Phoenix Network Forums

is'nt this all too perfect to occur itself ?

we just deny that GOD is'nt there because its out of our logics and mental limits..

As we're exploring other galaxies and stuff ,we are getting more convinced that this was'nt and is'nt happening itself .We even could'nt understand ourselves (the humans) .I say there is a creator .... But please don't say there is no GOD because you conclusion needs some more research probably research of a life time ?

regards,
Asrar.

I would say that I do not believe in God. However, that's not to say that I don't believe he couldn't exist.

On the contrary, it is certainly conceivable that some higher being does exist, it's just not extrodinarily likely (although an excellent counter-argument is that it is not likely for life to develop in the universe, especially since we appear to be cosmic "loners" so far).

However, if this all-powerful being did exist, and it's because of him that we have most of our "more favorable qualities," doesn't it make sense that he would want us to use them? Using intelligence as an example, along with the "natural" urge of survival, we would be expected to combine them to "look out" for ourselves. In that vein, it would be unwise to believe everybody we meet, especially if they say something that isn't supported (think of snakeoil salesmen--is that bottle of whatever-it-is really going to work just because the man selling it says so [even though he has done no clinical studies/scientific experiments on it]?). Likewise, how then wouls we be expected to blindly believe in a "higher being" if there is no overwhelming "proof" presented by anyone?

This creates an interesting dichotomy: if God exists and gave us intelligence, but no proof of his existence, would he still expect us to use his gift and refuse to believe in him, or would he expect us to push his aside and accept him on the grounds of "just because"?

However, even putting this analysis aside, there has been no reasonable "proof" presented that would point to the existence of a god--nothing cohesive. In truth, there is no posible way to determine if God exists, as there is no possible way to determine if he does not exist.

As such, I cannot believe that God exists, yet neither can I rule out that he does not exist. This is called Agnosticism.

However, although my basic concept concerning God may be called "Agnostic," my real-world view is much closer to Atheism, because I have never personally had any proof of God; nobody has either. God is never present in the "ordinary life" of people; therefore, it is safe to conclude that he doesn't exist.

If anyone does want any real proof of God's existence, you can find it here.

al_tyranny wrote:However, although my basic concept concerning God may be called "Agnostic," my real-world view is much closer to Atheism, because I have never personally had any proof of God; nobody has either. God is never present in the "ordinary life" of people; therefore, it is safe to conclude that he doesn't exist.

I disagree - plenty of people have "become" believers in God because of things that they have experienced that point to a higher being - some of these things being quite vague/abstract, but some very direct. Take some of the things that happened in the bible for instance. I know what many of you will say to that but meh. And people still experience these things today.

just put man out of this world's system ,does it effect anything ? no ... . water will flow .. earth will spin and move.. plants will grow .. animals will be living like as they are...nothing really matters if all the humans dies or we eliminate them from this planet .

Now lets eliminate anything from this world's system . water ? plants ? sun ? mountains ? anything you name it?

Yes it will disturb the whole planet ..

All i want to say is that it looks like everything was created for man .. man was not created for anything ..

At least we can say we are important and most intelligent species on this planet .. we depend on this system ,this system do not depends on us but our existance depends on this system .

Who made us that much dependent on all these things ?
are we just a space dust single particle :S single organish whatever they call formed this life ...??

I believe there is some Creator ,and I call HIM my GOD ;/

yoman wrote:At least we can say we are important and most intelligent species on this planet .. we depend on this system ,this system do not depends on us but our existance depends on this system .

Who made us that much dependent on all these things ?

The Earth and the Universe cannot be dependant on humans because we have only been around for a geological second compared to the rest of the universe.
Based on observations on how the universe is expanding, it is approximatly thirteen billion years old. Man has only existed for a couple million. Therefore, the fact that the earth and the universe existed quite fine before us shows that they are not dependant on us for anything. So far, do we agree?

The reason why humans are dependant on the earth is for no other reason then that they are the result of the biological engineering process that designed them to work on this planet. We take in oxygen because it is necessary for our biological aerobic processes. We ingest water because we need the H20 in our bodies.

Name one organism that isn't dependant on the earth for life. You'll find there aren't any - because they are designed to exist on earth.

Now this is where I take a common pro-God argument and use it as a pro-Atheist arguement. The Universe is so complex a supreme being COULDN'T have created it. If there was an all powerful being to create the earth, did he really need to go into so much detail to create 108 (known) elements? Did he really need to create oxygen for us to breath? And if we are the only life form He created, then why did he create a universe? Why did he even have to make a sun? He could have just made a shiny disc that flew around.

For example, take into account the human genome. It contains around 22,000 different genes. However, the gross majority of these genes are referred to as junk DNA. They do nothing, they make nothing, and just sit there taking up space. Why the extra complexity? Why use DNA at all?

tokyo wrote:I disagree - plenty of people have "become" believers in God because of things that they have experienced that point to a higher being - some of these things being quite vague/abstract, but some very direct.

What sort of "experiences" are you talking about here? And how exactly do they prove that this higher being exists? So far, there is no solid proof of a higher being that "fits the mold" of an all-knowing, all-powerful master that I know of. If you do possess this proof, please submit it here.

yoman wrote:just put man out of this world's system ,does it effect anything ? no ... . water will flow .. earth will spin and move.. plants will grow .. animals will be living like as they are...nothing really matters if all the humans dies or we eliminate them from this planet .

[...]

All i want to say is that it looks like everything was created for man .. man was not created for anything ..

Well, the same could be said about birds, zebras, and horses--if all these things (the sun, running water, vegetation) vanished, all life on Earth would as well, not just specifically humans. It's not really a matter of these things existing, having "being created to suite our needs," it's a matter of nature taking advantage of these things already present and using them (which is the exact, polar opposite).

yoman wrote:At least we can say we are important and most intelligent species on this planet .. we depend on this system ,this system do not depends on us but our existance depends on this system .

We're the most important species on the planet? That's a big shocker to me! If this is true, then why will hungry lions not stop themselves from eating an appetizing human if one wanders foolishly across their path? Wouldn't they understand that they're of lesser importance than humans and refrain from devouring this slow, awkwardly-moving hunk of meat?

As for intelligence, what good does it do if most people don't use it (or actively refuse to use it)?

yoman wrote:At least we can say we are important and most intelligent species on this planet .

What makes us the most important species on the planet? You state that if we were removed, everything would be the same, however there are many species that if they were removed would create devestation!

Plankton. Without the 'animal' and 'plant' species of plankton, you destroy the entire ecosystem of the ocean.

One habitat down, one to go.

Plants. Without plants, you have no oxygen. No oxygen = no current life.

Sorry to cut this short, but I have to run. Will add on when I get back hopefully.

animals and plants they are the part of echo system not us ..

I agree plants and animals ,if removed they'll result catastrophe..

is'nt it that we are still here but we're not contibuting in echo system .. ?

Lion eats Deer and Deer eats grass .. if we kill all the lions ,whole jungle system (echo system) will be disturbed..

Man is just here to consume these resources he is not part of this echo system .

So thats what make us important and distinctive that this world is our resource ,we are not herz..

Regards,
Asrar.

yoman wrote:animals and plants they are the part of echo system not us ..

I agree plants and animals ,if removed they'll result catastrophe..

is'nt it that we are still here but we're not contibuting in echo system ..

Which refutes your point that humans are the most important species.

We did have a part in the ecosystem, but we've long since past that.

Scavenging carcasses from the African savannah doesn't appeal to many people any more. Therefore we have extended our niche.

al_tyranny wrote:

tokyo wrote:I disagree - plenty of people have "become" believers in God because of things that they have experienced that point to a higher being - some of these things being quite vague/abstract, but some very direct.

What sort of "experiences" are you talking about here? And how exactly do they prove that this higher being exists? So far, there is no solid proof of a higher being that "fits the mold" of an all-knowing, all-powerful master that I know of. If you do possess this proof, please submit it here.

I'm not saying I possess any sort of proof - it is by faith that I believe. But there are people that have seen things with their own eyes, have had their own bodies healed by prayer et etc. That is their proof. I think that the fact that many scientists have actively tried to disprove what the bible claims, and have found that it is actually really historically active is quite interesting.

tokyo wrote:I disagree - plenty of people have "become" believers in God because of things that they have experienced that point to a higher being - some of these things being quite vague/abstract, but some very direct.

Interesting, but there's one part that you overlooked: there are only two ways to say God exists: you are either a believer or a knower. The fine distinction comes at proof: people who know God exists have evidence that shows that God exists, believers don't; if you have real evidence that God exists, you are a knower (and there are exactly 0 "knowers" on this planet).

tokyo wrote:I'm not saying I possess any sort of proof - it is by faith that I believe.

So ... you believe in UFOs too, right? Along with Sasquatch, the Loch Ness Monster, Molemen and Mothman? As far as I know, there is no definite proof of their existenses either (although, there is considerably more "proof" that Bigfoot exists than God exists, simply because you can take a picture of Bigfoot).

tokyo wrote:But there are people that have seen things with their own eyes, have had their own bodies healed by prayer et etc. That is their proof.

Ah! This would constitute "proof" of something that operates outside and above the level of humans! If you can present overwhelming evidence that some being like this does exist, then it will bring a lot more validity to your argument.

The only problems here are:
1) You have to prove that "something" is happeneing beyond "questionable doubt"--one isolated incident doesn't equate to "proof"
2) After you have proved that something does cure people, you must find out exactly what it is--is it some strange solar ray that only strikes the earth in exactly one place every few hundreds of years that provides this mysterious healing effect?
3) After the first two are figured out (if that's even possible), you must somehow devise a way to prove that this being created: the universe, life, and everything else; that the being knows everything and can do anything

Personally, I think #3 is absolutely impossible (and I mean a real absolute, not the "99.999% not possible to catch me if I'm wrong" ), because even if this being can do anything and knows everything, how could you possible test to see if it was the Supreme Creator of the Universe?

tokyo wrote:I think that the fact that many scientists have actively tried to disprove what the bible claims, and have found that it is actually really historically active is quite interesting.

That sounds right: I think some scientists did discover that most of the Bible is historically accurate. I think it's interesting too, but it doesn't really belong in this discussion; just because most of the setting and events were real, doesn't mean all the characters are (and by "characters," I mean "God"). After all, an accurate historical background is the premise for historical fiction.

al_tyranny wrote:

tokyo wrote:I disagree - plenty of people have "become" believers in God because of things that they have experienced that point to a higher being - some of these things being quite vague/abstract, but some very direct.

Interesting, but there's one part that you overlooked: there are only two ways to say God exists: you are either a believer or a knower. The fine distinction comes at proof: people who know God exists have evidence that shows that God exists, believers don't; if you have real evidence that God exists, you are a knower (and there are exactly 0 "knowers" on this planet).

How do you know that there are exactly 0 "knowers" on this planet? To know such a thing you must be a "knower" and that would mean that there are more than 0 "knowers" on this planet. Which would mean that you are not really the "knower" that you think you are. Your concept of proof and reality is flawed. If that is how things everything was evaluated there wouldnt be much that man really "knew". I think the fact that there are things beyond our human comprehension is an exciting and beautiful thing and to a point its kinda nice just to leave it be.

al_tyranny wrote:

tokyo wrote:I'm not saying I possess any sort of proof - it is by faith that I believe.

So ... you believe in UFOs too, right? Along with Sasquatch, the Loch Ness Monster, Molemen and Mothman? As far as I know, there is no definite proof of their existenses either (although, there is considerably more "proof" that Bigfoot exists than God exists, simply because you can take a picture of Bigfoot).

No, I don't believe in all those things. The thing about my faith is that it is backed up by what is written in the Bible. It is not a blind faith as you are trying to make out. I may not be able to see the image of God with my own eyes but there is a tangible presence there that I "know". Personally I think that there is infinately more "proof" of a God than there is of a creature such as the Bigfoot. There are so many things in this world that appear to have been created by design, science has no way of explaining such things. Anyway, I didn't know that you could simply take a photo of the Bigfoot... Maybe you are a Bigfoot knower?

al_tyranny wrote:

tokyo wrote: But there are people that have seen things with their own eyes, have had their own bodies healed by prayer et etc. That is their proof.

Ah! This would constitute "proof" of something that operates outside and above the level of humans! If you can present overwhelming evidence that some being like this does exist, then it will bring a lot more validity to your argument.

The only problems here are:
1) You have to prove that "something" is happeneing beyond "questionable doubt"--one isolated incident doesn't equate to "proof"
2) After you have proved that something does cure people, you must find out exactly what it is--is it some strange solar ray that only strikes the earth in exactly one place every few hundreds of years that provides this mysterious healing effect?
3) After the first two are figured out (if that's even possible), you must somehow devise a way to prove that this being created: the universe, life, and everything else; that the being knows everything and can do anything

Personally, I think #3 is absolutely impossible (and I mean a real absolute, not the "99.999% not possible to catch me if I'm wrong" ), because even if this being can do anything and knows everything, how could you possible test to see if it was the Supreme Creator of the Universe?

Again your concepts are flawed. People being healed all over the world cant be put in the "isolated incident" category. When something happens, you dont have to know exactly what it is to know it happened (though in this case we "know" it is God aye ). And as for your number 3, you are absolutely right - I cant provide you with an absolute proof. Obviously this means that God does not exist

al_tyranny wrote:

tokyo wrote: I think that the fact that many scientists have actively tried to disprove what the bible claims, and have found that it is actually really historically active is quite interesting.

That sounds right: I think some scientists did discover that most of the Bible is historically accurate. I think it's interesting too, but it doesn't really belong in this discussion; just because most of the setting and events were real, doesn't mean all the characters are (and by "characters," I mean "God"). After all, an accurate historical background is the premise for historical fiction.

You're right - absolutely right. It doesnt belong here. But to be honest I don't think all this talk of proof belongs in this discussion. As far as our human understanding goes it is impossible to prove nor disprove God's existence. Its something that has been talked about for centuries and when it all comes down to it, it has been a lot of hot air. You can give reasons for why/why not, but proofs will never work. Have you seen "The Matrix". Interesting concept I think. How do you define reality anyway?



Is it really air you breathe? How do you know? How do you know? How do you know? How do you know?

tokyo wrote:How do you know that there are exactly 0 "knowers" on this planet? To know such a thing you must be a "knower" and that would mean that there are more than 0 "knowers" on this planet. Which would mean that you are not really the "knower" that you think you are. Your concept of proof and reality is flawed. If that is how things everything was evaluated there wouldnt be much that man really "knew". I think the fact that there are things beyond our human comprehension is an exciting and beautiful thing and to a point its kinda nice just to leave it be.

No, it doesn't. Just because no proof is present does not mean that one needs proof of its existence to say that it doesn't exist. The basis of the Scientific Method is to form a hypothesis, test it, and either make a new one or retest it until it breaks. Then you start over. In science, you don't need to know the answer when you can tell that another explanation is clearly wrong.

How do I know that there are 0 "knowers" on the planet? Very simply: if anybody had real evidence of God, they would be very likely (very likely = chance to cash in a one-billion-dollar lottery ticket times a thousand) to submit it for rigorous scientific research. However, as no evidence exists, or has yet to be presented, I feel that there is not enough evidence to say that God exists.

If everything were evaluated this way, what would really change? If you drop something, it falls (thus, proof of gravity). If you put a glass tube in a fire, it gets hot (thus transfer of energy), and if you hold something up with a rope, it hangs on the other end (thus tension, provided the rope is strong enough). What really changes in the world when we ask for proof of its existence?

tokyo wrote:No, I don't believe in all those things. The thing about my faith is that it is backed up by what is written in the Bible. It is not a blind faith as you are trying to make out. I may not be able to see the image of God with my own eyes but there is a tangible presence there that I "know". Personally I think that there is infinately more "proof" of a God than there is of a creature such as the Bigfoot. There are so many things in this world that appear to have been created by design, science has no way of explaining such things. Anyway, I didn't know that you could simply take a photo of the Bigfoot... Maybe you are a Bigfoot knower?

I didn't think you did--I was making a point: humans are extremely selective in what they choose to accept as "truth" and what they do not (perhaps this would be better suited in a different topic though). You state that much of you "faith in God" comes from the Bible: likewise, if I brought you a five thousand year old manual on how to build and operate an intergalactic flying saucer, would you instantly believe in flying saucers because this book told you so? As for "knowing God's presence," why are you so sure it's "God"? Could it not be explained in any other manner? Some people say that there exists an "astral realm," in which different "spirit entities" float around--how do you know that this "presence" is not a "something" in the "unseen astral universe"?

My point with Bigfoot was that it's far easier to prove that a Bigfoot exists than that God exists: to prove that Bigfoot exists you only have to catch one (though catching many will do more to prove that there is not "just one" in the world). The reason why I bring up these yet-unproven creatures is that one can possibly prove that they exist--they are all tangible creatures that we can see and touch. God, on the other hand, is supposed to be this intangible "something else" (and if he isn't, it shouldn't be difficult for an all-powerful being to float through walls or otherwise sneak out of some "silly human trap").

And what are these examples of things "created by design"? So far as I know, everything in nature evolved out of a necessity for being there. Well, all except a certain part of female anatomy that seems to exist purely for pleasure (which I won't mention here ;). I'm not saying there aren't some random things, I'm just saying that if all things were "designed" as you say, I'd expect a superior being to put more effort into them (human eyes are terribly weak, though that's nothing when compared to elbows and knees!), especially if we are "made in his image."

tokyo wrote:Again your concepts are flawed. People being healed all over the world cant be put in the "isolated incident" category. When something happens, you dont have to know exactly what it is to know it happened (though in this case we "know" it is God aye :D). And as for your number 3, you are absolutely right - I cant provide you with an absolute proof. Obviously this means that God does not exist :roll:

People are being healed all over the world? Great, I've got a slight bit of asthma, maybe I can go and get that fixed. And I'm very near-sighted, got anything for that? And my knees are weaker than most peoples' my age ... that can all be changed by this, right?

Seriously though, if you want to say that people "all over the world" are "being healed," I challenge you to submit proof that this is so: "before-and-after" pictures, x-rays of the afflicted portions, eyewitness reports, and reliable third-party testimony. It's true that we don't have to know what the cause of something is to know it works, but until you have good evidence and a good theory that is supported by the evidence, how can you arbitrarily assign it to some cause (God)?

tokyo wrote:You're right - absolutely right. It doesnt belong here. But to be honest I don't think all this talk of proof belongs in this discussion. As far as our human understanding goes it is impossible to prove nor disprove God's existence. Its something that has been talked about for centuries and when it all comes down to it, it has been a lot of hot air. You can give reasons for why/why not, but proofs will never work. Have you seen "The Matrix". Interesting concept I think. How do you define reality anyway?

Is it really air you breathe? How do you know? How do you know? How do you know? How do you know?

Of course it's impossible to prove or disprove God's existence! That's exactly at the center of my ideas here: 1) proof of God is impossible, (but at the same time), 2) the probability that he exists is very minimal (seeing how science explains so much of the universe so nicely), and 3) because we never have contact with this being, we have no evidence that he exists. As such, there is more (much more) than a reasonable doubt of his existence in my mind, so much as to say that he doesn't exist.

Why does proof belong in this discussion? Because the topic revolves around whether or not you believe in God and why (or why not). Glancing anywhere on this page (and I feel like I've repeated myself enough to say "anywhere on this forum" ;), you'll see that my argument for "why not" is focused on "there's no conclusive proof of it." There's a difference between "this is the root of my reasoning" and "this is really interesting."

The Scientific Method is here as well, for another distinct reason: the SM's power is only one thing: the power to disprove claims based on evidence and reasoning. But, because no evidence is possible to support (or detract from) the existence of God, what good is the SM here? Simply put, the SM is all we have to really measure "reality" with: if your car is stolen on a snowy day and there are tire marks leading away from your house, footprints from sneakers, and cigarette butts all over your driveway, the most reasonable explanation is that your car was "borrowed" for a joyride, the most likely explanation is not that Martians came from out of the sky and "beamed" it up to their ship. It's lack of proof that would point to reality being defined with no God.

--------------------
By the way, I thank you, tokyo, for a really interesting discussion--I haven't had this much fun in awhile and hope we can do this again :)

wish i didnt come in so late on this discussinon

I skimmed everything so sorry if i repeat whats been said.

You guys touched on the bing bang theory. First off the bing bang theory, evolution, and god can co exist.. in most major religions at least. God could have used the big bang and evolution to create life. I think there has to be some higher power to create these things.. but than again who created that high power.

I dont think this has been discussed yet so sorry if i repeat it but... if god did create the world and life as we know it but did not reveal himself to us we would have created him ourselves. I think that we as humans are looking for a higher power and a meaning so we put our trust in something beyond us.

Someone argues "my experiences"... have lead me to god existing
I am a christian and i do know what you are talking about but their are many muslims who feel "something" as well. You may say that it must come from the devil if its not from the true god that i belive in. Whos to say that you choose the right religion and that you emotions are not from the devil. Just recently i knew a guy who had a problem with his brain (i cant remember what it was.. like a blood clot he was supposed to die soon) Doctors were baffled when it went away between trips from one hospital to another. Unfortunatly that does not prove anything except to me. I cant use that in an argument. Maybe it really did go away on its own and modern science just isnt advanced enough to explain why. Spirtiaul feelings can be put to question not only because religons other than your own can have them but you might only feel that way because you were taught to in church by watching others.

antirem wrote:You guys touched on the bing bang theory. First off the bing bang theory, evolution, and god can co exist.. in most major religions at least. God could have used the big bang and evolution to create life. I think there has to be some higher power to create these things.. but than again who created that high power.

They co-exist now because the Church recognizes that they were wrong about some things. Same way the Church now supports that the earth isn't the center of the universe, there are moons that revolve around planets, and that the world wasn't created in 7 days. If you take a look, the bible has repeatidly been changed to uphold scientific knowledge. Genesis turned from truth to "stories". The flood, after it was disproved that forty days of rain could actually create a flood, turned into a 'metaphor'.