelled the world spreading christianity. Its mainly western people that claim no god exists, we have found other things to fill our time now. But then again the Christian church is the product of much back-stabbing, greed and bollox basically such that people simply don't want to be a part of it.
When i was a kid i was taken to church etc, because thats what small-village kids did in those days. I don't follow this now because i have read enough about the christian religion to know that i don't really agree with a lot of what has gone on in its history and the fact that some of the christian faith is blatantly copied from other religions. Stuff like the crusades leaves me cold - i mean, apalled that anyone can do that to anyone else because they did not have the same views as them.
This largely how i try to live my life now, open to the views and beliefs of other people.
I like reading and learning of other cultures. I like seeing the world and the people in it, first hand - often in the middle of nowhere. Believing in gods is still ingrained in some cultures way of life and it gets them by, matter of factly.
Christianity is one religion unfortunately made up of other more solid and robust religions. It uses other religion's festivals etc such that it can take over their importance in order to become the one true religion (their words NOT mine). It was largely done for greed and control of subjects. In that respect i don't believe there is a christian god - that doesn't mean there wasn't a chap called Jesus who kicked it all off though!
Furthermore it doesn't mean that the form of a god doesn't exist somewhere in the world - spirit or otherwise, merely that Christianity in its sense is flawed.
I supsect that is what most people who say there isn't a god, are actually saying.
Maybe!
>> Edited by Buffalo on Saturday 10th July 12:52
Pretty much every human race on earth has a religion of some sort. Most though do not worship a 'god' in the human sense, they worship the land and gods of 'things' around them.
Its odd that these races have these "religions" - they appeared to exist before we as westerners travelled the world spreading christianity. Its mainly western people that claim no god exists, we have found other things to fill our time now. But then again the Christian church is the product of much back-stabbing, greed and bollox basically such that people simply don't want to be a part of it.
When i was a kid i was taken to church etc, because thats what small-village kids did in those days. I don't follow this now because i have read enough about the christian religion to know that i don't really agree with a lot of what has gone on in its history and the fact that some of the christian faith is blatantly copied from other religions. Stuff like the crusades leaves me cold - i mean, apalled that anyone can do that to anyone else because they did not have the same views as them.
This largely how i try to live my life now, open to the views and beliefs of other people.
I like reading and learning of other cultures. I like seeing the world and the people in it, first hand - often in the middle of nowhere. Believing in gods is still ingrained in some cultures way of life and it gets them by, matter of factly.
Christianity is one religion unfortunately made up of other more solid and robust religions. It uses other religion's festivals etc such that it can take over their importance in order to become the one true religion (their words NOT mine). It was largely done for greed and control of subjects. In that respect i don't believe there is a christian god - that doesn't mean there wasn't a chap called Jesus who kicked it all off though!
Furthermore it doesn't mean that the form of a god doesn't exist somewhere in the world - spirit or otherwise, merely that Christianity in its sense is flawed.
I supsect that is what most people who say there isn't a god, are actually saying.
Maybe!
>> Edited by Buffalo on Saturday 10th July 12:52
branflakes said:
So very, very wrong. It is ENTIRELY governed by science, albeit a science we don't fully understand yet.
My point exactly (though badly phrased). Which is why the utter reliance on known science to explain everything (which it yet cannot do) in my opinion is wrong.
The fact that (for the sake of argument) science cannot explain those mushrooms in your garden presents pixies planting them as a valid alternative, IMO. If we don't know what's causing it, then what is wrong with any speculation?
What makes you so sure that science will indeed explain that one day? And when it does, that the reason science discovers for those mushrooms is indeed that pixies actually plant them?
The fact is many things are still unknown. And I think we have a right to prescribe to those unknown things and possible explanation we wish (even if it involves pixies or a God). Historically speaking, it is this mad thinking that has generated scientific breakthroughs.
Who's to say at the very end of the road science won't discover that the source of all things is indeed a God?
We don't know, do we? Well, I certainly don't. I have faith however, based on my experiences, that what I believe is true.
You have to concede though, it certianly is *possible* that pixies plant those mushrooms, isn't it?
D
>> Edited by -DeaDLocK- on Saturday 10th July 13:07
People on this forum are mainly Christians, so a slant on Christianity/Catholosism is bound to come out. I know a little bits about Hindu, Buddhism, Islam and the Sikh beliefs, but the concept of supreme being is pretty much common to all, and regardless of whether they have 1, or more than 1, the belief in the supreme being is still based of faith, re=ather than tangibale evidence.
-DeaDLocK- said:
The fact that (for the sake of argument) science cannot explain those mushrooms in your garden presents pixies planting them as a valid alternative, IMO. If we don't know what's causing it, then what is wrong with any speculation?
fair·y ring (plural fair·y rings)
noun
circle of mushrooms or lush grass: a ring of mushrooms or grass darker than the surrounding grass, traditionally thought to be associated with dancing fairies but actually marking the outer edge of growth of various underground perennial fungi
-DeaDLocK- said:
So very, very wrong. It is ENTIRELY governed by science, albeit a science we don't fully understand yet.
My point exactly (though badly phrased). Which is why the utter reliance on known science to explain everything (which it yet cannot do) in my opinion is wrong.
The fact that (for the sake of argument) science cannot explain those mushrooms in your garden presents pixies planting them as a valid alternative, IMO. If we don't know what's causing it, then what is wrong with any speculation?
What makes you so sure that science will indeed explain that one day? And when it does, that the reason science discovers for those mushrooms is indeed that pixies actually plant them?
The fact is many things are still unknown. And I think we have a right to prescribe to those unknown things and possible explanation we wish (even if it involves pixies or a God). Historically speaking, it is this mad thinking that has generated scientific breakthroughs.
Who's to say at the very end of the road science won't discover that the source of all things is indeed a God?
We don't know, do we? Well, I certainly don't. I have faith however, based on my experiences, that what I believe is true.
You have to concede though, it certianly is *possible* that pixies plant those mushrooms, isn't it?
D
>> Edited by -DeaDLocK- on Saturday 10th July 13:07
Quite true IMO. You said it much better than me when i tried it a while back. All i got was a lynching because people thought i might actually dare to believe in something non-scienitific!
andy mac said:
People on this forum are mainly Christians, so a slant on Christianity/Catholosism is bound to come out. I know a little bits about Hindu, Buddhism, Islam and the Sikh beliefs, but the concept of supreme being is pretty much common to all, and regardless of whether they have 1, or more than 1, the belief in the supreme being is still based of faith, re=ather than tangibale evidence.
There are other faiths than that though. Most of them ancient ones mind, some a bit more wacky like druidism. These have largely been driven out due to christianity, but are possibly the most believable of them all!
The ones I find most fascinating are the ones based on ways of life, rather than worship of a deity, or supreme being. Buddhism, and the druidian are examples of this. They tend to rejoice in life, and the fact that everything is here, however it got here, rather than Dave made it in his shed, and how great he is for doing so.
ScoobyZoom said:
because thats the whole idea of a thread, you read people comments and post something worthwhile, before leaping in with crap...
No You read people comments and follow like a sheep you are!! I post how i like.
get back in your box
i am trying to.. but it doesn't help with cock suckers like you around.
oh and as you were bothered to read my post, there are plenty more people on that page saying it was rubbish too.
Just to confirm my point you have no mind of your own! Sheep Bah, Bah, exactly
Have a crap weeked
Sorry to off topic people but i dosen't help when one forum member is inciting another without any good reason.
>> Edited by ScoobyZoom on Saturday 10th July 09:17
This is going to be my last post on this subject as I feel that no more good will come of it, it's getting a little too heated in places and that is a bad thing.
MOD500:- I'm sorry that you thought I spoke condesendingly to you, that was not my intention and I unreservedly appologise for any offence given.
DeadLock:- Your post (the long one) was, as MOD500 said, very well rounded and a pleasure to read.
All:- My opinion follows, so if you're not interested in it turn off now.
I feel that the case for a Supreme being has niether been proved or disproved, I still have an open mind on that one.
The case for the church's view of a kind and wonderful being is shot to pieces.
While churches (irespective of which religion they follow), on the whole are a force for good in the world, they are forever tainted by thier members killing in the name of God(there is hardly one religion that can refute they have spilled blood at one time or another) Hypocrycy is rife, and the bible, as a set of facts, does not hold water.
I'm not a bad person, I belive that everyone has the right to believe what he will, and should be free from persicution for his beliefs unless it causes harm to others.
Martin.
MOD500:- I'm sorry that you thought I spoke condesendingly to you, that was not my intention and I unreservedly appologise for any offence given.
DeadLock:- Your post (the long one) was, as MOD500 said, very well rounded and a pleasure to read.
All:- My opinion follows, so if you're not interested in it turn off now.
I feel that the case for a Supreme being has niether been proved or disproved, I still have an open mind on that one.
The case for the church's view of a kind and wonderful being is shot to pieces.
While churches (irespective of which religion they follow), on the whole are a force for good in the world, they are forever tainted by thier members killing in the name of God(there is hardly one religion that can refute they have spilled blood at one time or another) Hypocrycy is rife, and the bible, as a set of facts, does not hold water.
I'm not a bad person, I belive that everyone has the right to believe what he will, and should be free from persicution for his beliefs unless it causes harm to others.
Martin.
CAR 7 said:
ScoobyZoom said:
because thats the whole idea of a thread, you read people comments and post something worthwhile, before leaping in with crap...
No You read people comments and follow like a sheep you are!! I post how i like.
get back in your box
i am trying to.. but it doesn't help with cock suckers like you around.
oh and as you were bothered to read my post, there are plenty more people on that page saying it was rubbish too.
Just to confirm my point you have no mind of your own! Sheep Bah, Bah, exactly
Have a crap weeked
Sorry to off topic people but i dosen't help when one forum member is inciting another without any good reason.
>> Edited by ScoobyZoom on Saturday 10th July 09:17
Right you retard. I was going to arrange your post so it was legible but I really cant be bothered.
If you read my post about my beliefs you would see why I have my reasons.
I was one of the first to say you were talking rubbish and how can I be a sheep when there are a few people for and against
, so either side I choose I would be a sheep? prat... So how was I stopping you getting back in your box exactly? By being a cock sucker? how inventive of you.. awesome insult I am impressed
And if you knew anything about me you would know how off the pace the McDonalds comment was..
And I wasnt trying to incite you, I said you were talking bollocks and you chose not to back up your original posting...
So unless you can bring a valid point to the thread - dont even bring yourself.
>> Edited by ScoobyZoom on Saturday 10th July 14:45
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff