Does god EXIST?

[DTES]

They are separate questions, but both need a cause and are both unexplained - This is why the theory of intelligent design, or to subcategorise the theory of "god", are amongst the strongest.

Yes, they are separate. Once again, I was asking which one you meant. You still seem reluctant to define what your own post meant.

 

[Don Quixote]

There speaks someone who doesn't know what the word "theory" means.

Theory : A coherent statement or set of ideas that explains observed facts or phenomena, or which sets out the laws and principles of something known or observed; a hypothesis confirmed by observation, experiment etc. [from 17th c.]

Yes, I do know what it means actually as everyone else who speaks English does. It is a supposition, not a truth.

 

[Seagull27]

They are separate questions, but both need a cause and are both unexplained - This is why the theory of intelligent design, or to subcategorise the theory of "god", are amongst the strongest.

Hold on... Why are the theories of intelligent design and God amongst the strongest?

 

[Seagull27]

Yes, I do know what it means actually as everyone else who speaks English does. It is a supposition, not a truth.

That's not what a scientist means by the word though.

What is the difference between facts and theory

To a layman, a fact is something he "knows," and a theory is something that might or might not be true.

To a scientist, a fact is something that can be tested by anyone with the proper skill and equipment, and that repeatedly and reliably gives the same result every time.

A scientific theory is a body of knowledge based on facts that describes their interaction in the simplest possible way. It is subject to change as the body of known fact changes, but always describes the body of fact as accurately as possible. There may be gaps in a theory, but the body of facts must support any tentative conclusions that are drawn.

 

[One Love]

Faith would imply that that there is no evidence for believing that future scientific discoveries might find an answer to this.

So there is evidence?

 

[Bold Seagull]

Yes, I believe God exists.

Mind you, I wrote "believe" not "know" because if I knew, it would
be called knowledge, not faith (and there's a good reason why we
have two different words for these two different concepts).

I took part in tens of similar discussions on the Internet, and found it ultimately
pointless. It is extremely rare to find people who are genuinely interested in the
matter of faith itself, and are willing to conduct a civilised debate without resorting
to ad hominem attacks or using the brilliant reductio ad paedofilum technique
(a recent variant of reductio ad Hitlerum).

After all, when our time comes, we will all find out whether God exists or not
(whether we will like it or not when that happens is a completely different matter).

Good post. Ultimately, the only answer is faith and belief.

I'm an atheist myself, but it seems perverse for others to try to justify a belief system simply because another system can't explain something.

As for your last sentence though, you don't actually find out God doesn't exist, because you're dead. You might find out he does of course, but never that he doesn't!

 

[Seagull27]

So there is evidence?

There isn't currently. There could be in the future. I think what Biscuit is getting at is that faith would imply that there wouldn't be scientific evidence in the future, ever.

 

[beorhthelm]

the theory of intelligent design, like it or not, is one of the strongest theories we have.

no, really it isnt. there are so many flaws in nature, its intellectually bankrupt to argue that there is any evidence for intelligent design. you might be able to argue a case for unintelligent hacking.

It wouldn't be a theory if it had been proven would it.

gravity and electrodynamics are theories too. please try and refute them.

 

[Seagull27]

Because there aren't many others. You could probably count all the credible theories of existence on one hand - all of which are unfalsifiable and therefore all possibilities.

Just because there aren't many other explanations (I'm trying to avoid the word theory now!) doesn't necessarily make it a strong one.

 

[beorhthelm]

So, an atheist, if he has thought about it at all, has faith that science will one day discover what creates consciousness in a living being.

nope. atheism has nothing to do with science. a scientist might well hold such an expectation.

 

[readingstockport]

Because there aren't many others. You could probably count all the credible theories of existence on one hand - all of which are unfalsifiable and therefore all possibilities.

Nope, not at all. Evolution is falsifible. Show me a bunny in the pre-cambrian and I will accept evolution is untrue.

The only 'theory' you have spoken of which is unfalsifiable - and as such does not deserve the term theory at all - is intelligent design.

And incidentally, if you have already answered this question I apologise but I have not read the entire thread, but who designed and created the designer? If all things require a first cause then your designer requires a first cause - and hence can not be the most powerful being and hence can not by definition be god anyway. So why worship it?

Edit for my awful speeeling.

 

[Seagull27]

Nope, not at all. Evolution is falsifible. Show me a bunny in the pre-cambrian and I will accept evolution is untrue.

The only 'theory' you have spoken of which is unfalsifiable - and as such does not deserve the term theory at all - is intelligent design.

And incidentally, if you have already answered this question I apologise but I have not read the entire thread, but who designed and created the designer? If all things require a first cause then your designer requires a first cause - and hence can not be the most powerful being and hence can not by definition be god anyway. So why worship it?

Edit for my awful speeeling.

The problem is, the same issue appears in other arguments without a God. What existed before the big bang?

An answer that could apply to both lies in the idea of infinity.

 

[One Love]

nope. atheism has nothing to do with science. a scientist might well hold such an expectation.

What I was trying to say was that if an atheist does not believe in God then what is the alternative? Science discovering that creation of consciousness was a purely biological process is one. Is there another?

 

[Biscuit]

So there is evidence?

The only time anyone employs faith as a support for holding a belief is when there is not reason enough to support the belief.

In other words, two plus two equals four, and no one believes this on faith.

That's the difference between believing science will find an answer to your question, and having faith that it will.

 

[readingstockport]

The problem is, the same issue appears in other arguments without a God. What existed before the big bang?

An answer that could apply to both lies in the idea of infinity.

I do not posit that I know the answer. I do think that one day science will very likely get close to a good explanation. A good explanation is not 'magic man who requires no first cause' did it. That is known as special pleading and is intellectually dishonest and no decent debater would ever use it. Which is the reason I asked, I want to see if Mr Kemal has a new answer I have not heard before or if they will resort to special pleading.

 

[misterspatch]

Whether or not God exists, believing on your death bed that there is something beyond rather than "knowing" there is nothing must be a better way to go.

 

[One Love]

And incidentally, if you have already answered this question I apologise but I have not read the entire thread, but who designed and created the designer? If all things require a first cause then your designer requires a first cause - and hence can not be the most powerful being and hence can not by definition be god anyway. So why worship it?/QUOTE]

You make the assumption that the designed can understand the designer. You can't assume human characteristics or human consciousness on the designer.

 

[Biscuit]

Nope, not at all. Evolution is falsifible. Show me a bunny in the pre-cambrian and I will accept evolution is untrue.

There was life in the Precambrian, it began as simple mono-celular organism and evolved through the Precambrian until the late Precambrian we have rather complex creatures (Ediacara Fauna). It's quite simple scientific method proven with the aid of radiometric dating. Ergo more evidence of evolution.

 

[readingstockport]

Whether or not God exists, believing on your death bed that there is something beyond rather than "knowing" there is nothing must be a better way to go.

Pascals wager.

And if god exists he will know you do not truely believe, in which case you are f'd anyway because the all loving all caring god knows you are lying and will sentence you to enternal torment anyway. And all because some woman I didn't know ate the fruit of a tree he created, knowing she would eat it as he is all knowing of course, and sentenced me to eternal torment unless I appologise for something I didn't do and over which I had no control. But he loves me and wants me to say sorry so he can forgive me. And people believe this shit.

 

[readingstockport]

And incidentally, if you have already answered this question I apologise but I have not read the entire thread, but who designed and created the designer? If all things require a first cause then your designer requires a first cause - and hence can not be the most powerful being and hence can not by definition be god anyway. So why worship it?/QUOTE]

You make the assumption that the designed can understand the designer. You can't assume human characteristics or human consciousness on the designer.

Special pleading. You make the assumption we can not and ascribe that to your designer. The question remains. If the designer requires no first cause then neither does the universe and you should stop using that argument.