Does god EXIST?

[Silk]

Evolution is fact. However the cause of evolution as well as the origins of life & the universe are currently unknown.

If we ignore the religious descriptions of God and instead consider it as a simplified theory - the theory of an infinite and omnipotent creator of everything - it is one of the strongest theories we have to explain existence. It would be ignorant to dismiss it as an impossibility.

One thing that we can be sure of, is that in one way or another "infinity" has a key role in describing our universe. Whether that is God, multiverses, infinite carnations of the same universe - or whatever - we just don't know and perhaps we never will.

In my opinion atheists are both arrogant and ignorant for these reasons.

What about atheists who don't dismiss it as an impossibility?

 

[Blackcap]

It really is silly season isn't it. The new footy season cannot come soon enough.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

What about atheists who don't dismiss it as an impossibility?

Which would surely make them agnostics ?

 

[Seagull27]

Convenient.

Of course God and evolution cannot go hand in hand. Assuming we're talking about the christian/catholic God then the Bible clearly explains how the world was created... about 6000 years ago LOL!

Yes, but bearing in mind the people who wrote the Bible were humans themselves, and had nowhere near the scientific knowledge we do these days, they were bound to come up with ways of trying to explain whatever information they were gave in a way that made sense to them.

You also don't have to believe every single thing that is written in the Bible and yet still be a Christian. Hence why there are so many different forms of the religion.

 

[magoo]

If we are to approach the situation rationally, it would be easy to reach the conclusion that the religious texts have been created or corrupted by mankind over time.

If this is fact, it would not falsify the existence of God, it could merely mean that humanity has misinterpreted what could be the truth.

Jeeeesus. If we do approach the subject rationally we can easily reach the conclusion that the existence of any God is mental!

 

[ATFC Seagull]

Is that a fact, or just an opinion?

It's certainly more quantifiable than whether or not god exists!

 

[DTES]

Evolution is fact. However the cause of evolution ... are currently unknown.

Serious question - what does this mean? The cause of evolution? It doesn't need a "cause" beyond natural selection.

If you mean the first life, then you may have a point - or do you mean the driving force beyond evolution once it's started?

 

[DTES]

What about atheists who don't dismiss it as an impossibility?

Then they are agnostic.

Really? I thought an atheist was someone who believed no gods existed (even if acknowledging the possibility they are wrong), a believer is someone who believes a god does exist (even if acknowledging the possibility they are wrong), and an agnostic has no "opinion"/belief either way.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

Yes, but bearing in mind the people who wrote the Bible were humans themselves, and had nowhere near the scientific knowledge we do these days, they were bound to come up with ways of trying to explain whatever information they were gave in a way that made sense to them.

So they made the whole thing up. At best it's a moral tale that's all.

As I've put in another post all religion is totally man made.

 

[El Presidente]

Dicky Dawkins uses a scale of theism, and we all are somewhere on it

1:Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
2e facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
3:Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
4:Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
5:Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
6e facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
7:Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

I would put myself at about 6.8

 

[beorhthelm]

define your "god".

is there a all powerfull, all knowing and benevolent deity, or the perfect being proposed by Anselm, Descarte and others? no, the world around us prove these definitions utterly false and its frankly a bit of a stupid idea given the Greeks had already rejected the notion ~200BC.

is it possible that a supernatural deity exist, with ability to interfere with our world, even individual lives? there's nothing to prove otherwise so one is compelled to say yes. is it probable? evidence suggests not.

Who's to say that evolution and God can't go hand in hand?

nothing, and the linking of evolution to debate doesnt help at all. usually used by religious to create bogus sidetracking debates that move off the core god/no god question (though they lose there too, but they can retain their faith while doing so).

 

[GingerBeerMan]

Surely God if you believe and god if you don't

It's a name irrespective of religious beliefs.

 

[beorhthelm]

Really? I thought an atheist was someone who believed no gods existed (even if acknowledging the possibility they are wrong), a believer is someone who believes a god does exist (even if acknowledging the possibility they are wrong), and an agnostic has no "opinion"/belief either way.

atheism is not believing in god. nothing more and certainly not "believing" there are no gods. agnostics are not comitting eitherway, but there is an inherent belief that god can exist otherwise they'd be atheist.

 

[Publius Ovidius]

I believe in the gods of ancient Greece.

Far more believable that a form of religion from a small tribe from Palestine

 

[DTES]

atheism is not believing in god. nothing more and certainly not "believeing" there are no gods. agnostics are not comitting eitherway, but there is an inherent belief that god can exist otherwise they'd be atheist.

If agnostics are not committing either way, then they fall under your definition - quote "atheism is not believing in god". Even if they have a belief that it is possible, if they do not believe that he does exist, your definition fits.

 

[Silk]

Then they are agnostic.

Wrong. Someone who doesn't believe in God may not necessarily believe a God is impossible, but they are still an atheist. Someone who says, like you did, that it's impossible to know for sure, is an agnostic.

 

[One Love]

Impossible for any mortal being to know, anyone who claims otherwise is lying.

That's interesting! Why? Please elaborate.

(I know, someone slap me.)

 

[magoo]

Of course it needs a cause. Scientific theory is currently favoured towards the theory of "abiogenesis" which is the random and circumstantial creation of life under the incredibly improbable concoction of the right chemical and environmental factors that it supposedly requires.

However despite life being found throughout every corner and crevice of the world, science still isn't sure what exactly life is. We can carbon copy a cell in a laboratory and despite it being physically exactly the same, it is not alive and we are incapable of making it live. So what exactly is life?

Until we can understand what life really is, what gives what would normally be a concoction of inanimate matter the "spark" that makes it live, we will be no closer to answering the greater questions.

As if the creation of life wasn't specific and unlikely enough - it's worth considering what makes life evolve. Evolution is even more improbable and specific in its nature - evolution causes life to adapt, develop traits depending on its environment in order to survive and flourish. The nature of life and evolution are incredibly, some would say divinely, specific. In my opinion it would be extremely naive and ignorant to dismiss this as an inevitability of a massive universe like so much of science theorises it to be.

Hang on, just because science can't explain some things, yet, the only other option must be we were created by an intelligent being?

 

[Seagull27]

So they made the whole thing up. At best it's a moral tale that's all.

As I've put in another post all religion is totally man made.

I have absolutely no doubt that religion is totally man made. But there's no way of saying whether it had a valid original basis or not.

 

[DTES]

Of course it needs a cause. Scientific theory is currently favoured towards the theory of "abiogenesis" which is the random and circumstantial creation of life under the incredibly improbable concoction of the right chemical and environmental factors that it supposedly requires.

However despite life being found throughout every corner and crevice of the world, science still isn't sure what exactly life is. We can carbon copy a cell in a laboratory and despite it being physically exactly the same, it is not alive and we are incapable of making it live. So what exactly is life?

Until we can understand what life really is, what gives what would normally be a concoction of inanimate matter the "spark" that makes it live, we will be no closer to answering the greater questions.

As if the creation of life wasn't specific and unlikely enough - it's worth considering what makes life evolve. Evolution is even more improbable and specific in its nature - evolution causes life to adapt, develop traits depending on its environment in order to survive and flourish. The nature of life and evolution are incredibly, some would say divinely, specific. In my opinion it would be extremely naive and ignorant to dismiss this as an inevitability of a massive universe like so much of science theorises it to be.

Impressive. Four paragraphs and you didn't actually answer my question.

There's also several strawmen in your argument, not to mention the fact that you describe life as both undefined and "incredibly specific".

Your conclusion, that it is "extremely naive and ignorant" - what do you base this on? Do you know understand all the scientific argument behind the conclusion, if you're so willing to dismiss it out of hand?