Is there a god?

[LeedsRhinos]

Is there a god? I mean look at all the different relgions around the world who all believe that THEY are right & the others are wrong. They can't all be right can they. Which is why in my opion it all rubbish.

[I.R.]

Finally, someone to have a decent discussion with (Merlin, i mean). I hope I can now air my views without getting insults in reply. Bravo!! Now, back to the original question. There are two major ways by which we can tell that God exists. The first is creation: the universe and all there it contains. So you don't believe that we're created? Think about it, which event is more likely, a "big bang", unexplainable even to it's proponents, or a loving creator with doing the job? The second means of information about the existence of God is the bible. Perhaps you don't believe in the bible, but have you considered that it might actually be true? There's historical evidence to support most of the stuff written in the bible. Besides, consider bible prophecies which have come true in the past and some of which are still unfolding before our very eyes. Doesn't that lend credence to the bible? So, if the bible tells us that God created the earth, and indeed exists, shouldn't we at least consider the possibility that it might be true?

[PAPPY]

I.R. - i've read the whole string on this and you keep going back to the bible as proof of god. The bible is historical fiction, get over it. It doesn't prove anything except that history is biased. And waht about the Koran then, it might be true instead of the bible, have you considered that? maybe you should read the Koran and consider worshipping Mohammad instead. If god existed he would not be so elusive, if creation is your argument i would argue back, maybe he did create the universe, but where is he now?

[el duerino]

You see IR this is why I rant too much. Your arguments are of such ridiculous simplicity they dismiss themselves.

[Merlin]

I'm having problemss posting this answer - maybe it's too long. I'll try it in two parts: Hi IR. You know, I have some sympathy with El Duerino, it is hard to come by a faithful theist who will intelligently engage in this sort of discussion without either repeating the same proposition and refusing to move on in a developing discussion or appeals to fideism and syops the argument dead. Anyhow: Creation. This one of the few things that theists and atheists can agree on - neither of us knows. I would argue the eternally expanding & contracting universe (a series of big bangs) which resulted, on the last occasion, in the right conditions for natural genesis. Alternatively, I would wheel out the basic law of physics that states energy can neither be made nor destroyed - it can only be converted. Energy exists now, therefore it has always existed. I make a distinction between creation of the universe and genesis of life - it's easier to discuss them that way.

[Merlin]

PART 2: The Bible - well it was written at different times by different people with different motives - especially the OT. Consider this - is it possible that some of the books of the OT were written after the events predicted in them? How much of the OT was re-written to suit the changing times and beliefs of the BC middle-east? Some of the OT and some of the NT is historical record, some is personal opinion, some is conjecture and some is just myth (fiction). As a single document, it cannot be relied upon wholly as a source of fact on every page. It cannot be held as proof of the existence of God � only as evidence. As for considering the possibility that God exists and created the universe and everything in it � that�s what we are doing; considering it

[Merlin]

PART 3: I'll tell you now where 'I'm coming from'. I don't get as far as having to deny the existence of God. I ask, why consider that there is a God in the first place? If you're familiar with such things, this is, in simplistic terms, an application of Occam's razor - why bring in an unnecessary factor. As far as I'm concerned, I'm satisfied with the answers that science provides. Bringing God into the equation only complicates things - it raises more questions than it answers. (I discovered that there was a name for my brand of atheism long after I realized that I was � I deliberately truanted from Sunday School on a point of principle � not that I knew what principles were then � or how to spell them.) I try to conduct my atheism as though it was a search for God and rather than rubbish any views anyone else has (unless they deserve it, of course!), I would rather say "Here, you believe in this stuff, can you help me by explaining something". El Duerino should try that - inviting theists to try to help you get over your atheism results in a far superior discussion, particularly when the opposite happens as a result (only half joking). I believe that mankind will only reach the truth (whatever it is) if all disciplines share in the search for it. We all have something to say, so we all have something to contribute. I say tomartoes (I do), you say tomaytos (you do, you USCs) but the definitive pronunciation is out there somewhere and we can't both be right. But I do like a good argument as well. If I offend, let me know.

[Merlin]

PART 3: I'll tell you now where 'I'm coming from'. I don't get as far as having to deny the existence of God. I ask, why consider that there is a God in the first place? If you're familiar with such things, this is, in simplistic terms, an application of Occam's razor - why bring in an unnecessary factor. As far as I'm concerned, I'm satisfied with the answers that science provides. Bringing God into the equation only complicates things - it raises more questions than it answers. (I discovered that there was a name for my brand of atheism long after I realized that I was � I deliberately truanted from Sunday School on a point of principle � not that I knew what principles were then � or how to spell them.) I try to conduct my atheism as though it was a search for God and rather than rubbish any views anyone else has (unless they deserve it, of course!), I would rather say "Here, you believe in this stuff, can you help me by explaining something". El Duerino should try that - inviting theists to try to help you get over your atheism results in a far superior discussion, particularly when the opposite happens as a result (only half joking). I believe that mankind will only reach the truth (whatever it is) if all disciplines share in the search for it. We all have something to say, so we all have something to contribute. I say tomartoes (I do), you say tomaytos (you do, you USCs) but the definitive pronunciation is out there somewhere and we can't both be right. But I do like a good argument as well. If I offend, let me know.

[Merlin]

Hello PAPPY. If god existed he would not be so elusive? What definition of God are you using? I, of course, would argue that God is elusive because he does not exist. A RC would might say that God is not so elusive - he appeared to mankind "in the flesh". Then again, he might say that God is elusive because you don't have faith - "no-one gets to the Father except through me". Being elusive is not being non-existent.

[el duerino]

I have had many discussions with a great many theists. Unfortunately they seem to mirror wot occurs on here an awful lot. The modern theist is well equipped with doublespeak and is an expert at weaselling out of the holes xstianity digs for itself. Indeed Merlin your stance seems very similar to mine, although i see no need to seek a being that blatantly doesnt exist. One of the most infuriating things about theists is their refusal to admit they do not know, as if this is a condemnation of their beliefs. The only theists I can possibly have respect for are those that admit they do not know all the answers. If they do, why do they need god?

[Merlin]

Hi El Duerino. I�m not really searching for God � it�s just a method of engaging in discourse. The best way to affirm your knowledge of a subject is to teach it. This is also the best way to discover that your knowledge of a subject is rather shaky. So I invite the theist to teach me �bout God, then ask the questions. The questions make him examine his own knowledge and beliefs and may lead him to revise his views. It has to be a non-confrontational dialogue for it to succeed. I really don�t mind if people have a faith in God � whatever gets you through the night, eh? � Just don�t make outrageous claims, don�t be hypocritical and don�t ram it down my throat without a right of reply. OOOeeeeeeeerr missus.

[Clanad]

Pluarlitas non est ponenda sine neccisitate.. actually it was a Franciscan, William of Ockham that used this phrase often enough for it to become attached to his name... somehow changed to Occam. But he did not use the phrase as did most atheists that proclaimed that God is not neccessary, since, if a Perfect God created the universe it and all of it's inclusions would be much simpler. William disagreed and in fact maintained that natural theology is impossible. Natural theology attempts to use reason alone to understand God, whereas theology based on scriptural revelations more clearly explains God. Long winded way of saying that there a great many fallacies posited concerning the validity of the scripture. Some are repeated by Merlin, i.e.,scripture changed over the centuries... I think you said especially the OT. That is demonstrably untrue when the facts are studied. More on that later. I would close for now simply saying, I can't "prove" God's existence nor can you "prove" His non-existence. But to sate unequivically, as our resident ranter el duerino does, that God does not exist can only mean that he is god since he knows everything. Or, if he is not omnipotent, on what do you base your conclusion? To be continued...

[Merlin]

Hi CLANAD. (Part 1) Well, there we go � more agreement between the haves and the have-nots. I concur that you cannot prove the existence and I cannot prove the non-existence. All we can do is compare notes and try to move forward. I�m aware of W of Ockham (�Occam� is the Latin version) and that his razor has been abused by us. I only referred to it as a kind of generic reference. The main difference that I perceive between the theists� case and the atheists� case is that that the Ts start with a conclusion (that God exists) and then look for the evidence to support that conclusion. The As look at the evidence first and see where that leads. Occasionally, we do meet in the middle and shake hands � Darwin famously introduced us to each other and we eventually agreed over him.

[Merlin]

Hi CLANAD. (Part 2) I look at the cosmos and I�m happy that my sensory experience, consciousness, intellect, education etc etc provides as full a picture of the cosmos as one can expect to have. I�m content that I have a natural explanation for creation, genesis, free-will, religion, soul etc etc. Now, if I am confident that I am moving inexorably towards having the full picture, why would I then go and say �Well, God did it!�? For one thing what is God? When you answer that, you will give me another couple of hundred questions to raise. And answering those will raise even more questions � you see? � It just takes me further and further away from the answer by piling on more and more questions. I am closer to an answer to the big question if I don�t entertain the idea of God as the cause of everything. Perhaps El Duerino is the most important paradox in the universe. He knows that God does not exist and it therefore follows that he knows everything and is by definition omniscient (he may even be omnipotent � have you seen any reports about subscribers to this forum spontaneously combusting at their keyboards?). So he fits the generally-accepted definition of God. But he�s denying his own existence. How can one have any faith these days?

[el duerino]

ok, ok you cheeky scallys. I cannot prove there is no god obviously, and I doubt it will ever be proved. However the weight of evidence that points to there not being a omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god is too huge to ignore. If god exists, all he has to do is speak to me. That or I go to hell. Simple really. Yes I agree Merlin, assuming your conclusion is an incredibly flawed method of reasoning. e.g. God produces light. There is light, so God must produce it. I place my belief in empirical observation and continual testing of the world around us. Until that reveals a supreme being (you would have thought it might have . . .) I CANNOT believe.

[el duerino]

also, for those interested in perhaps a slightly higher level of discourse, http://www.iidb.org/vbb is an excellent forum

[Merlin]

El D - don't crumble now, man!! There's a few smug theists out there now. Come to think of it, just to twist the knife a bit (all in good fun): I get the impression that you are going around with a picture or a message or something in your head that, should you see it independently of yourself, you will accept it as a sign from God. Have you said to God something that starts with "Well, God, if you exist, why don't you..........". Did you really talk to God? The one who doesn't exist? What would you have done, do you think, if you saw a 20ft poster the next day saying "El D - I don't believe in you!"

[el duerino]

well I dont deny the possibility of there being a god, despite my ranting. I cannot since it cannot be proved otherwise. Its the same, for example, as UFOs or time travel. Neither have been proved not to exist, but you;re a wacko for believing in it. Its the conditioning aspect of religion which annoys me, hence why religions are always socially and culturally centred. But people dont like being told they were brainwashed as children :( I have not crumbled, have no fear, El D is still here. I do not have a specific sign in my head, but as I said, god would know exactly what it would take to convert me. As this is not going to happen I will neve believe. I do sometimes wonder whether xstians themselves realise themselves that their beliefs are incredibly childlike, and whether they convince themselves because they cannot cope without a supernatural sugar daddy. Do you think in all xstians there is a rational atheist trying to get out?

[Merlin]

There are some Christians with faith in the whole works who also have the intellectual arguments (the usual ones) who are firm in their convictions and don�t get upset when you question their belief and they deserve respect for that. It is a challenge and a treat to debate with them. It hones my own arguments; sharpens my tools, if you like. But I�m convinced that there are so many � maybe even the majority � that won�t let go of the indoctrination because it�s taken such a hold and there�s always the nagging doubt that it might be true. It�s easier to carry on in the faith. You know � I don�t think the faithful appreciate that is the the atheist that has made the conscious decision about what he believes. Theists and the faithful tend, on the whole, to go along with what they�ve been told to believe. Before they start rising up against me, I shall acknowledge that many will have examined their beliefs and consciously decided to stay with them. But the majority � naaaahh.

[I.R.]

Childlike, El D?? Well, Jesus Christ did say that to be a Christian, one has to be childlike in nature. Oops, there I go again, using the bible as a reference point. I'm sure some atheists are choking on their tea now, lol! Seriously now, does anyone out there believe in miracles? Do demons exists? What about the devil, mere fiction? How come the same pattern of beliefs can be found in most cultures and religions? Just need a few honest answers from the teacher (Merlin)

[el duerino]

the same patterns of beliefs? oh, such as the pagan festivals to celebrate life and rebirth, right around, say, easter, or the chinese who worship their ancestors. Most cultures worship something, but to simplify it to that degree is ridiculous. Good and evil have been eternal themes in humanity - from the lack of success for hunters to a successful harvest. We have always, through ignorance, ascribed mystical properties to things we do not comprehend. Life after death is such a strong topic that it was bound to get bound up in some cult at some point. You can use the bible all you want IR, its actual use in these kind of debates is less than pathetic. Why is it superior to the quran, or the torah, or the buddhist texts?