I don't see how God could plausibly exist (Christian definition of God)

[Nicodemus]

Reason aside, I fuckin' believe you.

 

[Mole]

The Household God

Reason aside, I fuckin' believe you.

Let us reason together -

Our God is whatever we worship. The TV has replaced the God of the Hearth and we worship the TV every day. And so for many of us the TV is our God - our Household God.

 

[A window to the soul]

Let us reason together -

Our God is whatever we worship. The TV has replaced the God of the Hearth and we worship the TV every day. And so for many of us the TV is our God - our Household God.

Good call.

 

[Mole]

Good call.

Let us reason further -

I understand your God is called Jesus. And I understand Jesus thought that it was demons that caused disease, and Jesus did not think it is germs that caused disease. And Jesus even cast out demons. And futher Jesus never said one word against institutional slavery.

So let us ask ourselves -

Is it plausible that such an ignorant and immoral person is God?

 

[A window to the soul]

Let us reason further -

I understand your God is called Jesus. And I understand Jesus thought that it was demons that caused disease, and Jesus did not think it is germs that caused disease. And Jesus even cast out demons. And futher Jesus never said one word against institutional slavery.

So let us ask ourselves -

Is it plausible that such an ignorant and immoral person is God?

My Dear Victor, God made you didn't he? You are so passionate about the ills of institutional slavery. I don't even know what slavery means.

 

[Mole]

God and Liberal Democracy

My Dear Victor, God made you didn't he? You are so passionate about the ills of institutional slavery. I don't even know what slavery means.

To find how I originated, read, "The Origin of Species", by Charles Darwin.

And I am passionate about slavery because it is the touchstone of evil. Slave owners killed slaves at will, they raped slaves at will and worked them to death. And this went on right throughout human history. It was only in 1833 that institutional slavery was first abolished by the House of Commons. Then the Royal Navy was sent out into the Atlantic with orders to sink any American slave ship.

So the abolition of institutionl slavery, for the first time in history, was the first and most important step of liberal democracy. And the abolition of institutional slavery was followed by the emancipation of women for the first time in Australia and New Zealand in the beginning of 20th Century. And at the end of the 20th Century, for the first time in history, we brought child sexual abusers before our criminal courts.

And over many millennia God neither abolished institutional slavery, emancipated women, or prosecuted child sexual abusers.

 

[A window to the soul]

And over many millennia God neither abolished institutional slavery, emancipated women, or prosecuted child sexual abusers.

I understand. So where does the concept of "free will" come in?

 

[Mole]

I understand. So where does the concept of "free will" come in?

Well, with liberal democracy we have freedom of religion and we can choose which God we worship.

And with liberal democracy we are free to choose which political party to vote for.

And with liberal democracy we are free to choose what to buy and sell in the market.

In China we are not free to choose our political party, and under Islam we are not free to choose our religion or our political party.

 

[entropie]

Gott ist tot

 

[ahriman]

When Atheists use "what came before god" as one of their argument to prove that god doesn't exist I retort "what came before the big bang, and what before that e.t.c" It's all well and good to use mathematics to "prove" the big bang occurred from nothingness. But it's a different story in reality. In theory 2 = 1 according to some ridiculous mathematical formula I learned in high school. In reality and by reality I mean what we can show evidence for with our 5 senses, 2=1 doesn't exist. Having said this I am neither proving nor dis-proving the existence of god. Merely illustrating how the unknown in science is no different to the unknown in religion and believing there is NO god is no more foolish to believing there IS a god. The only thing I can find evidence for are possibilities. I believe in the "possibility" of God existing. By that I do not mean the man with the white beard in the sky registering a tally of what you do right or wrong on his blackberry. I mean a consciousness or conscious force or "thing" of some type detached from humanity and religion. There are points for and against God existing and since I am only a human being limited to my 5 senses and since God by theory should transcend all things including my senses, I am not going to be arrogant by claiming I know God and whether or not God exists. It is simply an unknown at this point in human history. It's also interesting to note the big bang came from "nothing" so to speak the same as God created something from nothing. I'm seeing a pattern here. Same difference.

Albert Einstein: God does not play dice with the universe.
Edward Schrodinger: (In reply to Einstein) Do not presume to know what God does.

 

[ahriman]

Man created god in his own image. Sums up the ultimate flaw with religion.

 

[JocktheMotie]

Edward Schrodinger: Erwin's less accomplished, but cheekier brother.

 

[Nicodemus]

Merely illustrating how the unknown in science is no different to the unknown in religion and believing there is NO god is no more foolish to believing there IS a god.

It is actually much less foolish to believe that there is no god.

There are points for and against God existing [...]

Could you name a few points - evidences, I take it, because all you have are your five senses; everything else would be wild guessing - in favor of the claim that god exists?

 

[ahriman]

It is actually much less foolish to believe that there is no god.


explain yourself.

 

[Nicodemus]

explain yourself.

Since there is no hint of him, I do not believe in him in the same way in which I do not believe that my fingers are moved by mysterious finger ghosts. In other words: I do not devise unnecessary explanations.

Now it is your turn to hand in the evidence to the contrary.

 

[Sanctus Iacobus]

Since there is no hint of him, I do not believe in him in the same way in which I do not believe that my fingers are moved by mysterious finger ghosts. In other words: I do not devise unnecessary explanations.

Now it is your turn to hand in the evidence to the contrary.

You are standing on the assumption that if you were God, you would allude to your own existence in such a way to convince a person such as yourself.

 

[Nicodemus]

You are standing on the assumption that if you were God, you would allude to your own existence in such a way to convince a person such as yourself.

God already went to the trouble of instructing a few people to write down his word. Why not be a little more tangible and less open to misinterpretation if you already decided to allude to your own existence?

 

[ahriman]

Since there is no hint of him, I do not believe in him in the same way in which I do not believe that my fingers are moved by mysterious finger ghosts. In other words: I do not devise unnecessary explanations.

Now it is your turn to hand in the evidence to the contrary.

I agree with you on this point. But as I stated earlier I don't believe in a God/religion paradigm where the two are inseperable. I'm talking about a God detached from humanity and religion. I'm talking about a "primordial creator", a conscious "thing" of some type indifferent to religion. In other words it does not need to be worshipped, hated, loved or even noticed. A God completely separate from religion. Religion is just something humans created as a great form of control and social manipulation. This "thing" goes by it's own set of rules. (Think planck scale and quantum particles). I also have a theory which is purely speculative but I believe God's are theoretically possible, one way being through technology. Technology advanced enough that it produces omnipotence and immortality.

 

[Nicodemus]

Then the question is: Why do you have that belief? What prompted you to form that theory?

 

[ahriman]

Then the question is: Why do you have that belief? What prompted you to form that theory?

Both science and religion still have trouble explaining our origins. The biggest problem for both is the "what came before" arguement. Religion states that God always "was". Science has a number of theories on the universe. First the big bang "open ended" universe theory. This universe would mean there is a definate beginning and end to the universe and that time and space were essentially created from "nothingness". I'm sorry but that is no more farfetched than having a man in the cloud judging my every thought. If anything the two are ridiculously similar. God creates something from nothing, the universe somehow creates itself from nothing (mathematically). Sounds very similar to christian/muslim ideology to me. The other theory is the "hourglass" universe. Where the universe is born and eventually closes in whats called a "big crunch" should this occur it is theorized the big crunch would give rise to another universe. A perpetually reborn universe with no beginning or end. Buddhism/hinduism anyone? My point is that I see patterns between religious and scientific creation theories the only difference with science being able to provide evidence based on what we percieve with our 5 senses. But neither have ultimately proven without doubt, anything. So because of this inability for either side to come up with a plausable theory of everything I combined both science and God into a new paradigm. I use the word "god" and not religion for the reasons I mentioned in the earlier posts.