The Existence of God

[Kyrinasaj]

I believe in the God.

And why?

[Sanctissima]

Well, if that's the case, then the concept of the Trinity is wrong even from a theological standpoint. Because as I recall quite a few people saw Jesus, and spoke to him, and whatnot.

Unless him being in corporeal form somehow negates the whole dying by seeing him thing.

Jesus was a Man - the Bible is quite explicit on that point,

but more importantly why is it that non-beleivers and atheist spend so much of their time and energy seeking to refute the existence of a being they insist does not exist? What is the fundamental motivation that causes such people to 'struggle with god' rather than with UFO's or Leprechauns? Is it rebellion of spirit against a divine tyrant or heavenly father?

The question isn't if Jesus was a man, it's if he was solely a man. The popularly held notion of the Trinity holds that he is not just a man, and that he is in fact also God. Thus the question of why people didn't die when they saw him, as espoused in the above notion.

The reason why people refute the existence of God is simply because there's no evidence to suggest he exists, despite what is claimed otherwise. I might as well ask you why believers spend so much time asserting that he does exist.

[Godular]

Jesus was a Man - the Bible is quite explicit on that point,

but more importantly why is it that non-beleivers and atheist spend so much of their time and energy seeking to refute the existence of a being they insist does not exist? What is the fundamental motivation that causes such people to 'struggle with god' rather than with UFO's or Leprechauns? Is it rebellion of spirit against a divine tyrant or heavenly father?

The question isn't if Jesus was a man, it's if he was solely a man. The popularly held notion of the Trinity holds that he is not just a man, and that he is in fact also God. Thus the question of why people didn't die when they saw him, as espoused in the above notion.

The reason why people refute the existence of God is simply because there's no evidence to suggest he exists, despite what is claimed otherwise. I might as well ask you why believers spend so much time asserting that he does exist.

Or why they might use it as a basis to control the actions of others. Treatment of LGBT folks and such, this notion that one must convert others to the same belief, etc.

Religion should be treated like a bowling score. Sure you can take pride in it, but its rude to go yelling at random people about how great it is, and it shouldn't be the thing that gets you elected to office.

[Sanctissima]

Eh, maybe one day some shred of evidence will come along suggesting that maybe God does exist. That is within the realm of possibility.

It's just that so far, we've found nothing. And I think that having nothing, after thousands of years of looking, is proof enough that he doesn't exist.

I think so...

But maybe another god than the Abrahamic on exists somewhere, however unlikely.

But on the other hand science has figured more out than religion ever had.

I suppose Deism is a possibility, but if there is some deity out there then why have we never found a shred of its existence? Maybe it has hidden itself from us, but if so, where are the traces of its existence? It must have left something behind, and if not, why even bother to believe in something that we don't even know exists?

[Sanctissima]

God exists. I met him in one of my LSD trips, but also because when some girl dressing skimpy says 'Only God can judge me', and you hear a booming voice in the air that says "YOU'RE A WHORE".

Well, pack it up, boys. We've got definitive proof right here.

Also, OP, what would you consider the fourth religion that worships God? I can only think of the three Abrahamic ones.

Baha'i'sm

It doesn't get a whole lot of attention, but it is a distinct religion that worships the Abrahamic God.

[United Marxist Nations]

I think so...

But maybe another god than the Abrahamic on exists somewhere, however unlikely.

But on the other hand science has figured more out than religion ever had.

I suppose Deism is a possibility, but if there is some deity out there then why have we never found a shred of its existence? Maybe it has hidden itself from us, but if so, where are the traces of its existence? It must have left something behind, and if not, why even bother to believe in something that we don't even know exists?

Why would it have left something behind?

[Jumalariik]

I believe in the God.

And why?

I think that the Cosmological argument is very logical, also I think that most other explanations of the world's existence are lacking.

[Sanctissima]

Based upon the argument of Aquinas, which I take to be correct, I then build up more arguments to justify that God must possess a will and be aware.

All Aquinas' argument proves (or rather, surmises) is that the Universe needed an origin, or something to "wound it up" so to speak. There's no reason why this has to be a deity.

[Uxupox]

Based upon the argument of Aquinas, which I take to be correct, I then build up more arguments to justify that God must possess a will and be aware.

¡Tomás de Aquino es el héroe de todos los teólogos!

[Godular]

I suppose Deism is a possibility, but if there is some deity out there then why have we never found a shred of its existence? Maybe it has hidden itself from us, but if so, where are the traces of its existence? It must have left something behind, and if not, why even bother to believe in something that we don't even know exists?

Why would it have left something behind?

How is it that assertions of its existence would be anything other than fanciful imaginings, otherwise?

[Sanctissima]

I suppose Deism is a possibility, but if there is some deity out there then why have we never found a shred of its existence? Maybe it has hidden itself from us, but if so, where are the traces of its existence? It must have left something behind, and if not, why even bother to believe in something that we don't even know exists?

Why would it have left something behind?

Oh, there's no reason it should have, assuming it's all-powerful, omnipotent, and doesn't leave a trace.

But then we come to the same problem, no evidence for it's existence. Not a single trace.

[Kyrinasaj]

And why?

I think that the Cosmological argument is very logical, also I think that most other explanations of the world's existence are lacking.

If there has to be a god to create this universe, then why haven't we found him yet if he's essential and loving? How can you be sure that it was your god specifically and not another god? How about the answer to the world's existence is just we don't know (yet). It is unclear. But an omnipotent, omnipresent invisible man with 10 things he wants you to do and even more things he doesn't want you to do? He created all of this in a snap of a finger, out of nothing? And he created humans out of dust?

[Sanctissima]

The question isn't if Jesus was a man, it's if he was solely a man. The popularly held notion of the Trinity holds that he is not just a man, and that he is in fact also God. Thus the question of why people didn't die when they saw him, as espoused in the above notion.

The reason why people refute the existence of God is simply because there's no evidence to suggest he exists, despite what is claimed otherwise. I might as well ask you why believers spend so much time asserting that he does exist.

Or why they might use it as a basis to control the actions of others. Treatment of LGBT folks and such, this notion that one must convert others to the same belief, etc.

Religion should be treated like a bowling score. Sure you can take pride in it, but its rude to go yelling at random people about how great it is, and it shouldn't be the thing that gets you elected to office.

Eh, it is what it is.

At the end of the day, I think it's just a fear of death, that eventually builds up into other things. People generally do not like the notion of their own impending oblivion, and for many God is a suitable alternative to facing their own mortality.

[Wallenburg]

Probably not.

[Trumpostan]

God exists. Certainly not in the Abrahamic sense, but in a much more abstract sense. One can see that this universe is alive. God, if anything, is that life, that logic to the universe. God may not have created the universe in the biblical sense, but some could argue that the big bang, evolution, et cetera, were influenced by divine hand. Just my religious, if unaffiliated two cents.

Just... no.

There is no divine hand, never was, never will be. Natural explanations suffice quite well. This isn't 3000 BC anymore when people simply didn't know better. Most stuff that couldn't be explained then, can be explained today through science, logic and reason. Back then, everything they couldn't explain, it was some kind of 'god'. However, one by one, these supernatural explanations as to why thunder/lightning/floods/earthquakes/solar eclipses etc... have been explained by science. The 'god' realm has shrunk accordingly, in direct proportion with the increase in the science realm. To the extent that today you have the 'god is nothing more than a burning bush' theory. Now 'god' only ever makes appearances on pieces of toast. Because no one in his right mind would call thunder 'wrath from god' anymore, like they likely did x thousand years ago.

Plus, the extremely bad track record of the bible and the quran on science. The books are wrong on so many things that ignorance doesn't even suffice to explain it anymore.

[Conscentia]

And why?

I think that the Cosmological argument is very logical, also I think that most other explanations of the world's existence are lacking.

The cosmological argument is very weak.
It states that everything must have a cause, then proposes that there must've been an uncaused first cause. The argument therefore contradicts itself.
Additionally it's defenders are usually guilty of non sequitur. They argue that there must've been a first cause, and then just assert that this must be God without actually demonstrating that he first cause must've been God and not something else. And it always just happens to be the specific God of person making the argument, never someone else's conception of God.

[Unstoppable Empire of Doom]

If Trump gets elected than there is no God.

[United Marxist Nations]

Based upon the argument of Aquinas, which I take to be correct, I then build up more arguments to justify that God must possess a will and be aware.

All Aquinas' argument proves (or rather, surmises) is that the Universe needed an origin, or something to "wound it up" so to speak. There's no reason why this has to be a deity.

Sorry for late reply, had a phone call.

I argued that it had to be a deity in a recent paper I wrote, so I will copypasta from it, if you don't mind me doing so.

[An] objection may be that the first cause needn’t be a sentient being. However, a true first cause should exist purely of its own accord and volition, and a non-sentient being, or a mere force, should be incapable of will. Furthermore, a first cause must be aware and willful, as otherwise its actions in creating or causing the universe would remain uncaused by anything (and we cannot say that the actions are a first cause, because, as identified earlier, there must be an actor for there to be an action; that is to say, for God to act, there must be a God to act), because the being from which the action came about would have no input upon the action. To demonstrate and clarify, when an object is not in motion, we understand that it will not come into motion unless acted upon, which is confirmed by Newton; thus, there must be a cause of the action, even if the action is that of an abstract force. Therefore, we would not be unfounded in thinking that God’s actions should have a cause, which can only be determined to be the will of that God. If a will is the only way to explain the actions of a force, then it would naturally be presumed that this force has a will (as opposed to more natural forces like tectonic plate movements, which have a definite cause which is easily observable, whereas a force described would have nothing but that which makes up itself, and thus must be affected only by itself).

Now, I, of course, realize that not everyone will agree with my reasoning, but I am just laying it out there and will try to defend it.

[United Marxist Nations]

God exists. Certainly not in the Abrahamic sense, but in a much more abstract sense. One can see that this universe is alive. God, if anything, is that life, that logic to the universe. God may not have created the universe in the biblical sense, but some could argue that the big bang, evolution, et cetera, were influenced by divine hand. Just my religious, if unaffiliated two cents.

Just... no.

There is no divine hand, never was, never will be. Natural explanations suffice quite well. This isn't 3000 BC anymore when people simply didn't know better. Most stuff that couldn't be explained then, can be explained today through science, logic and reason. Back then, everything they couldn't explain, it was some kind of 'god'. However, one by one, these supernatural explanations as to why thunder/lightning/floods/earthquakes/solar eclipses etc... have been explained by science. The 'god' realm has shrunk accordingly, in direct proportion with the increase in the science realm. To the extent that today you have the 'god is nothing more than a burning bush' theory. Now 'god' only ever makes appearances on pieces of toast. Because no one in his right mind would call thunder 'wrath from god' anymore, like they likely did x thousand years ago.

Plus, the extremely bad track record of the bible and the quran on science. The books are wrong on so many things that ignorance doesn't even suffice to explain it anymore.

How would you explain miracles?

[Wallenburg]

Just... no.

There is no divine hand, never was, never will be. Natural explanations suffice quite well. This isn't 3000 BC anymore when people simply didn't know better. Most stuff that couldn't be explained then, can be explained today through science, logic and reason. Back then, everything they couldn't explain, it was some kind of 'god'. However, one by one, these supernatural explanations as to why thunder/lightning/floods/earthquakes/solar eclipses etc... have been explained by science. The 'god' realm has shrunk accordingly, in direct proportion with the increase in the science realm. To the extent that today you have the 'god is nothing more than a burning bush' theory. Now 'god' only ever makes appearances on pieces of toast. Because no one in his right mind would call thunder 'wrath from god' anymore, like they likely did x thousand years ago.

Plus, the extremely bad track record of the bible and the quran on science. The books are wrong on so many things that ignorance doesn't even suffice to explain it anymore.

How would you explain miracles?

Like what?

[Godular]

Just... no.

There is no divine hand, never was, never will be. Natural explanations suffice quite well. This isn't 3000 BC anymore when people simply didn't know better. Most stuff that couldn't be explained then, can be explained today through science, logic and reason. Back then, everything they couldn't explain, it was some kind of 'god'. However, one by one, these supernatural explanations as to why thunder/lightning/floods/earthquakes/solar eclipses etc... have been explained by science. The 'god' realm has shrunk accordingly, in direct proportion with the increase in the science realm. To the extent that today you have the 'god is nothing more than a burning bush' theory. Now 'god' only ever makes appearances on pieces of toast. Because no one in his right mind would call thunder 'wrath from god' anymore, like they likely did x thousand years ago.

Plus, the extremely bad track record of the bible and the quran on science. The books are wrong on so many things that ignorance doesn't even suffice to explain it anymore.

How would you explain miracles?

Exercises in wishful thinking.

[United Marxist Nations]

How would you explain miracles?

Like what?

There is one specific one that particularly stands out from the late middle ages of a Spanish(?) man having his amputated leg restored to him.

[Godular]

Like what?

There is one specific one that particularly stands out from the late middle ages of a Spanish(?) man having his amputated leg restored to him.

You'll pardon us if it is noted that the middle ages did not have the best, or most objective, record keeping.

[Sanctissima]

All Aquinas' argument proves (or rather, surmises) is that the Universe needed an origin, or something to "wound it up" so to speak. There's no reason why this has to be a deity.

Sorry for late reply, had a phone call.

I argued that it had to be a deity in a recent paper I wrote, so I will copypasta from it, if you don't mind me doing so.

[An] objection may be that the first cause needn’t be a sentient being. However, a true first cause should exist purely of its own accord and volition, and a non-sentient being, or a mere force, should be incapable of will. Furthermore, a first cause must be aware and willful, as otherwise its actions in creating or causing the universe would remain uncaused by anything (and we cannot say that the actions are a first cause, because, as identified earlier, there must be an actor for there to be an action; that is to say, for God to act, there must be a God to act), because the being from which the action came about would have no input upon the action. To demonstrate and clarify, when an object is not in motion, we understand that it will not come into motion unless acted upon, which is confirmed by Newton; thus, there must be a cause of the action, even if the action is that of an abstract force. Therefore, we would not be unfounded in thinking that God’s actions should have a cause, which can only be determined to be the will of that God. If a will is the only way to explain the actions of a force, then it would naturally be presumed that this force has a will (as opposed to more natural forces like tectonic plate movements, which have a definite cause which is easily observable, whereas a force described would have nothing but that which makes up itself, and thus must be affected only by itself).

Now, I, of course, realize that not everyone will agree with my reasoning, but I am just laying it out there and will try to defend it.

Not a problem, there's no hurry. Thanks for replying.

But there's two major problems I see in your reasoning. The first being that there had to be a first cause, since for all we know the Universe or cosmos had no beginning and has simply always existed. It could simply have always been in motion.

The second is that you assume such an action would have had to be willful. It could quite simply have just happened, without the assistance of any sentient being. In fact, as far as our Universe is considered, there's already several scientific theories on how the Big Bang happened, or why our Universe isn't just a really condensed ball of matter. It's expansion didn't require the existence of a deity.

[Vorond]

The real qquestion is: does it even matter? For me the answer is of no consequence.