God and the World, what do you think? [Does God Exist II]

[Arbolvine]

I believe that God does exist and that he created everything even science, if you believe in God then God bless you. If you don't then may science lead you to the answers you seek, I'm not going to shove my beliefs on you, I only ask you do the same.

Science is not created, but everything else makes sense.

[Nioya]

Does anyone here know where I can learn more about thomism and the thomistic cosmological argument?

Also, I heard leibiniz had his own version of the cosmological argument. I'd like some resources on that as well.

[Putainsky]

I believe in God's right to exist. If fags and trolls can exist, I speak of cigarettes and fairy tale characters here, why shouldn't an all-power entity that bashes the former two, and sends them to an ever-lasting hell of nightmares and pain?

There must be balance in all things. And God is a balance for a lot of things that already exist (unfortunately). So by the laws of equilibrium, God must exist so that the world wouldn't suck as much.

No matter what people say about God, I still believe God has a right to exist, no matter how that God is. I mean, c'mon, #livinforit

People, let's be people now

[Ndaku]

This thread went as far as bringing graduate school level probability. Huh.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Well Gee I just read this post. F*** off. I actually have Major Depressive Disrorder, Very severe ADHD (Before i was Diagnosed,I would walk out of the classroom because i forgot where I was) and Very Mild Asd. I can function socially just fine after years of being at at a therapeutic school. You sir are an asshole.

None of which gives you the right to flame/bait/troll players here.
*** Warned for flaming ***

[Ardoki]

God is All. All is God.

[Sun Wukong]

God is All. All is God.

So, what you're saying is that god is something for which we already have a perfectly adequate word, that isn't loaded with all sorts of nonsensical baggage?

Great! Let's just all use that then.

[Ardoki]

God is All. All is God.

So, what you're saying is that god is something for which we already have a perfectly adequate word, that isn't loaded with all sorts of nonsensical baggage?

Great! Let's just all use that then.

That's my view of God. I'm a pantheist.

[Salandriagado]

You're assuming the conclusion.

He's making it under the premise that no god has a possibility to exist. Which is wrong.

Hell maybe we create God in the future and send him back in time to create the universe. Wouldn't that be a twist.

No I'm not. The only things that I've assumed (besides various base axioms of mathematics, notably including the axiom of choice) are:
1) There are finitely many deity concepts about which we have any information at all (this is obvious: there have been finitely many humans generating/gathering said data for finite time).
2) There are uncountably many deity concepts about which we have no information at all (slightly less obvious, but very plausible)


From that I concluded that the probability of almost any (in the Lebesgue sense) specific deity existing is zero. That does not mean that no god exists. It also does not mean that the probability of some deity existing is zero. It is entirely possible, given only the above, for the probability of some deity existing to be exactly one. That, again, would not mean that some deity certainly exists.

[The Nexus of Man]

God is being that exists out side of time. i can explain how, but I'm not gonna lie this may be a bit difficult to follow. Some physicists have described time as another dimensional axis which when we interact with we experience time, with out it, we have space, but no time. If you were a 2 dimension being, this would be a sort of third dimension that is interacting with your flat world. the diagram below may help:

the ball would seem to appear out of nothing, grow in size, shrink, then disappear. God Exists outside these dimensions but can interact with them much like the ball with the flat land. Thus this is a way God MAY exist outside of space and time.
(P.S. the others are right, saying "the belief in theism best explains reality. There's just not substantial evidence for atheism" is an incorrect statement. they don't believe in God because there is not enough evidence in their eyes in favor of the existence of God.)
(P.P.S. define omnipotent, omniscient, as just saying a word without explaining it in this kind of discussion can open up a can of worm i don't want to deal with.

Again you must show that this is actually true, that there is a being that can exist outside space and time, speculation is useless. and once again outside is a concept that only make sense if space exists, thus outside makes no sense if there is no space, or they are not "inside" space. The same way before time makes no sense. The concept of before cannot exist without the time existing. The concept of outside cannot exist without space existing. thus outside space and time literally cannot exist because outside cannot exist without space.

The fourth dimension cannot be expressed in third dimensional mechanics, so it cannot "having ani evidinc".

[Salandriagado]

Again you must show that this is actually true, that there is a being that can exist outside space and time, speculation is useless. and once again outside is a concept that only make sense if space exists, thus outside makes no sense if there is no space, or they are not "inside" space. The same way before time makes no sense. The concept of before cannot exist without the time existing. The concept of outside cannot exist without space existing. thus outside space and time literally cannot exist because outside cannot exist without space.

The fourth dimension cannot be expressed in third dimensional mechanics, so it cannot "having ani evidinc".

This is bullshit. I repeat: I can very easily prove many things about four dimensional spaces.

[The Creepoc Infinite]

Again you must show that this is actually true, that there is a being that can exist outside space and time, speculation is useless. and once again outside is a concept that only make sense if space exists, thus outside makes no sense if there is no space, or they are not "inside" space. The same way before time makes no sense. The concept of before cannot exist without the time existing. The concept of outside cannot exist without space existing. thus outside space and time literally cannot exist because outside cannot exist without space.

The fourth dimension cannot be expressed in third dimensional mechanics, so it cannot "having ani evidinc".

Tessaract BEOTCH.
that is a fourth dimensional object and we clearly know this despite having "third dimensional" mechanics.

[The Archregimancy]

The fourth dimension cannot be expressed in third dimensional mechanics, so it cannot "having ani evidinc".

Tessaract BEOTCH.
that is a fourth dimensional object and we clearly know this despite having "third dimensional" mechanics.

These two statements are not incompatible.

We know that four dimensional objects exist, including objects other than the tesseract; but knowledge of these objects' existence doesn't mean we can fully express what they would look like in four dimensions using three dimensional mechanics. For example, I can draw a map of the world on a flat surface, rather than on a near-globe, but the representation of that near-globe will inevitably be inaccurate - though recognisable - requiring certain compromises in how I represent a three-dimensional surface in two dimensions. I can represent scale or form more or less accurately, but not necessarily both simultaneously. Similarly, how I represent a tesseract or 120-cell hecatonicosachoron in three dimensions is only an approximation of what it looks like in four dimensions rather than a true representation thereof.

I stress that I'm not for one second supporting the slightly odd fourth dimension argument for the existence of a deity, simply noting that Creepoc's argument isn't quite as conclusive as he thinks it is.

[The Creepoc Infinite]

Tessaract BEOTCH.
that is a fourth dimensional object and we clearly know this despite having "third dimensional" mechanics.

These two statements are not incompatible.

We know that four dimensional objects exist, including objects other than the tesseract; but knowledge of these objects' existence doesn't mean we can fully express what they would look like in four dimensions using three dimensional mechanics. For example, I can draw a map of the world on a flat surface, rather than on a near-globe, but the representation of that near-globe will inevitably be inaccurate - though recognisable - requiring certain compromises in how I represent a three-dimensional surface in two dimensions. I can represent scale or form more or less accurately, but not necessarily both simultaneously. Similarly, how I represent a tesseract or 120-cell hecatonicosachoron in three dimensions is only an approximation of what it looks like in four dimensions rather than a true representation thereof.

I stress that I'm not for one second supporting the slightly odd fourth dimension argument for the existence of a deity, simply noting that Creepoc's argument isn't quite as conclusive as he thinks it is.

i don't know much about the "fourth dimension" argument for god, but it sounds needlessly complicated and reliant on baffling the audience of said argument.
thanks for the school lesson, buddy, because i really do find alternate dimensions quite interesting, but i couldn't bring myself within one cell of a tessaract from here to the dimension of giving a fuck, namely a flying one, about the math behind it, or even it's relation to god.

is what i said conclusive? i dunno, does it have to be?
all i really did was share my thoughts on the matter, no more.
i wasn't making much of an argument.

whatever, i hate math. i just like the sci fi alternate dimensions.

[The Creepoc Infinite]

https://richarddawkins.net/2014/11/resp ... mind-meme/

[The Archregimancy]

These two statements are not incompatible.

We know that four dimensional objects exist, including objects other than the tesseract; but knowledge of these objects' existence doesn't mean we can fully express what they would look like in four dimensions using three dimensional mechanics. For example, I can draw a map of the world on a flat surface, rather than on a near-globe, but the representation of that near-globe will inevitably be inaccurate - though recognisable - requiring certain compromises in how I represent a three-dimensional surface in two dimensions. I can represent scale or form more or less accurately, but not necessarily both simultaneously. Similarly, how I represent a tesseract or 120-cell hecatonicosachoron in three dimensions is only an approximation of what it looks like in four dimensions rather than a true representation thereof.

I stress that I'm not for one second supporting the slightly odd fourth dimension argument for the existence of a deity, simply noting that Creepoc's argument isn't quite as conclusive as he thinks it is.

i don't know much about the "fourth dimension" argument for god, but it sounds needlessly complicated and reliant on baffling the audience of said argument.
thanks for the school lesson, buddy, because i really do find alternate dimensions quite interesting, but i couldn't bring myself within one cell of a tessaract from here to the dimension of giving a fuck, namely a flying one, about the math behind it, or even it's relation to god.

is what i said conclusive? i dunno, does it have to be?
all i really did was share my thoughts on the matter, no more.
i wasn't making much of an argument.

whatever, i hate math. i just like the sci fi alternate dimensions.

Ah yes, the usual mature Creepoc Infinite reaction to being proven incorrect.

"I don't actually care if what I was writing is right or wrong, and will emphasise at great length just how much I don't care".

There's also the usual hefty dose of totally missing the point, since I explicitly noted I wasn't attempting to engage with the 'fourth dimension argument for god', which I'd never even encountered before this thread. Nor was I addressing 'alternate dimensions'.

My sole and very narrow point was that knowledge of a fourth dimensional object's existence is not the same as being able to adequately represent that object in fewer dimensions.

Therefore writing "Tessaract BEOTCH. that is a fourth dimensional object and we clearly know this despite having "third dimensional" mechanics" was not a conclusive counterargument to the point Creepoc was replying to.

https://richarddawkins.net/2014/11/response-to-the-im-a-christian-you-cannot-change-my-mind-meme/

I take it you're likely blissfully unaware of the profound irony of posting that link immediately after your preceding post.

[The Creepoc Infinite]

i don't know much about the "fourth dimension" argument for god, but it sounds needlessly complicated and reliant on baffling the audience of said argument.
thanks for the school lesson, buddy, because i really do find alternate dimensions quite interesting, but i couldn't bring myself within one cell of a tessaract from here to the dimension of giving a fuck, namely a flying one, about the math behind it, or even it's relation to god.

is what i said conclusive? i dunno, does it have to be?
all i really did was share my thoughts on the matter, no more.
i wasn't making much of an argument.

whatever, i hate math. i just like the sci fi alternate dimensions.

Ah yes, the usual mature Creepoc Infinite reaction to being proven incorrect.

"I don't actually care if what I was writing is right or wrong, and will emphasise at great length just how much I don't care".

There's also the usual hefty dose of totally missing the point, since I explicitly noted I wasn't attempting to engage with the 'fourth dimension argument for god', which I'd never even encountered before this thread. Nor was I addressing 'alternate dimensions'.

My sole and very narrow point was that knowledge of a fourth dimensional object's existence is not the same as being able to adequately represent that object in fewer dimensions.

Therefore writing "Tessaract BEOTCH. that is a fourth dimensional object and we clearly know this despite having "third dimensional" mechanics" was not a conclusive counterargument to the point Creepoc was replying to.

perhaps you just don't like me, but i already said, but lemme say it slowly this time so you can understand.

I WAS NOT MAKING AN ARGUMENT, at least not one that was meant to be cogent.
i just shared my first thought on the issue, yo.

but we can be friends nontheless, your clear distaste for my style of typing notwithstanding.

[Mercea (Ancient)]

Atheists and everyone else, please read the FAQ before posting I promise it's short.

Q: Didn't religion cause the majority of the wars?
A: No, throughout recorder history only 7 %, as a BBC study has shown. More information

---

Q: Does religion have any benefits for society?
A:Absolutely, even for atheists members of society (provided it's a tolerant one in general)

---

Q: But religion caused the dark ages and prevented progress?
A: Wrong again, it was one of the lights in the darkness, preserving the scientific and cultural heritage and knowledge of the ancient times when the Barbarians invaded and caused Rome to fall. Thus, it made the Renaissance possible, where all modern sciences originated.

---

Q: Doesn't the bible contradict scientific findings? How can you be a good scientist if you're Christian?
A: This is only the case if you take the bible literally, which most denominations don't. A lot of protestant, as well as the Catholic and Orthodox churches don't, and see it as metaphorical. They agree that the bible is not to be understood as any kind of science textbook and that its texts are either to be read as metaphorical or need context and background information to understand them. (That's why critical biblical studies is a real science, too)
Therefore, it's not only possible for you to be both religious and a good scientist, the Bible even encourages to reason and has inspired many people to research what they believe to be God's creation. More information
Important Christian scientists (responsible for example for the Big Bang theory, the origin of modern genetics and the WWW)
Muslim scientists

---

This is, aside from the abortion thread, the topic that will never end: Is there a god, and if yes, what is that god like, what did the god do and are there possibly even multiple of them?
The discussion has obviously been going for thousands of years, with no side ever being able to achieve a complete, smashing victory. But recently they have been getting closer again. The pope has been approaching atheists, as various reports have described, and there is no reason why science and religion can't coexist as long as you aren't taking the bible literally. So while the debate nowadays thankfully isn't as divisive as in previous times, it continues to be the subject of heated debates.
Personally, I'm rather agnostic, but not necessarily atheist. I'm more leaning towards being slightly religious and spiritual myself, but only to a certain point, as I trust modern science as well.
I agree with Martin Luther King Jr. here:

“Science investigates; religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge, which is power; religion gives man wisdom, which is control. Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values. The two are not rivals.”

I ask you the above questions: What is your opinion on the existence of one or multiple gods, and what could they possibly have done or not?

To end it, here's another quote I liked by MLK:

“Faith is taking the first step even when you can't see the whole staircase.”

I'm not religious, and am undecided on the existence of a higher power. As far as faith, and God or Gods, whether it be the Christian God, Allah, Yahweh, Athena whatever - I think the greatest deprivation to society, or one of them - is this fundamental belief among some groups that their religion is the 'true' one. For all we know, if say yes - a God did exist, you're all worshipping the same bloke.

I think all religions have bits and pieces right, they teeter on the edge of the big picture, but blind themselves with the beliefs of being the 'True One'. Tunnel vision really.

As far as faith - if one believes because they are afraid of damnation, this isn't true faith, it's being fearful and makes no logical sense. If one believes because they expect to get a reward, an incentive by believing - this isn't true faith either, that's just greedy. True faith is something done by choice, without the expectation of a reward or fear of being damned, you should believe of your own choice. Due to this - I feel religion is a personal thing unique to that person, and them alone, you can't force someone to believe in a higher power, that's coercion - if they weren't wanting it willingly to begin with, this can't logically be true faith. Therefore, I can conclude that in order to really have faith, you must find God(s) in yourself, of your own decision and choice, of your own free will.

It also doesn't make any logical sense, and I highly doubt a higher power would be so eager to punish someone who doesn't believe, if they've done nothing but live a compassionate, gentle life. Mistakes? We all make mistakes, if you can forgive yourself - and understand they were wrong, then I don't see why that'd exclude you. 10,000 years of human development, and we feel the urge to concern ourselves with how our neighbours cut their grass - if they are happy, and are enjoying life and creation, so long as they are not harming another, let them be. It's cruel to deprive someone of their happiness in life - simply because they prefer blossoms over roses.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

How is one corrupt when doing a volunteer job that does not involve money or other gain?

You need to look up the definition of corruption.

Perhaps you are the one that should.

cor·rupt
kəˈrəpt/
adjective
1.
having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain.

[Jute]

Atheists and everyone else, please read the FAQ before posting I promise it's short.

Q: Didn't religion cause the majority of the wars?
A: No, throughout recorder history only 7 %, as a BBC study has shown. More information

---

Q: Does religion have any benefits for society?
A:Absolutely, even for atheists members of society (provided it's a tolerant one in general)

---

Q: But religion caused the dark ages and prevented progress?
A: Wrong again, it was one of the lights in the darkness, preserving the scientific and cultural heritage and knowledge of the ancient times when the Barbarians invaded and caused Rome to fall. Thus, it made the Renaissance possible, where all modern sciences originated.

---

Q: Doesn't the bible contradict scientific findings? How can you be a good scientist if you're Christian?
A: This is only the case if you take the bible literally, which most denominations don't. A lot of protestant, as well as the Catholic and Orthodox churches don't, and see it as metaphorical. They agree that the bible is not to be understood as any kind of science textbook and that its texts are either to be read as metaphorical or need context and background information to understand them. (That's why critical biblical studies is a real science, too)
Therefore, it's not only possible for you to be both religious and a good scientist, the Bible even encourages to reason and has inspired many people to research what they believe to be God's creation. More information
Important Christian scientists (responsible for example for the Big Bang theory, the origin of modern genetics and the WWW)
Muslim scientists

---

This is, aside from the abortion thread, the topic that will never end: Is there a god, and if yes, what is that god like, what did the god do and are there possibly even multiple of them?
The discussion has obviously been going for thousands of years, with no side ever being able to achieve a complete, smashing victory. But recently they have been getting closer again. The pope has been approaching atheists, as various reports have described, and there is no reason why science and religion can't coexist as long as you aren't taking the bible literally. So while the debate nowadays thankfully isn't as divisive as in previous times, it continues to be the subject of heated debates.
Personally, I'm rather agnostic, but not necessarily atheist. I'm more leaning towards being slightly religious and spiritual myself, but only to a certain point, as I trust modern science as well.
I agree with Martin Luther King Jr. here:

I ask you the above questions: What is your opinion on the existence of one or multiple gods, and what could they possibly have done or not?

To end it, here's another quote I liked by MLK:

I'm not religious, and am undecided on the existence of a higher power. As far as faith, and God or Gods, whether it be the Christian God, Allah, Yahweh, Athena whatever - I think the greatest deprivation to society, or one of them - is this fundamental belief among some groups that their religion is the 'true' one. For all we know, if say yes - a God did exist, you're all worshipping the same bloke.

I think all religions have bits and pieces right, they teeter on the edge of the big picture, but blind themselves with the beliefs of being the 'True One'. Tunnel vision really.

As far as faith - if one believes because they are afraid of damnation, this isn't true faith, it's being fearful and makes no logical sense. If one believes because they expect to get a reward, an incentive by believing - this isn't true faith either, that's just greedy. True faith is something done by choice, without the expectation of a reward or fear of being damned, you should believe of your own choice. Due to this - I feel religion is a personal thing unique to that person, and them alone, you can't force someone to believe in a higher power, that's coercion - if they weren't wanting it willingly to begin with, this can't logically be true faith. Therefore, I can conclude that in order to really have faith, you must find God(s) in yourself, of your own decision and choice, of your own free will.

It also doesn't make any logical sense, and I highly doubt a higher power would be so eager to punish someone who doesn't believe, if they've done nothing but live a compassionate, gentle life. Mistakes? We all make mistakes, if you can forgive yourself - and understand they were wrong, then I don't see why that'd exclude you. 10,000 years of human development, and we feel the urge to concern ourselves with how our neighbours cut their grass - if they are happy, and are enjoying life and creation, so long as they are not harming another, let them be. It's cruel to deprive someone of their happiness in life - simply because they prefer blossoms over roses.

Just noting that not everything humans do is logical, and that is not even necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes it can even be the right thing to do. I agree with your views on faith, though. And most Gods are forgiving, too, it's all too fundamentalist belief that can hold you back, yes.

Whelp, this place has gone literally gayer than usual. About time I high-tail it out of here forever.

Jesus loves you!

That he does

[Vilatania]

You need to look up the definition of corruption.

Perhaps you are the one that should.

cor·rupt
kəˈrəpt/
adjective
1.
having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain.

I underlined the part your not reading.

[Arbolvine]

Perhaps you are the one that should.

cor·rupt
kəˈrəpt/
adjective
1.
having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain.

I underlined the part your not reading.

I underlined the part you're not reading.

[Godular]

I underlined the part your not reading.

I underlined the part you're not reading.

I underlined the part that is relevant to the thread.

Hyuk.

That is to all three of yas.

[The Rich Port]

Again you must show that this is actually true, that there is a being that can exist outside space and time, speculation is useless. and once again outside is a concept that only make sense if space exists, thus outside makes no sense if there is no space, or they are not "inside" space. The same way before time makes no sense. The concept of before cannot exist without the time existing. The concept of outside cannot exist without space existing. thus outside space and time literally cannot exist because outside cannot exist without space.

The fourth dimension cannot be expressed in third dimensional mechanics, so it cannot "having ani evidinc".

... You do realize it's irrelevant anyway, right?

What do four-dimensional spaces prove about God existing?

[Vilatania]

I underlined the part your not reading.

I underlined the part you're not reading.

He said that corruption wasn't possible where money wasn't involved.