Does God exist?

[AstronautClock]

[buttplug]

The thing about God is that when people attribute things to God, they're thinking too small. We're not talking entities here, we're talking metaphysical forces. Like Murphy's Law. Which is totally vaster and in possession of more awesome might than God.

Silly Putty Clock,
drunkposting ITT and wants you to know it.

i give you slack

[MonsterMunch]

Even Stephen Hawking has said there could be a form of intelligence we can't comprehend that created all life, the only reason that this is never seen as "god" is that if a greater form of life did create EVERYTHING from the atom to the galaxy, it doesn't give two flying fucks about humanity, making all prayer and worship redundant. Being religious is fairly egotistical. People like to think their life means something. When people realize they mean nothing in the grand scheme of things you either accept it, ignore it or become a nihilist.

So my answer is, "there MIGHT be a god but he doesn't give two fucks about YOU, we're grains of sand on the universe's biggest metaphorical beach."

So get gay and do drugs because we're in the clear!

butts

[AlbinoClock]

If God exists and doesn't care about us, how would we even know he exists? Did we just happen to guess right while making shit up? I mean, everybody gets a lucky guess sometimes, but this idea has been spreading around for quite some time now.

Also, understanding that meaning is subjective and projected is being a nihilist.

[SirClock]

There is an error in trying to rationalize that which is beyond rationalism. However seeing the limitations of rationalism will in itself reveal the nature of God.

Slicing a whole into parts is not an effective approach to discovering the whole. There must be a method to putting the pieces back together.

[AlbinoClock]

There is an error in trying to rationalize that which is beyond rationalism. However seeing the limitations of rationalism will in itself reveal the nature of God.

Slicing a whole into parts is not an effective approach to discovering the whole. There must be a method to putting the pieces back together.

So the god of the gaps, then? Wherever we can't understand, there is God, reduced to an ever-shrinking category? If studying things isn't a way to obtain information, how did we obtain this information about God? Surely if a deity exists and people have a tradition based around it it's because they've had some experiential dealings with it, meaning an opportunity to try to understand it. If observation and the application of logic is inapplicable to God, what makes information about God special? Why on Earth would anyone trust it?

[SirClock]

So the god of the gaps, then? Wherever we can't understand, there is God, reduced to an ever-shrinking category? If studying things isn't a way to obtain information, how did we obtain this information about God? Surely if a deity exists and people have a tradition based around it it's because they've had some experiential dealings with it, meaning an opportunity to try to understand it. If observation and the application of logic is inapplicable to God, what makes information about God special? Why on Earth would anyone trust it?

Not all information is rational information. Rational thought is a product of the mind. Observation and experiential dealings are not. The mind inherently requires separation, distinction, labeling and duality in order to function. That is one level. We have an experience and then the mind takes over, breaks it apart and labels it as something different from what it actually is. In this way when people try to rationalize God, give Him properties and assign Him roles they are moving further from what He actually is.

Thus the whole question 'Does God exist?' serves no purpose while we we do not know what God actually is.

I've never met a soul who knows what God is.

[FLOUNDERMAN_CLOCK]

I believe if god exists, the bad parts of existence are intentional because it treats the world like a sim game, it finds it more interesting to cause disasters and problems and watch the world try to fix itself. It's kind of like a kid with an anthill and a magnifying glass.

[AmberArachnidClock]

clammo, if you really want to debate religions, don't try to disprove them with logic problems. They don't give a shit about that. Only the extremists and the children get hung up on those difficulties, the real meat of religions is in their philosophies. Try to dig a little deeper before dismissing them.

[AmberArachnidClock]

double post here, but if there is a God, this is what I believe:

God is omnipresent, omnipowerful, and omniscient. He is above time, he knows all past present and future. This might sound deterministic, but because God never tells us the future, we still have the potential to change ourselves for the better. Just because someone knows what we're going to do doesn't mean that we can just slack off because "that's what we're gonna do anyway". No that's what assholes would do anyway.

So anyway, God made the universe in the beginning, and he was smart enough that he began it in a way that there would be life on at least one planet. He hasn't fucked around in the world since. I think of it like a simulation program, where God plugged in the variables in the beginning and watches what comes out of it.

But I don't think humans are special in anyway. I think we think we're special, but really we're just animals that are too smart for our own good. And because certain stupid immoral people have way more power that a stupid immoral person should ever have, our civilization as we know it won't last.

[AmberArachnidClock]

If he knows everything thats going to happen in the simulation, where it goes, how it ends, etc etc etc. What's even the point of running it in the first place? And if he knew that we'd be on the verge of irreparably destroying the planet and all life on it (while having already destroyed many of species of animals, plants, trees, etc.) why would he even run this simulation?

"Hey I have this sim where this one species is going to annihilate themselves and render the potentially only planet of significant life in the entire universe useless. Should I run it or save them from themselves? I'm gonna run it and own them all."

In your view, God is an asshole troll.

Or maybe he's bestowing us the miracle of life and allowing us to do what we want with it. If God intercepted and changed stuff so that we're happier then what exactly is our role? And who says things aren't gonna turn out all right in the end anyway?

The fact that physics works is a miracle. We don't even really know how it works at all, we've just come close in approximating it. The fact that all chemicals have crazy different attributes just depending on how many electrons they have is goddamn genius and amazing. The fact that on top of all that there is at least one planet that has managed to create and sustain life, a whole new system that is completely compatible with the physics and chemical systems, is fucking amazing. Are you really asking God to, on top of all that, make life comfortable and happy for everyone? Is that really fair?

[Topcatyo]

clammo, if you really want to debate religions, don't try to disprove them with logic problems. They don't give a shit about that. Only the extremists and the children get hung up on those difficulties, the real meat of religions is in their philosophies. Try to dig a little deeper before dismissing them.

Well, how else would one disprove God?

I understand the meat of a religion being in the philosophy when it comes to Hinduism or Buddhism where their religion is definitely a lot more about the philosophy and the spirituality of life than whether or not there is an existence of a god or gods, but for religions like Catholicism or Christianity the basis is on the actual definite existence of a for reals God, and philosophy only really enters it when Jesus gets thrown into the mix.

To put it differently, in Hinduism, the existence of the thousands of gods (who are also the same person, but not) doesn't disprove dinosaurs or change the history of the world, rather, they exist to explain aspects of life in a more spiritual manner than a scientific manner, with the scientific way of explaining things not being wrong because of the existence of those gods.

With Christianity, however, if we're going by what the Pope has ordained, the official story, whatever the hell is deciding the vote of registered votes in America, then the Big Bang theory is wrong, dinosaurs never existed, evolution is incorrect, condoms are evil, gay people are hell-bound, abortion is super evil and scientists are liars.  When your religion tells you to consider logic and and theories (theories are proposed explanations that have been tested through the scientific method) and generally positive and possibly life-saving things like condoms (remember when the Pope told people in Africa, one of the mos AIDS-ravaged countries, not to use condoms because they were evil?), then I think it's acceptable to hold that religions up to scrutiny through the eyes of logic and evidence.

I'm certainly not going to try and convert people to another way of life or thinking because there's no polite way to do it and it's not like people will listen anyway, but I think if we're talking about the fact that churches don't pay taxes or that politicians use their Christianity/Catholicism as a platform (which, honestly, I doubt any of them follow for any reason other than to gain voters) or because gay marriage still isn't legal because of our failure to separate church from state then that's something that American seriously needs to discuss, because it's kinda fucked up in my opinion.

[AmberArachnidClock]

post

First of all, the official Catholic tradition is NOT one of biblical literacy. Neither are MOST Christian churches. Also Catholicism is a denomination of Christianity, just like Eastern Orthodox and Lutherans and all those other ones, so no need to separate it.

No rational Christian takes the bible literally, and believe me there are a lot of these Christians. All you have to do is look at the first book, Genesis, and right there are two contradicting creation myths! And both are heavily poetic anyway!

Christianity isn't telling anyone to not believe in science. Specific, loud churches (mostly in rural midwest and the south) teach biblical literalism. For most Christians, God and Scientific history work together.

And sure, the Pope says stupid stuff. But every single religion in practice has a shit ton of hypocrisy. You're right in that Eastern religions tend to be more philosophy oriented and Christianity and Islam seem mostly interested with converts and denouncing. But that's because Christianity was hijacked by the Roman government years ago and turned into a religion of conversion and war. Islam basically started by attacking non-Islams. But each religion does have a core philosophy. How they are practiced is a different story.

TL;DR: Most Christians don't take the Bible literally Gosh Darn it!

[AmberArachnidClock]

No not really

Islam started warring against other tribes and converting them when Mohammad was still alive. That's soon enough.

[AmberArachnidClock]

Again, no not really.

The Ninth Sura really covers a lot of it, it was really in a lot of the ways a guidebook regarding armed conflict with the Ummah (it's certainly the Sura most oft-quoted by anti-Islam polemics, because it contains the strongest language regarding warfare) but Muhammad didn't simply attack other tribes as you imply. The Qur'an explicitly and in no uncertain terms forbade attacking unprovoked and compelling others to convert.

I'm not saying it's Islamic doctrine to go to war and convert others, all I'm pointing out is that Muslims went to war to convert others pretty soon after its foundation relative to Christianity. I might've used bad wording in that respect.

[Topcatyo]

TL;DR: Most Christians don't take the Bible literally Gosh Darn it!

You don't need to tell me that, I just didn't account for individual religious beliefs because once I start to account for every belief in-between Christianity and general theism my point gets muddled.  I know full well some Christians take the Bible literally, but I would like to argue that it's probably a majority of them do.

The church I went to, St. Peter and Paul Church, teaches biblical literalism.  In CCD (which is, classes I had to go to every Sunday and learn Bible things until I was confirmed) I can specifically remember laughing with some friends about how a teacher told us to, when in sex ed class and are being taught about the use of condoms, stand up and say "Condoms are against my religion".  I also remember another teacher telling us the story of Adam and Eve, and when she got to the part about God making Eve out of Adam's rib, she suddenly added "And that is why homosexuality is wrong" and then continued on with the story like nothing ever happened.  Even when I was... I dunno, I think I was ten?  I thought it was weird, though.  For the record, my teacher who told us to do the condom thing told us he had no problem with homosexuality as long as they didn't ever actually do anything gay.  So, I dunno.

Anyways, I can only speak for that church and for what I know about the people who lived in my small-ass town of 5000 people (generally the consensus of Christians there was Biblical literalism), but generally from my day-to-day contact with people at home, in Philly, on the Internet, in general, as well as what I have seen from the news, the Internet (like, Youtube and shit), those who identified themselves as Christians (or, at least, were identifiable as Christians) were Biblical literalists.

Does that mean anything concrete?  No, but I think the fact that enough people have taken a quote from the old testament and have used it to keep same-sex marriage illegal shows what a large portion of Christians (in America, it's probably completely different elsewhere) are Biblical literalists.

Again, I wanna stress I don't think this of every Christian.  My parents are Christian but are pretty damn left-wing, and I remember our tour guide giving Pope Ratzinger shit when we were on tour in the Vatican.  I would bring those into account if it weren't for the fact that I'm on a completely different point.

[AmberArachnidClock]

Not during Muhammad's lifetime though, that's not bad wording that's merely incorrect.

You would be correct in the other respect, but bear in mind that Christianity also didn't establish equivalent social ascension in as short of time. Christianity took three centuries before they had similar social ascendancy, and achieved it at the time of Constantine I (and subsequently a great deal of conquest and conversion).

wikipedia says otherwise

After 12 years of preaching, Muhammad and the Muslims performed the Hijra ("emigration") to the city of Medina (formerly known as Yathrib) in 622. There, with the Medinan converts (Ansar) and the Meccan migrants (Muhajirun), Muhammad established his political and religious authority. Within years, two battles had been fought against Meccan forces: the Battle of Badr in 624, which was a Muslim victory, and the Battle of Uhud in 625, which ended inconclusively. Conflict with Medinan Jewish clans who opposed the Muslims led to their exile, enslavement, or death, and the Jewish enclave of Khaybar was subdued. At the same time, Meccan trade routes were cut off as Muhammad brought surrounding desert tribes under his control.[86] By 629 Muhammad was victorious in the nearly bloodless Conquest of Mecca, and by the time of his death in 632 (at the age of 62) he united the tribes of Arabia into a single religious polity.[87]

unless you don't count those for some reason.

Also I was saying the Islam was SOON and Christianity was A WHILE before they started using their religions as a basis for war in the first place!

[AmberArachnidClock]

post

well I guess I learned something new today! I probably should look into it a little deeper, I've always been much more knowledgeable about Christianity and Judaism than Islam.

But my point still stands! Most Christians don't take the bible literally!

[Marlin Clock]

then the Big Bang theory is wrong

I'm a little tired now to go full on debate, but I'd just like to shoot a fun fact: A catholic priest created the Big Bang Theory.

In fact honestly the Catholic Church has usually been pretty good when it comes to scientific advancements, JPII openly stated that belief in evolution was fine and Gregor Mendel, the father of Genetics, was an Augustinian monk.

[AmberArachnidClock]

Frankly even a rudimentary knowledge of some basic facts about Islam is terribly uncommon in the west.

What's worse, it tends to be colored with a great deal of misinformation and rumors.

I actually feel like this tends to apply to most religions. The only reason I know about christianity/judaism was because I went to a Christian high school. We briefly went over other religions but I feel like you really have to go in depth for each one to really understand what they're all about.

Religion classes should be required in public schools imo. Or at least be a bigger part of social studies rather than learning american history every single year. Looking back it's hilarious what an absolute terrible education I had in history.