Does God Exist? Evidence & Arguments For & Against

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast

Originally posted by Iacchus32
This is like describing the mechanics of something without understanding how it truly functions as a whole. Indeed without the whole, there would be nothing to "dissect."

So we are to take any persons word that something IS?!? Who's shall we take? Yours? Mine? The problem you've unearthed is that once you enter the realm of the subjective, the rules for 'agreeing' on observed phenomena, for replication, for making certain someone isn't intentionally or unintentionally blowing smoke up your ass, disappears.

You can apply a hammer to the task of putting in a screw, but it does a piss poor job. If you want science to investigate god, you'll get a piss poor job.

What would be wrong with trying to approach things from the standpoint of wholeness, or at least maintain this view overall, rather than break everything down into its "dysfunctional" component level? Hmm ... Is it possible that this is the problem with society today, with all its dysfunctionality in general? Yes, perhaps. And where do we send people when they get this way? Indeed, to one of the many "compartmentalized agencies" which have sprung up overnight -- like the mushrooms that they are -- to handle our "dysfunctional needs."

EDIT: It used to be the church that handled all these functions (primarily), and now we have all these government sponsored agencies (charities or whatever).

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What would be wrong with trying to approach things from the standpoint of wholeness, or at least maintain this view overall, rather than break everything down into its "dysfunctional" component level? Hmm ... Is it possible that this is the problem with society today, with all its dysfunctionality in general? Yes, and where do we send people when they get this way? Indeed, to one of the many "compartmentalized agencies" which have sprung up overnight (like mushrooms) to handle our "dysfunctional needs."

If I want to understand complex systems, it helps to first look at the components. That they should always be dealt with as just components is usually a mistake.

To say "dysfunctional" component, you're are emotionally biasing your argument.

Have you studied science, more than a course or two in college? The way you write would lead me to believe no, lacking other information.

If you've never studied science, then I cannot address a distorted view of it. The scope of the undertaking would be too much, but I have noticed a strong tendency [in you and others] to view atheists as charactures, often making straw men arguments. That I do have something for: a link that might help understand who we are - certain something you won't normally get from a debate online.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html

 

[Phobos]

ok, I'm joining this topic late. At least I planned to...but then I read the first post and my blood pressure rose too high.
Think happy thoughts...

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
If I want to understand complex systems, it helps to first look at the components. That they should always be dealt with as just components is usually a mistake.

To say "dysfunctional" component, you're are emotionally biasing your argument.

And yet the human mind and human body were here a long time, and fully functional, before science came along to pick it apart.

Have you studied science, more than a course or two in college? The way you write would lead me to believe no, lacking other information.

I think it would be reasonable to say that I'm scientifically aware, but don't have an extensive background in it. I would probably make a good lab technician though.

If you've never studied science, then I cannot address a distorted view of it. The scope of the undertaking would be too much, but I have noticed a strong tendency [in you and others] to view atheists as charactures, often making straw men arguments. That I do have something for: a link that might help understand who we are - certain something you won't normally get from a debate online.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html

It seems I've been to this site before, and they do have some interesting things to say, but have very little to offer in terms of what I believe about God.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
But you avoided the main question. Should our science, that which discovers objective information about our environment and universe now descend into personal opinion. Would you be willing to ride in a plane, where the engineering was based on the popular opinion of the strength of the planes aluminum airframe, or the engineers opinion of the thrust of the engines, or would you rather they be measured and confirmable, by anyone using a set methodology? How about living next door to a nuclear reactor where the half lives and fission breakdown products were not measured, they were determined by philosophical debate?

As I've stated any number of times before, I have no problem with science per se', in fact I probably wouldn't have anything to say about it if it weren't for one thing, "religious experience." And I'm sorry, there is more to reality than what is physical.

Just out of curiosity, are there any minority groups to which you belong?

That would be a minority of one -- one who "sees things for himself."

Having been both in the majority and minority over the theism issue, I've seen that many in the theist majority are blithly ignorant of how it is to be in the minority.

Actually I don't care to go to "either extreme."

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet the human mind and human body were here a long time, and fully functional, before science came along to pick it apart.

And numbers of cows existed before mathematics. Does that mean that counting is a bad idea?

I think it would be reasonable to say that I'm scientifically aware, but don't have an extensive background in it. I would probably make a good lab technician though.

The reason I brought that up is that it seems, from your arguments, you don't know a lot about how much of actual science is done and why. It could just be a skewed perception, on my part.

It seems I've been to this site before, and they do have some interesting things to say, but have very little to offer in terms of what I believe about God.

Good. I, and I'm sure the writers, were trying to present why and what atheists are, not trying to convert others.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
As I've stated any number of times before, I have no problem with science per se', in fact I probably wouldn't have anything to say about it if it weren't for one thing, "religious experience." And I'm sorry, there is more to reality than what is physical.

The reason I asked earlier if you had any scientific background has a lot to do with the above statement.

I have said before, as would anybody with an understanding of the philosophy of science or a strong scientific education, that you are absolutely correct in that science doesn't address "religious experience", just as the study of music isn't used to determine the tensile strength of 12 gauge copper wire, or sunday morning services the place to delve into high-energy particle physics.

Science doesn't address "religious experience" at all, positively or negatively, because it is outside it's scope of inquiry.

By implying science should address "religious experience", you're trying to apply a hammer when a socket wrench is needed.

Just because there are people that feel that the physical plane is all there is and that there is a particular branch of study that is intended to explore this physical plane are two orthogonal issues. The former can be incorrect (depending on your choice of values applied) irrespective of the reasonableness of the latter.

I suspect this is one of the last posts, to you, that I will make on this subject. I have repeated myself half a dozen different ways, and it seems you do not want to see what I'm saying. While in your right to do so, I have little desire to beat my head against a wall. As I've said earlier, I'm here for an honest exchange of ideas, once the exchange is obviously stalled, I see no point in continuing it.

--------
Having been both in the majority and minority over the theism issue, I've seen that many in the theist majority are blithly ignorant of how it is to be in the minority.
--------

Actually I don't care to go to "either extreme."

Yet you rant and rave at the actions of those who are reacting to such "majority against minority" hatred, with no attempt to understand where it comes from. I'm not defending the unreasonable actions of atheists, but knowing the source does help when talking with them.

 

[Iacchus32]

radagast,

The problem is -- and don't I know why you don't seem to be able to grasp what I'm trying to say -- is that the difference between science and religion is that they are two "opposing views" about the ultimate nature of reality. And indeed, depending on which view we accept, it's going to change the way we ultimately interact with each other on this planet.

Therefore, if science wishes to uphold it's "objective reality" and say this is it folks, there's no need to look any further, that indeed "this is reality," then it becomes a fallacy. Because they won't even consider the other side of the issue, which speaks of an "internal reality," and makes very similar claims regarding the ultimately reality.

And neither do I care much for the views of religion (the western church) on this matter. Because it's like acknowledging we have two sides to our brain, and yet both sides working against each other, as opposed to working together. This at the very least is dysfunctional, and speaks about the schizophrenic nature of our society.

I started a thread a while back called The Center of Existence, which deals with this issue of science and religion, while suggesting some possible alternatives in how they could relate to each other. By all means check it out.

While there's one other thing that you need to understand about my background, that it's more metaphysical, obviously, in which case if I were to say that God does exists, then it's quite possible that I'm one step ahead of everyone else, and indeed am putting the horse in front of the cart, which is as it should be.

 

[radagast]

Iacchus,
I've understood what you've been saying about science and religion being opposing views - what doesn't seem to be coming across from me, is that I've been disagreeing with this. Science doesn't say that this is all there is [and never has], it says that this is all that we will look at as part of this methodology [science]. The fact that you don't seem to be aware of this has lead me to question you having any significant scientific education. [no insult intended]

When people state that science is telling us there is no god (unless they specify characteristics of (a) god that are tangible and checkable) then they are trying to use science in a way in which it becomes invalid. Analogous to someone saying logic states 'x', but has an invalid premise or flawed argument.

The only times that science and religion come into conflict is when religion states something is 'x' with relation to the objective, tangible universe, which contradicts what has been determined scientifically - like the Earth being the center of the universe, like the Earth being 6000 years old. If science were to make judgements on things metaphysical, it would cease to be scientific, because it would be outside the defined scope of science.

As a Buddhist, I don't accept the physical as all there is. My priest doesn't either. She holds a PhD in physics and biophysics, and worked for NASA for a while. Science is not seen by her, or myself, to be in conflict with there being something besides the physical. It is almost as if you have read my past posts, but not actually listened to what was said. You haven't directly said you disagreed when I say that science doesn't say 'the physical is all there is', yet you keep repeating just that.

Iacchus, before you reply to this post, reread it a couple of times. Think about it, if you plan to reply. From your above post, it is painfully apparent you are missing the main, crucial point of all my posts in this thread.

This is the last time I will address this in an open forum. This horse is way past dead. It's pulped and ready to be juiced.

 

[Zero]

Your real problem with science, Iacchus32, is that it has rules. Your pretend philosophy and intellectualism is in reality no more than wishful thinging, and science doesn't allow your emotional wants or needs to supercede rational thought. You don't want, need, or seek truth or reality; you seek to claim that your pseudo-religious mish-mash be respected as anything more than the creation of a mind out of touch with reality.

 

[Iacchus32]

Ladies and gentlemen, "the moment" has just been crucified.

I'm sorry, I can't go on any more about this. And you can forget about time and space because it no longer exists.

 

[Iacchus32]

The Heart of Reality

Originally posted by radagast
Iacchus,
I've understood what you've been saying about science and religion being opposing views - what doesn't seem to be coming across from me, is that I've been disagreeing with this. Science doesn't say that this is all there is [and never has], it says that this is all that we will look at as part of this methodology [science]. The fact that you don't seem to be aware of this has lead me to question you having any significant scientific education. [no insult intended]

What's the difference? Especially when religion no longer has the clout to back up its claims? Not that these claims were all that easy to back up in the first place? The ball is now in Science's court, and people are looking more and more towards science as the "ultimate answer" which, does not entail "internal truth." This is what we call the world of materialism. Ineed, it's much easier to provide the "concrete proof," than to put up with an answer that's "iffy" at best.

Hence it would seem that science is winning "the debate" (it's much easier to cultivate the obvious), and yet at the demise of the church. Whereas by focusing exclusively on the outside, without focusing in the inside, what do we have? Life bereft of meaning. Which, is okay with science, because it doesn't believe there is any meaning in life.

Therefore, if people don't want to believe in the church, and put all "their faith" in science, then what does that suggest? That science "is" the church. Or, at least it's taken over the responsibility of the church -- like it or not. Which would be akin to having your wife die and you saying you would be responsible for bringing up the children. Of course you may or may not be bound to continue with their education as they were taught (regarding their mother's values), but I think the responsible thing to do would be to at least make allowances for it.


From the thread, The Heart of Reality ...

What is life, if not that which is held internally? What is essence, if not that which is contained within form? Doesn't this suggest that life is an "interior process," by which the external "material world" exists to serve? And, that perhaps we should spend some time focusing on our "interior selves" as well? Why doesn't science seem to get the idea? With its exclusive focus on material existence. Doesn't it know that the "heart of reality" exists within us?

It used to be religion regarded the truth about our "inner selves," but now we rely almost exclusively on science to provide "the truth," which is nowhere near providing these kind of answers. Why is that? And why are we so bound on material existence?

The church is fading away and science has now come into the forefront. And the way I see it, this trend towards materialism in society is going to spell the end of it if, we don't begin to focus on the quality (or essence) of life.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What's the difference? Especially when religion no longer has the clout to back up its claims? Not that these claims were all that easy to back up in the first place? The ball is now in Science's court, and people are looking more and more towards science as the "ultimate answer" which, does not entail "internal truth." This is what we call the world of materialism. Ineed, it's much easier to provide the "concrete proof," than to put up with an answer that's "iffy" at best.

Hence it would seem that science is winning "the debate" (it's much easier to cultivate the obvious), and yet at the demise of the church. Whereas by focusing exclusively on the outside, without focusing in the inside, what do we have? Life bereft of meaning. Which, is okay with science, because it doesn't believe there is any meaning in life.

Therefore, if people don't want to believe in the church, and put all "their faith" in science, then what does that suggest? That science "is" the church. Or, at least it's taken over the responsibility of the church -- like it or not. Which would be akin to having your wife die and you saying you would be responsible for bringing up the children. Of course you may or may not be bound to continue with their education as they were taught (regarding their mother's values), but I think the responsible thing to do would be to at least make allowances for it.


From the thread, The Heart of Reality ...

The church is fading away and science has now come into the forefront. And the way I see it, this trend towards materialism in society is going to spell the end of it if, we don't begin to focus on the quality (or essence) of life.

The essence of life and everything that exists IS matter, my dear Iacchus32.

And your claim that the material existence of EVERYTHING can only be proved from the OUTSIDE and not from the INSIDE, is a false claim.

I established WITHIN myself, that is within my own conscioussness, the truth that a material world, infinite and eternal, HAS to exist, using nothing but my mind, to establish proof for that.

So I give you ALL the proof, that matter is the way in which the world exists, both from OUTSIDE and from INSIDE.

Where do you go now, to disproof or deny that?
Where?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
The essence of life and everything that exists IS matter, my dear Iacchus32.

And your claim that the material existence of EVERYTHING can only be proved from the OUTSIDE and not from the INSIDE, is a false claim.

I established WITHIN myself, that is within my own conscioussness, the truth that a material world, infinite and eternal, HAS to exist, using nothing but my mind, to establish proof for that.

So I give you ALL the proof, that matter is the way in which the world exists, both from OUTSIDE and from INSIDE.

Where do you go now, to disproof or deny that?
Where?

Except I know that The Spirit exists. If as you say, everything that exists is matter, then it's quite possible that this very thing we call energy -- which, reisides on the "interior of things" -- is also another word for spirit. All I know is that both exist, and both possesses similar properties. At the very least it suggests there must be a relationship between the two. And, just as the spirit exists in another dimension -- i.e., "interiorly" -- so does energy, right?

I also understand that spirits (disembodied souls) associate themselves with our inner thoughts and feelings which, is another form of energy, right? This is why the body is called the "living temple," because spirits derive their essence or being through us. Whereas everytime we have a thought or feeling, a spiritual connection is being made.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Except I know that The Spirit exists. If as you say, everything that exists is matter, then it's quite possible that this very thing we call energy -- which, reisides on the "interior of things" -- is also another word for spirit. All I know is that both exist, and both possesses similar properties. At the very least it suggests there must be a relationship between the two. And, just as the spirit exists in another dimension -- i.e., "interiorly" -- so does energy, right?

I also understand that spirits (disembodied souls) associate themselves with our inner thoughts and feelings which, is another form of energy, right? This is why the body is called the "living temple," because spirits derive their essence or being through us. Whereas everytime we have a thought or feeling, a spiritual connection is being made.

A spirit is towards the brain as a wind is toward air molecules.

Wind without air molecules forming and constituing the wind, does not exist. Neither does spirit or consciousness reside outside the brain.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
A spirit is towards the brain as a wind is toward air molecules.

Wind without air molecules forming and constituing the wind, does not exist. Neither does spirit or consciousness reside outside the brain.

Am not sure how to respond? Are you saying spirits exist, but only as figments of our imagination?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Am not sure how to respond? Are you saying spirits exist, but only as figments of our imagination?

If we would adopt instead of spirit a mindly pattern, then it could be said that it does not have independend existence.

How does music exist? It can be stored in different formats, but only becomes "real" when it is played / performed.

So the only way in which spirit as a mindly pattern becomes real, is when it exists in the mind.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
If we would adopt instead of spirit a mindly pattern, then it could be said that it does not have independend existence.

Actually you are correct in the sense that if a spirit were to conform to anything, it would be a "mindly pattern." Which is why such a thing would be barely discernable to us, because we think that we're looking at a part of our own minds, which we are. And yet this is the key to unlocking the spiritual experience, by recognizing and learning to work with these mindly patterns.

And yet how about "interdependent existence?"

How does music exist? It can be stored in different formats, but only becomes "real" when it is played / performed.

The only question is, "Is it live or is it Memorex?" ...

So the only way in which spirit as a mindly pattern becomes real, is when it exists in the mind.

And yet who's to say that there isn't a genuine spirit behind the notion of it? Or, perhaps that this is what it's alluding to?

Whereas don't you think the spirit exists to itself as real? -- i.e., in its own "spiritual medium?" -- which, extends beyond our "natural perception" of things? ... Why not?

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by MasterBlaster
NO. What is true is true - weather you effin' like it or not.

Yes, what is true is true. That said, much of what is true is not easily determinable, if at all.

I've found that those that do claim to have a corner on such truths are either fools or fanatics, or both.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Actually you are correct in the sense that if a spirit were to conform to anything, it would be a "mindly pattern." Which is why such a thing would be barely discernable to us, because we think that we're looking at a part of our own minds, which we are. And yet this is the key to unlocking the spiritual experience, by recognizing and learning to work with these mindly patterns.

And yet how about "interdependent existence?"

Well mindly patterns, the word already reveals it, have only real significance and existence in the mind and to the mind itself.
Such patterns can exist outside the mind, like a piece of music when not played and listened to, can be stored on CD or on paper.
But the enjoyment of music is not the storage in written form or recording on CD, but the actual performing or listening to music.
Music does not play or perform itself. Mindly patterns need a mind too, to become that what we call 'spirit'.

And yet who's to say that there isn't a genuine spirit behind the notion of it? Or, perhaps that this is what it's alluding to?

Whereas don't you think the spirit exists to itself as real? -- i.e., in its own "spiritual medium?" -- which, extends beyond our "natural perception" of things? ... Why not?

The idea that the world in primary instance is spiritual in essence, is a notion about reality that is indeed behind all forms of religion, and what is based on a philisophical outlook on reality which is called Idealism.

This all drops down to one of the basics questions in philosphy which is the question as to what is primary: matter or consciousness.

A primary substance or entity means that this substance or entity is not dependend on something else. That substance would be the primary thing in the world, without which the world would not exist. Everything else would dependend on the existence of that substance or entity.

We know about matter, since it forms the substance of which the ordinary things are made which we see in our daility lifes, and we know about consciousness, which is our reasoning capacity and reflection on our self and the world, etc.

Without knowing what the world in total is, we can already derive the notion that our consciousness is not the primary substance or entity of the world, since our consciousness happens to have come into existence at a certain time, at which the world itself already existed.

Another question is can it be conceived of that consciousness (in some other then human form) has existed before there was a material world?

Let us suppose there was an eternal and infinity being that existed in consciouss form at a time before the material world existed.

This consciouss being would however have to face the situation that there was no objective material world. So it could not be consciouss of anything outside, apart and independend of itself.
But for the same reason this being could not be consciouss of itself, since it could not in any way distinguish between self and not-self.
So, that excludes the possiblity of being consciouss about anything.
Which makes this consciouss being something of an impossibility.

Could it then be conceived of that the material world in total, as an infinite and eternal being, is a consciouss form of existence?

For the same reasons we already gave above, neither this being could exist in consciouss form.

Which leaves as the only possibility that on the basis of an already existing material and objective world, conscioussness in subjective form can exists, that can be consciouss of the objective world, and consciouss of it self, cause it can distinguish between itself, and something that is apart, independend and outside of it (not self).

We - the human conscioussness - are the expression and development products of the material world, in which the world exists in consciouss and subjective form, which can know about and reflect on the objective world, and can be selfconsciousness.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
Let us suppose there was an eternal and infinity being that existed in consciouss form at a time before the material world existed.

This consciouss being would however have to face the situation that there was no objective material world. So it could not be consciouss of anything outside, apart and independend of itself.
But for the same reason this being could not be consciouss of itself, since it could not in any way distinguish between self and not-self.
So, that excludes the possiblity of being consciouss about anything.
Which makes this consciouss being something of an impossibility.

Not unless there was another dimension.

We - the human conscioussness - are the expression and development products of the material world, in which the world exists in consciouss and subjective form, which can know about and reflect on the objective world, and can be selfconsciousness.

And yet, much as evidenced by the growth rings of a tree, life begins and renews itself from within. Which is to say the essence of life is invisible (or intangible). And indeed, is not God Himself called the "invisible one?" And that in essence He has been here all this time, and remained conscious?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Not unless there was another dimension.

What difference would that make?

The point is that God is said to have existence in consciouss form at a time in which there was not yet a material world.

If you state then that God acted from another dimension, you can only overcome the trouble of the 'solipstic' state of that God, by stating that already a world did exist.

So, if you can not overcome the fact that there must have been always an existing material world, in whatever form, what then is the need for this 'creator' all together?

And yet, much as evidenced by the growth rings of a tree, life begins and renews itself from within. Which is to say the essence of life is invisible (or intangible). And indeed, is not God Himself called the "invisible one?" And that in essence He has been here all this time, and remained conscious?

Yeah. It is in your head and nowhere else!

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
What difference would that make?

The point is that God is said to have existence in consciouss form at a time in which there was not yet a material world.

If you state then that God acted from another dimension, you can only overcome the trouble of the 'solipstic' state of that God, by stating that already a world did exist.

So, if you can not overcome the fact that there must have been always an existing material world, in whatever form, what then is the need for this 'creator' all together?

I'm just going by the evidence that I have been able to ascertain myself, that a "spiritual dimension" does exist. Indeed this is where it begins with me (and probably where it should begin with all of us), because I have no idea what happened in the beginning. Albeit the Big Bang theory does sound plausible ... and yet who's to say exactly what happened?

Yeah. It is in your head and nowhere else!

And when you close your eyes and look inside your brain, is it possible that you're peering into another dimension?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
I'm just going by the evidence that I have been able to ascertain myself, that a "spiritual dimension" does exist. Indeed this is where it begins with me (and probably where it should begin with all of us), because I have no idea what happened in the beginning. Albeit the Big Bang theory does sound plausible ... and yet who's to say exactly what happened?

You seem very uneducated. We already know how it all began.
It began with an egg-cell and a sperm, and that became a cell, that grew into a human being, became fully functional, and became aware of the world. A true "creation"!


Or do you want to know what happened "before" the Big Bang?

There is no "before", you know that Iacchus32!

(at least not that I am allowed to talk about on here, I don't know your age!)

And when you close your eyes and look inside your brain, is it possible that you're peering into another dimension?

Figuratively speaking.

And btw. I have been in all those dimensions. No God in anyone of them. Sorry!

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
You seem very uneducated. We already know how it all began.
It began with an egg-cell and a sperm, and that became a cell, that grew into a human being, became fully functional, and became aware of the world. A true "creation"!

Yes, this is where we should all begin to look, inside of ourselves.

Or do you want to know what happened "before" the Big Bang?

There is no "before", you know that Iacchus32!

(at least not that I am allowed to talk about on here, I don't know your age!)

Oh, are you implying that God had a sweetheart?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Yes, this is where we should all begin to look, inside of ourselves.

Yes, and sometimes you don't find the answers THERE and have to actually look outside of yourself. At least, to find the "causes" for your own existence, urges one to look form them outside of oneself, since you can not find the causes for your own existence withing yourself (you can only invent a 'Deity' for that!) but outside of yourself!

Oh, are you implying that God had a sweetheart?

No, st*p*d, but your father/mother had one (supposedly each other!), causing YOUR existence!