The debate "God or no God" was started by
August 13, 2016, 1:54 am.
37 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 19 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
neveralone posted 11 arguments to the agreers part.
Gaurangi posted 1 argument, Apollo posted 7 arguments, Nemiroff posted 8 arguments, historybuff posted 2 arguments, neveralone posted 6 arguments, TheExistentialist posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
dhobbs1214, sabrina, dalton7532, reagmc, Alex, charlieholmes, wdz, neveralone, fadi, razzy00, Ematio and 26 visitors agree.
HiBye, NationalistGuy, Gaurangi, Apollo, historybuff, Nemiroff, TheExistentialist, DrBanner, Ahmad, makson and 9 visitors disagree.
I agree on all counts.p Protestant was as close as I can really sat I am. what might be more exact is independent. I think at first the word of God was pure but then people came together and muddied it up to where u can't see the truth in it anymore. that's why I pray and talk to God directly than through a pope or other sources.
but that was against the accepted scripture and doctrine of any form of Christianity in existence at the time.
much like my view which goes against what is currently believed by the church, and feels equally ridiculous and unjust. to me at least.
if you believe my view is wrong by default for the sole reason that it is against the accepted doctrine, then perhaps you should switch over to catholicism or orthodoxy for that is the way your version of Christianity came to existence. This imperfect interpretation of an imperfect translation of the word of God. (even the original Latin is a limited human language) seems counter to the majority of jesus's teaching. it would be my imperfect deduction that actions would be the greatest factor in the evaluation of one's life. he taught love, caring, charity, respect, tolerance, humility, and perseverence. all admirable, and all actions.
I think that that's wrong. I would prefer them to choose later on if they want to or not because they is a sign to others of ur walk in God and should be a choice
I believe one of the main concerns was the act of baptizing someone as a child before they are choosing it freely. a question of ethics much like my own.
he had a whole list that he went about posting around town, I don't know exactly what was on it.
what practices exactly.
you dismissed my concerns regarding certain Christian practices, but wasn't protestantism started when Martin Luther questioned the conventions and assumptions of the Catholic church?
thank u for the diff. perspective. I can see where ur coming from
I don't think the goal is to change the mind of the opposite side. Most of the time when I have debates about religion I simply want to push the argument to the breaking point. I want to see what presuppositions need to be made in order to hold a belief in God and what presuppositions need to be made to reject a God. I want to see where reason breaks....plus There are some really interesting arguments to analyze which touch on new subjects (the nature of morality, what constitutes the good life, what is "sufficient evidence", what is the nature of free will, etc...)
Once you see what your own presuppositions are, it's easy to correct assumptions in your own thinking and to understand the opposition better when it comes to debates like morality, free will, justice, the self, etc...
I also feel strongly that people who read the debates often benefit more from the content than those engaging in the debates. So while you may not change my mind, there very well might be someone reading this who really weighs an argument for/against their own belief system and actually changes their mind or at least begins a journey of questioning their beliefs.
that is the reason why I dubbed this, the ultimate debate. it is impossible to prove or disprove it any time soon, possibly ever. you won't change any minds, it is purely for philosophical fun and the exploration of one's own beliefs.
personally I prefer to argue within the religion based on morals, ideals, contradictions and hypocrisies.
mat I ask if you are protestant, orthodox, or catholic?
if what ur saying is the debates just go in circles I agree. really all the debates that I have done about Christians seems to not really change anything but the window dressing. idk if it is for ur reason or if it might be that neither of us seem to be able to accept the others ruling. who knows.
As far as my "belief" goes.....I guess it's really a lack of one: I don't have an active belief in any sort of supernatural power.
With that being said, I don't deny the possibility of a God. I do however, believe such a thing is highly unlikely; especially a personal God.
I would say that most of the arguments for God are very poorly formulated and thus aren't very convincing. There are a few that always pop up:
1. The watchmaker argument: Essentially that is the argument that complex forms must have a creator. The most common version is something along the lines of "how could an eye have evolved?". This is an argument from ignorance. It bases it's conclusion on the authors inability to comprehend an evolutionary process by which an eye could form. It's not very convincing as anyone who studies evolution with an open mind will eventually figure out exactly how something like the human eye came to be.
2. The Entropy argument: This one has made it's way around for quite some time. This argument rests on a misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics. It supposes that entropy will take over without the existence of a God to continuously "pump" energy into our system. The misunderstanding here is that earth is not a closed system. Energy from the sun continuously bombards our planet, thus, the second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to life on earth.
3. The fine tuning argument: This rests on the fact that life is possible and that somehow the rare conditions which allow life on this planet is evidence for some form of design. This is another poor argument. I don't see any reason why this should be considered evidence. If life was a product of nature and chance, then we'd expect the same results (i.e. we'd still live on a earth like planet with similar conditions). It would be evidence, only if it defied natural order. So if we were somehow living on Mars, or one of the moons of Jupiter I'd consider that evidence for the super natural.
None of these, nor other popular arguments like Pascal's wager, objective morality, prime mover, etc... are very convincing. They all rely on God as the default answer to their central question. It seems even less likely when we move from an abstract force to a personal God. I believe therefore, no debate can really tackle God vs no-God, but rather they are contained to "is there a good argument for God or are there satisfactory explanations that don't require a God".
sometimes there isn't going to be evidence of something and ur just going to have to take a leap of faith. every inventor knows this as truth.a also what has this debate turn into because I thought we settled the matter that there is a chance that God might have made the universe. and I'm in several other debates.
Faith means believing something without evidence. Its also used as a synonym for the word trust. Two different meanings. But most importantly, it has no bearing on truth.
ergo the faith part and Jesus. if God just decided to take a waltz down main Street do u think people would change their opinion on God. of course but then that wouldn't be faith anymore. it's like when Jesus was walking on water and told the disciples to get out of the boat and come to him. only one came and almost got to him but lost faith when he looked down and almost sank. now why would Jesus do that to him. I believe he was testing their faith. ergo faith is more important to him than us completely knowing.
I mean not only you have to assume he exists and deisres our belief, but you also need to assume he created us intentionally. This is a lot of assumptions to make on a being we dont even know if it exists.
for me that's fine. u have free will and I won't force my beliefs on u and also I think we have had that discussion before.
and to clarify, I too think the existence of a greater power exists. but the idea that it is the Christian God, or any other human religion, is practically non existent.
OK then on ur first two paragraphs we're in agreement. on the last who knows why He might of made us. like buff said if He is alive He is a complex creature and one I think I couldn't even start to comprehend because it is utterly beyond mankind for now. who knows in the future we may be able to answer that question.
When science cant answer a question, we simply admit our own ignorance and say "i dont know". and when a belief gets proven right, great! We are now more knowledgeable about our universe.
Like i said they can coexist as long as youre willing to change your view based on new evidence without bias.
The thing is God has no explanatory power. But lets assume a God did spark the big bang. Why believe this being desires one species of primate on this rock to believe and worship it? Otherwise believing a God without evidence is irrelevant.
thank u I wasn't expecting anyone to convert just to say that there might be a chance
as I said a passage or two ago (idk I'm in 5 diff. debates right now) science is seeking truth through evidence but what happens when u run out of things to measure but u still have questions? I think this is what religion is for to explain what we can't understand because there isn't any evidence. if u only base everything u do on evidence u will run out. also what happens to evidence that supports a belief. let me guess u say lucky guess like it was an accident. do u think that maybe it just might not be an accident? check out this site where a professor who is also Christian has to say on the matter.http://www.bethinking.org/is-christianity-true/the-evidence-for-christianity. I wanted to point out he's Christian because u seem to think they can't exist together and here's proof they can.
The only way they coexist is if you change your belief based on the facts versus changing facts to fit a belief. And speaking from experience, this is a difficult thing to do when youre emotionally attached to a belief.
As long as the definition and characteristics of God keep changing, it will always be a possibility.
Apollo said science and religion do not go hand in hand, but at this point science can coexist with an idea of a god. science does not match well with a LITERAL reading of any religious book I have seen. the possibility of God cannot be proven nor disproven by any known tool, so as of now it is simply a matter of faith.
the possibility of God is always there.
You argued the complexity of our world proves a god exists. I explained why i disagree. Thats how a debate works.
Religion and science does not go hand and hand. Not even close. Science is the best tool/ method to get closer to the truth about our universe. And its willing to change or even discard a belief without fear based on evidence.
Religion has just as much evidence for their God than anything else imaginary.
@nemiroff http://www.big-bang-theory.com/ sorry didn't get it all. plus in that time before the boom then u can concede that it POSSIBLY could of been God.
@ buff kindof like I said I think science and religion can work together. but I believe that there are some things that even science won't be able to explain and will have to let religion play a part. like in the big bang no one knows what was before but ur religion might have some kind of answer.
so by your defininition of religion, then science is slowly eliminating religion. the more science explains the less religion needs to make up super natural answers to attempt to explain them.
that link went to an empty domain.
the big bang (which isn't known to be a bang, most likely a quiet but fast expansion rather than an explosion) was definitely something that happened, although Noone knows if it was the beginning of everything. it was the beginning of our universe as we know it, but it could have existed in the infinitely or near infinity condensed state for who knows how long before that.
honestly everything before 10 to the power of negative 43 seconds after the big bang is a complete mystery. for now.
@apollo so u shouldn't need to be bothered with this because this is a theological debate now and since u only work in the realm of the known then this debate isn't for u. also if u just work on only the known u will never get anything done because scientific discoveries didn't just happen there had to be people willing to go out on a limb and state what they believed at the risk that they were wrong. if what u say about urself is true then u are technically going against science itself's purpose which is to explain the explainable and to better mankind. while religions job is to try to make sense of the things we don't know. so technically they go hand in hand.
We know as much as science can test and prove about our universe. Thats it.
I beleive every question has a natural explanation whether we know it or not. This belief is based on our past. Every natural event on earth was once thought to be supernatural without the explanation. Not once has a supernatural belief proven to be true.
Just because something is complex doesnt mean you insert and even more complex being without evidence as a placeholder.
the big bang theory, which I think is the most agreed upon beginning, by www.bigbangtheory.com says that the universe has definitely had a beginning and also would like to say that it said in a moment the universe was created. I would like to say in the Christian beliefs God spoke it into being which I imagine wouldn't take longer than a moment. I agree that God does sound complex so complex that I don't think anyone can ever fully understand him enough to answer that until there with him.
started.... well we don't know. we can't see that far. I have heard a theory, subatomic particles actually do just come in and out of existence all the time, we have detected it happening regularly. and the universe at some point was subatomic and subject to quantum laws. but that is just a guess. science doesn't try to speculate about what it doesn't know. it simply says it doesn't know, and keeps on searching.
as for the beginnings, they were quite modest. after the early universe cooled enough for matter to solidify, all we had was hydrogen and a little helium, the most basic of atoms which did nothing but condense into stars due to gravity which cooked up the heavier elements for the next solar generation.
there are certainly mysteries regarding the very beginning, but any question you ask about the universe can just as easily be applied to god, and any answer you give to God's origin can be applied to the universe. an all powerful highly intelligent being also sounds pretty complex, where did he come from? he was always there? there is no reason to assume the universe in some form couldn't not have been eternal, whether in it's subatomic prebigbang phase, or in a repetitive big bang/big crunch pattern (although the second one is unlikely.) there are also the multiverse theories.
@nemiroff how do u think it started. (not an attack just a question).
@ apollo so ur telling me that all of a sudden everything just was created? am I right?
in a system that is constantly getting energy added to it (like from the sun), the law of entropy reverses itself and order and complexity naturally increase.
Complex structures are proof of complex structures. Not for an invisible, undetectable being descibed in a book wriiten in the middle east 2000 years ago.
God. just look at the complex structures around u
NO god .