Why do/don't you believe in a higher power? (Any HP)

[Estanglia]

Also, everyone, sorry for my off and on participation in this thread, but I think something needs to be said:


Why believe in God?

Aside from the fact there is literally no evidence apart from a book and a bunch of writings which only self-reference themselves, Occam's Razor just shaves this off:
"So uhhh...the universe has a beginning, right? So what created it?"
"There's a magic omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omnipresent man outside the universe, all-powerful, all-seeing and all-hearing."
"Isn't there a possibility in which the universe creates itself through scientific processes and the big cru-"
"MAGIC BEING!"

you realise that there are sources in Roman, Greek, Jewish and Egyptian documents about Jesus and His miracles, right? There are first hand accounts inside them, ask any ancient historian. Why would the Romans and Jews especially lie? They had Him killed for goodness sake.
"Plus, the universe has a beginning, right? So what created it?"
"Giant explosion creating something from nothing!"
"Wait, isn't that against the laws of phys-"
"GIANT EXPLOSION!"

They would 'lie' because they wouldn't understand that the miracles weren't actually divine/had a scientific basis to it.

The big bang wasn't an explosion.

---

Great strawman, we more or less understand everything that happened up to about 1 femtosecond after the big-bang. We don't know exactly what caused it. Some (like me) believe in the infinite expansion and contraction of the universe, (which suffers from the same infinite regress as the concept of a creator god). Other research suggests that in mass-less environments particles can be spontaneously generated from energy, with slight favour given to regular matter as opposed to anti-matter. Neither of these is confirmed and we can only really guess at this point.

exactly - "we can only guess". Then we shouldn't be arguing over who's guess is correct with absolutely no way of proving either. People should be entitled to their own opinions or beliefs.

There are two big differences. Firstly, the guesses made by science tend to have scientific evidence in favour. Second, unless we can prove that theory or the theory has the most evidence behind it, we don't take it as fact. the same doesn't happen with God as a general rule.

---

The difference is that the majority of guesses that scientists make are (while not 100% proven), backed by some form of science. Whereas the claims of religion have no such basis.

I mean, we literally just agreed up there /\ that we have NO PROOF for the causation of the Big Bang.... so what were you saying? Wait, energy can be created from nothing? Some scientific proof... Hmmm... *casually accidently disproves a fundamental law of physics through backing up an unknown creation of energy with "science"*.
Which, btw, you are yet to provide evidenced for your so-called "scientific evidence". Care to share it with us?

They are just theories. Acting like they are the scientific consensus is disingenuous.

And, depending on what you mean by

NO PROOF for the causation of the Big Bang....

, there is. There is proof that the big bang happened (we can detect leftover cosmic radiation from the big bang). If you're talking about proof for the theories of the cause of the big bang, there is no proof. Just like belief in God!

I dont believe because there is no evidence of a god.

buddy - u may want to research your arguments before you post them on this message board - we have previously discussed multiple pieces of evidence for the potential existence of God. Have a read through and get back to us

There is no evidence. If there was, you'd be able to provide us some. Considering you refusing to do so - instead telling us to read back in the thread (where arguments in favour of God were debunked, not proved with evidence) - you have none.

---

raised believing, most believable explanation for surviving a 1-2-3 combo of pneumonia, bacterial meningitis, and endocarditis is god answering my parents prayers.

Did you have medical treatment?

[Gondlaura]

Wishful thinking. It makes life easier to believe there’s more at the end. Also, to me at least, it’s more believable for a godless afterlife to exist than a divine afterlife, if god is part of that great, if not oh well.

The system you believe exists after death is dependent on a God. It is fundamentally incoherent to believe such a thing in the absence of God; and if you know yourself that the afterlife is a lie that you tell yourself then it doesn't make life easier surely? For a lie to offer comfort one has to either not be aware that it is a lie, or suppress it through some very unhealthy cognitive dissonance which depends on partitioning parts of one's mind off.

How can you be certain a godless heaven is impossible, when we have no proof for or against the idea of an almighty being to begin with? I never said the afterlife is a lie, I said it’s something I realize might not exist at all, however I do believe or hope something more Exists in the end.

[The New California Republic]

The system you believe exists after death is dependent on a God. It is fundamentally incoherent to believe such a thing in the absence of God; and if you know yourself that the afterlife is a lie that you tell yourself then it doesn't make life easier surely? For a lie to offer comfort one has to either not be aware that it is a lie, or suppress it through some very unhealthy cognitive dissonance which depends on partitioning parts of one's mind off.

How can you be certain a godless heaven is impossible, when we have no proof for or against the idea of an almighty being to begin with?

The Christian system you believe exists after death is dependent on a God. It originated in the concept of a God. It'd be as absurd as the notion of a car existing without the wheel having first been invented.

[Aglanen]

I worship a god. But not your god. My god is the SUN!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4diugMg5kQ

[Tarsonis]

Nor will there be. It's sort of a fundamental truth of religion/philosophy/science etc, that the existence of God can neither be conclusively proven or disproven.

No it isn't. In particular, any capital-G, non-deist god is easy to disprove.

So easy, it's never been done.

[Aglanen]

So easy, it's never been done.

Well, if you believe God to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent..."omni-" as in, without any exception, then our universe by default logically disproves God.

[Tarsonis]

So easy, it's never been done.

Well, if you believe God to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent..."omni-" as in, without any exception, then our universe by default logically disproves God.

how so?

[Aglanen]

Ever heard of the Epicurean Riddle?

[Tarsonis]

Ever heard of the Epicurean Riddle?

Sophist nonsense that is only valid if you subscribe to a very certain set of moralistic parameters? yes, I've heard of it.

[Marrero]

i dont belive in god cause if god exists then why do man children exist?

[Tarsonis]

i dont belive in god cause if god exists then why do man children exist?

because you touch yourself at night

[Free Arabian Nation]

because you touch yourself at night

i dont belive in god cuse if god exists then why do man children exist?

FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT

[Marrero]

i dont belive in god cause if god exists then why do man children exist?

because you touch yourself at night

atleast its not to kids

or do you prefer the term " animated little girls "

[Aglanen]

Ever heard of the Epicurean Riddle?

Sophist nonsense that is only valid if you subscribe to a very certain set of moralistic parameters? yes, I've heard of it.

Woah, consider that nerve touched. Going by your own religion's "moral parameters" God is still a logical paradox. I don't see why this is so difficult for christians to comprehend. It can't just be stupidity, even my 11 year old nephew figured this out on his own. Either you are aware and simply refuse to confront the question, or you're delusional.

[Page]

Also, everyone, sorry for my off and on participation in this thread, but I think something needs to be said:


Why believe in God?

Aside from the fact there is literally no evidence apart from a book and a bunch of writings which only self-reference themselves, Occam's Razor just shaves this off:
"So uhhh...the universe has a beginning, right? So what created it?"
"There's a magic omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omnipresent man outside the universe, all-powerful, all-seeing and all-hearing."
"Isn't there a possibility in which the universe creates itself through scientific processes and the big cru-"
"MAGIC BEING!"

you realise that there are sources in Roman, Greek, Jewish and Egyptian documents about Jesus and His miracles, right? There are first hand accounts inside them, ask any ancient historian. Why would the Romans and Jews especially lie? They had Him killed for goodness sake.
"Plus, the universe has a beginning, right? So what created it?"
"Giant explosion creating something from nothing!"
"Wait, isn't that against the laws of phys-"
"GIANT EXPLOSION!"

There are just as many sources about the Buddha's and Muhammad's miracles, but it's pretty rare to find someone who believes all 3 of them are legit. Why choose one over another?

Also, and I am really sick of repeating myself, no one is saying that Big Bang came from nothing. The Big Bang was the beginning of spacetime and the laws of physics as we know it. That does not mean there was nothing. Things existed before the Big Bang, we just can't know what sort of things existed because we use math and physics to look back at the beginning of the universe and we can't go any further back than the immediate aftermath of the Big Bang because the laws of physics as they are now had not yet come into being.

[Page]

Ever heard of the Epicurean Riddle?

Sophist nonsense that is only valid if you subscribe to a very certain set of moralistic parameters? yes, I've heard of it.

Why is it nonsense?

[Tarsonis]

Sophist nonsense that is only valid if you subscribe to a very certain set of moralistic parameters? yes, I've heard of it.

Woah, consider that nerve touched. Going by your own religion's "moral parameters" God is still a logical paradox.

We've no problem admitting that God can appear paradoxical, we also allow that God transcends human comprehension.

I don't see why this is so difficult for christians to comprehend. It can't just be stupidity, even my 11 year old nephew figured this out on his own. Either you are aware and simply refuse to confront the question, or you're delusional.

And you wonder why the tired nonsense of creating carefully constructed logical traps to try and "gotcha" believers touches a nerve. The epicurean riddle only works if you subscribe to strict constructivism and a dualistic moral paradigm. It also equates calamity with moral evil which is not accurate. But mostly, it reduces the question of evil to a proof so simplistic it's meaningless. No wonder your 11 year old nephew figured it out, it's about the kind of logic I'd expect from a 9 year old. But people like you strut around like you've disproved God, and condescend to the rest of us who realized that all you've proven is that higher order thinking isn't really your strong suit.

[Tarsonis]

Sophist nonsense that is only valid if you subscribe to a very certain set of moralistic parameters? yes, I've heard of it.

Why is it nonsense?

The epicurean riddle fails because it attempts to construct an extremely diametric paradigm of Good and Evil. This only works within Epicurius's moral framework that good is what ever is pleasing, and evil is whatever is displeasing. It doesn't account for a difference between natural evil and moral evil. ( For instance, a hurricane blowing over a city. This is a calamity, but it's not a moral event. It's not morally good or morally bad, it just is.) It also doesn't fit within a Christian moral framework which makes no correlation between suffering and evil, if anything suffering leads to good in the Christian moral framework.

This where the ultimate failing comes in, that if God is able to prevent "evil" he isn't benevolent. The problem of this is that it 1. only works again if you subscribe to epicurean moral framework, and 2. it in no way includes higher order reason and goals, it leaves no room for complexity. There might actually be a benevolent reason that God doesn't act, that the persistence of evil leads to a higher better good.

And of course, it completely ignores the sanctity of free will.

[Aglanen]

And you wonder why the tired nonsense of creating carefully constructed logical traps to try and "gotcha" believers touches a nerve. The epicurean riddle only works if you subscribe to strict constructivism and a dualistic moral paradigm. It also equates calamity with moral evil which is not accurate. But mostly, it reduces the question of evil to a proof so simplistic it's meaningless. No wonder your 11 year old nephew figured it out, it's about the kind of logic I'd expect from a 9 year old. But people like you strut around like you've disproved God, and condensed to the rest of us who realized that all you've proven is that higher order thinking isn't really your strong suit.

Try to read what I said again, I'm going by your very own moral parameters. Which do present a dualistic and supposedly "objective" moral perspective. There are very clear do's and don't's in Christianity, and disobeying is considered "evil" and will send you to Hell.

And since we're talking about a God who designed everything the way it is, and all with an absolute grand plan in mind for all of his creations, it is completely appropriate to treat calamity as an evil. Because God is the one who created those conditions. And furthermore, due to his omniscience, was well aware in the very "beginning" (if you will) of all the evils that would result from it. God's existence also contradicts the existence of free will when you bother to think about it.

You know, you could've just stopped at that cop-out you started with "We've no problem admitting that God can appear paradoxical, we also allow that God transcends human comprehension." and spared me that paragraph of drivel. It really didn't make a difference.

[Aglanen]

You could easily counter what I'm saying by going with along the lines of...

"God is not omnibenevolent. He is amoral. He doesn't do anything about it because he is simply not concerned with the good or evil in his actions. He's not the kind to help his creations, he's the kind of god that would flood the earth, send down 10 plagues on a nation, or command someone to kill his own son. But might makes right, you do as he says because he'll make you burn for eternity if you don't."

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

You could easily counter what I'm saying by going with along the lines of...

"God is not omnibenevolent. He is amoral. He doesn't do anything about it because he is simply not concerned with the good or evil in his actions. He's not the kind to help his creations, he's the kind of god that would flood the earth, send down 10 plagues on a nation, or command someone to kill his own son. But might makes right, you do as he says because he'll make you burn for eternity if you don't."

But how will the Christian fanatics live without their omniall sky fairy?

[Page]

Why is it nonsense?

The epicurean riddle fails because it attempts to construct an extremely diametric paradigm of Good and Evil. This only works within Epicurius's moral framework that good is what ever is pleasing, and evil is whatever is displeasing. It doesn't account for a difference between natural evil and moral evil. ( For instance, a hurricane blowing over a city. This is a calamity, but it's not a moral event. It's not morally good or morally bad, it just is.) It also doesn't fit within a Christian moral framework which makes no correlation between suffering and evil, if anything suffering leads to good in the Christian moral framework.

This where the ultimate failing comes in, that if God is able to prevent "evil" he isn't benevolent. The problem of this is that it 1. only works again if you subscribe to epicurean moral framework, and 2. it in no way includes higher order reason and goals, it leaves no room for complexity. There might actually be a benevolent reason that God doesn't act, that the persistence of evil leads to a higher better good.

And of course, it completely ignores the sanctity of free will.

Epicurus wasn't about actively seeking pleasure so much as he was about freedom for suffering. Despite the fact that "epicurean" has become a word some use to describe indulgent hedonism, Epicurus was not into feasts, wine, and orgies, he was all about avoiding pain and distress. Ataraxia, the Greeks called it. Seeking active pleasures is secondary to the passive pleasure of ataraxia.

As for calamity, I would agree that such a thing as a hurricane is an amoral event, as are things like getting bit by a snake or getting cancer. However, these can only be considered amoral events if we accept nature as an unconscious, unguided force. But if there is an omnipotent being which designed and guides nature, then a hurricane is a moral event because the deity either deliberately made the hurricane or could intervene against it. And regardless of which one it is, there is little difference.

I'm not at fault for someone's else's kid drowning, but if a kid started drowning I consider that I have a moral duty to jump in and pull the kid out of water. This goes even more so for God because unlike a human saving another person who must weigh the risk to one's self against the duty to help, there is no risk whatsoever for an omnipotent deity to intervene. If a kid's drowning in a riptide I have to consider whether I want to risk my own death, but God does not face this dilemma, so there is no excuse.

Christianity does indeed make a correlation between suffering and evil because most Christians hold that calamity only came into the world after "the fall." That before Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, no one got cancer, there weren't any hurricanes, and lions were vegans. Further, scripture gives numerous examples of inflicting suffering as punishment for sins, both in the Old Testament in which God wipes out Sodom and Gomorrah and commands the Israelites to execute one third of their enemies, as well as in the New Testament in which Jesus is made to suffer to pay for mankind's sins.

I would also ask, what higher good relies on suffering? In which case is suffering necessary? If someone who witnesses a kid drown goes on to become a lifeguard and saves hundreds of lives, you could call that a higher good except that higher good wouldn't be necessary if no one ever drowned. Every example of a higher good that I've seen involves someone doing something to prevent or alleviate suffering. These higher goods only matter because of suffering. If no one suffered, no one would need to aspire to a higher good.

[Tarsonis]

Try to read what I said again, I'm going by your very own moral parameters. Which do present a dualistic and supposedly "objective" moral perspective. There are very clear do's and don't's in Christianity, and disobeying is considered "evil" and will send you to Hell.

The problem here for you is that this isn't an accurate understanding of Christian morality. Firstly, the Christian Morality is not objective, it's subjective. Morality is subjective to God, God decrees what is Right and Wrong. Because God is omniomni, His moral authority functions as if it were objective, as there is no higher objective standard to dictate to God.

Secondly, the Christian moral framework is that Evil is not a contrary force to Good, it doesn't emirate from a competing source, rather it is an absence of Good. or ~Good

Thirdly, in Christian moral framework, you're already doomed for hell. You're ransomed to heaven from hell. The "don'ts" don't get you sent to hell, rather they push away the salvation to heaven.

And since we're talking about a God who designed everything the way it is, and all with an absolute grand plan in mind for all of his creations, it is completely appropriate to treat calamity as an evil. Because God is the one who created those conditions.

Only if you're working within the narrow Epicurean framework. In the Christian framework, calamity is either amoral, or a morally just outcome. In the case of the morally just outcome, it's earned, (for example the assyrians conquering Israel, God withheld his protection because of their disobedience and violation of their covenant, and they were conquered.) In the case of the amoral, a storm is simply a storm. It cannot be considered evil in the Christian framework, because evil is distinctly defined as ~good and good is tautological with God. What's good is what serves God plan, and the calamity that results as a product of the system rather than a direct influence, still does not qualify as evil under this paradigm.

And furthermore, due to his omniscience, was well aware in the very "beginning" (if you will) of all the evils that would result from it. God's existence also contradicts the existence of free will when you bother to think about it.

Except it doesn't. Foreknowledge is not the same as predestination. God's knowledge is reactive not prescriptive. God knowing doesn't make you do something, you still have the capacity to choose.

You know, you could've just stopped at that cop-out you started with "We've no problem admitting that God can appear paradoxical, we also allow that God transcends human comprehension." and

It's not a copout to say that a being that transcends space in time will have an intellect and perspective that will be pretty much incomprehensible to a being that is bound by space in time. It may not be satisfactory to you, but it's a logically sound deduction and applicable to the scenario.

spared me that paragraph of drivel. It really didn't make a difference.

You can't bring up the epicurean riddle and complain about drivel. There's no greater sin on the internet than hypocrisy.

[The Grims]

If morality is subjective to God why should humans, who are an entirely different sort of beings, adhere to or even care about it ?

[Tasuirin]

I worship a god. But not your god. My god is the SUN!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4diugMg5kQ

Is your god also a deadly laser?