Published on October 5, 2004 By AvantiTexan In Religion
From the beginning of human thought, men and women alike have pondered about the existence of a God. Christian apologists have written mountains of books going to great extents trying to prove God. At the same time, Materialists have written their own opposing mountain of books just across the valley proving just the opposite. It is a continuing “Nutuh – Uhuh” battle that will continue until the end of human thought. That being said, here is my proposition: God cannot be proved. Try if you will, I challenge anyone to do so. It just cannot be done. This is not written to invoke flaming arrows of anger and misunderstanding. I wish it to serve only as a learning experience for all parties involved. Perhaps we can all learn something from each other.

Therefore, the task ahead of you, should you accept it, would be to prove the existence of God.

Comments (Page 3)
4 Pages1 2 3 4 
on Oct 07, 2004
The existance of 'stuff', with the possible excpetion of the opinions of quantum physisists, is evident all around you. The very fact that you concider yourself to exist proves the existance of stuff. God is not proved to exist anywhere. Religious texts speak of its existance, but saying God exists because the book says so, and the book is true because God exists is a circular argument, and circular arguments are one of the most elementary of logical errors.

Personally, I find the idea of God to be both profoundly arrogant and restrictive to the point of being depressing. Assuming God, and by extension the Jeudeo-Christian crationist principles, is arrogant in that it makes the assumption that we are somehow better then all other animals in an absolute sense. We are the only beings created in the image of God, and are the chosen creatures of God. That has to be the most arrogant and self-serving proclamation possible.

At the same time, limiting us to what God made us as is extremely restrictive. Saying that we have no chance as a species to ever evolve beyond what we are now is deperessing beyond words. Making the assumption that there are things which we as humans not only will never understand about the universe, but CANNOT ever understand is also a sad predicament.

I am not an athiest; rather I am an agnostic. However, the chances of God existing seem to be exceedingly slim to me. That does not mean that it is an impossible scenario, as the non-existance of God is an impossible scenerio to any faithful person. If you chose to see that as a narrow-minded view, that is your right, but I can't honestly say it makes any sense.
on Oct 07, 2004
agnostic is another word for atheist in my humble opinion
on Oct 08, 2004
SiRMetMan
God is not proved to exist anywhere. Religious texts speak of its existance, but saying God exists because the book says so, and the book is true because God exists is a circular argument, and circular arguments are one of the most elementary of logical errors.

On this, we agree. Perhaps I did not explain myself well earlier. God cannot be proved by the Bible or any other text. One has to come to the Bible with the acceptence that God already exsists. That is not circular logic. It just begins with faith.

The existance of 'stuff', with the possible excpetion of the opinions of quantum physisists, is evident all around you. The very fact that you concider yourself to exist proves the existance of stuff.

I never disagreed the stuff is in existance. I am proposing that the manner in which we "describe" stuff scientifically is just as faith based as any religion. This concerns world views. Every world view, agnostic, materialists, christian, are all faith based. Another term could be used, presuppositions. For example, if you were to say that you were going to abandon all presuppositions (things that are faith based) could you even say that with certantiy? Could you abandon the presupposition that your own thought is reliable and dependable?

Personally, I find the idea of God to be both profoundly arrogant and restrictive to the point of being depressing.

At the same time, limiting us to what God made us as is extremely restrictive.

Perhaps we will never agree on these statements. They are born from different world views.

Again, thanks for sharing your thoughts and a little bit of yourself with me.
Hope to read some more!
AT
on Oct 08, 2004
SiRMetMan
God is not proved to exist anywhere. Religious texts speak of its existance, but saying God exists because the book says so, and the book is true because God exists is a circular argument, and circular arguments are one of the most elementary of logical errors.

On this, we agree. Perhaps I did not explain myself well earlier. God cannot be proved by the Bible or any other text. One has to come to the Bible with the acceptence that God already exsists. That is not circular logic. It just begins with faith.

The existance of 'stuff', with the possible excpetion of the opinions of quantum physisists, is evident all around you. The very fact that you concider yourself to exist proves the existance of stuff.

I never disagreed the stuff is in existance. I am proposing that the manner in which we "describe" stuff scientifically is just as faith based as any religion. This concerns world views. Every world view, agnostic, materialists, christian, are all faith based. Another term could be used, presuppositions. For example, if you were to say that you were going to abandon all presuppositions (things that are faith based) could you even say that with certantiy? Could you abandon the presupposition that your own thought is reliable and dependable?

Personally, I find the idea of God to be both profoundly arrogant and restrictive to the point of being depressing.

At the same time, limiting us to what God made us as is extremely restrictive.

Perhaps we will never agree on these statements. They are born from different world views.

Again, thanks for sharing your thoughts and a little bit of yourself with me.
Hope to read some more!
AT
on Oct 08, 2004
God is able, and willing, but man must first give up his pride and selfishness and depend on a higher being.


If the potter makes a faulty pot, is it fair to blame the pot for its shortcomings?
on Oct 08, 2004
God can interfere, as proven in Exodus, and many other places in the Bible, but for the most part he does not, as that would make the idea of free will absolete


your version of god sounds pretty arbitrary, then. I'd rather just believe that it's an aribtrary universe without some meddling sky fairy fucking around with people like chess pieces...
on Oct 08, 2004
agnostic is another word for atheist in my humble opinion


Your humble opinion ignores the meanings of the two words, and is, therefore, incorrect. Now I'll quit posting on here for awhile. Cheers.
on Oct 08, 2004
your version of god sounds pretty arbitrary, then. I'd rather just believe that it's an aribtrary universe without some meddling sky fairy fucking around with people like chess pieces...


I prefer my view, thanks. Never said you had to believe the same...
on Oct 09, 2004
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.


So what's wrong with a malevolent God?
on Oct 09, 2004
So what's wrong with a malevolent God?


Ohhhh I remember.... God is perfect justice. But what if God's justice is so far beyond thought that it appears as either malevolence or love, depending upon the position assumed in relation to God by anyone attempting to answer the question?

What if God's justice involves acting upon the world in accordance with an ethic that is essentially incomprehensible? Then this ethic could only appear to a finite mind as either caprice or malevolence - not love, because these effects have a seeming randomness opposed to the single minded interest in the welfare of another that we equate with the term 'love'.

In my opinion God is as malevolent as he is loving, as indifferent as he is interested. And there is no sense at all in which his existence can be proven, since proof is a construct of thought created by finite minds, and what is finite can, by definition, have no understanding of, or relation of comprehension to, what is infinite.

So I'll ask you again: what's wrong with a malevolent God?
on Oct 10, 2004
God MUST be malevolent. No matter how kind he is to some, he must be cruel to others. If he favors one side in a battle, he must spurn the other. The fact that good and evil are subjective based upon your perspective. Not that I agree with them, but ask any muslim terrorist and he'll probably tell you that 9/11 was the ultimate display of justice. Ask me what I thought of the middle east on 9/12, and I'd tell you that I thought it should have been made into the world's largest mirror. Morality is just as subjective as faith, so it's not really a very good barometer for measuing the world either. Thus the malevolence of God is somewhat pointeless to argue over.
on Oct 10, 2004
Thus the malevolence of God is somewhat pointeless to argue over.


I wasn't arguing. I asked a question - what's wrong with a malevolent God?
on Oct 10, 2004
Silver and Jade, as far as I'm concerned, theists and athiests are equally dogmatic. Both chose to believe in something that has no factual evidence to support or discredit it. I myself would say I am anti-dogmatic (I'd like to think adogmatic, but that may be giving myself too much credit). Only a hardline theist, which I'm assuming you are, would ever confuse agnostic belief with athiestic belief. I find God to be highly unlikely, yes, but that does not mean I do not take the possiblility of ANY supernatural syestem or structure to be 0.

One of the best quotes I can think of is from the movie Dogma, I will paraphrase, as unfortunately I do not have a perfect memory, "do not have beliefs, have thoughts." In other words, it is best to constantly think and question things, not to accept them blindly. Living with that sort of mentality will make you a far more robust personality, and allow you to deal with adversity much better.
on Oct 12, 2004
Silver and Jade, as far as I'm concerned, theists and athiests are equally dogmatic. Both chose to believe in something that has no factual evidence to support or discredit it. I myself would say I am anti-dogmatic (I'd like to think adogmatic, but that may be giving myself too much credit). Only a hardline theist, which I'm assuming you are, would ever confuse agnostic belief with athiestic belief. I find God to be highly unlikely, yes, but that does not mean I do not take the possiblility of ANY supernatural syestem or structure to be 0.

One of the best quotes I can think of is from the movie Dogma, I will paraphrase, as unfortunately I do not have a perfect memory, "do not have beliefs, have thoughts." In other words, it is best to constantly think and question things, not to accept them blindly. Living with that sort of mentality will make you a far more robust personality, and allow you to deal with adversity much better.


I know perfectly the definition of "agnostic" and "atheist." Nor am a "hardline theist" therefore your assumption is wrong. AS for accepting things blindly, I did that once, until I was old enough to think about abstract things such as love, religion, etc. and make my own decisions regarding such.

I have tried misc religions, as well as having no religion and simply calling myself an "agnostic." I do not have a religion now, simply a relationship. But that would be for another thread.

The assumption that anyone that is not an agnostic, or an atheist is not thinking for themselves is based on immature thinking.
on Oct 12, 2004
The assumption that anyone that is not an agnostic, or an atheist is not thinking for themselves is based on immature thinking.


Silver and Jade--I gave you an "insightful" for that one.

I have always found it interesting that in such conversations as this it is nearly always posited by someone that those who have belief or faith in a god are wishy-washy, unable to think for themselves, or simply incapable of the same level of thinking as the agnostics or atheists. I have yet to see a conversation along these lines in which that isn't brought up. Of course, those open-minded individuals who disdain those of us who have these types of belief just never seem to be sufficiently open-minded to consider that we may have come to our belief through years of trial, careful introspection, study, prayer, and questioning.

For some reason they just assume that all of us believe blindly. Or at least that is the way they like to talk about us. Certainly there are those who believe blindly. However, there are still very many of us who arrived at our beliefs only because we did question, we did doubt, we did think, ponder, search and study.
4 Pages1 2 3 4