Does God exist?

[otseng]

Does God exist? What reasons are there to believe that God is real?


Admin note:
This thread used to be called "Does God exist or not?"
I have renamed this thread to be "Does God exist?"
Another thread has been created to discuss God's nonexistence, "Disproving God".

[pbaylis1964]

There is far more that points to the existence of God than to an invisible monkey inhabiting your inner ear.

I'd love to see solid evidence that points to the existence of God. Otherwise, what's to say that some ancient clerics who wrote about the invisible monkey in my ear weren't telling the truth? Why shouldn't I believe them? You believe that the texts they wrote are proof enough that a God exists. What if they wrote about invisible monkeys in people's ears?

Christians don't have to prove a darn thing to you. You go and disprove it. The bible came first. Everything after it is a rebuttal. The only reason we bother with you is because we care where your sorry soul ends up.

[pbaylis1964]

There is far more that points to the existence of God than to an invisible monkey inhabiting your inner ear.

I'd love to see solid evidence that points to the existence of God. Otherwise, what's to say that some ancient clerics who wrote about the invisible monkey in my ear weren't telling the truth? Why shouldn't I believe them? You believe that the texts they wrote are proof enough that a God exists. What if they wrote about invisible monkeys in people's ears?

Furthermore, you and others like you should not support separation of Church and State without a clue about the future consequences. At worst, having prayers in schools will make people nicer and keep a conscience where there would otherwise be none. I'd rather have a Christian doing my accounts and handling my cash. But what's the worst case if people totally forget about God? How about these examples:

1) People no longer care about the consequences of their actions because they think there is no God to answer to. Stealing, lying, murder...and every other action would become just as easy in people's minds as walking across the street. People will think "I'm sweet as long as I don't get caught"

2) If you crash your car and are stuck inside the burning wreck, no-one will care about you. Soul and spirituality and care for one's neighbours will slowly disappear. "There is no Heaven after death" they will say to themselves, "so why should I risk my precious life on that guy"

Is this what you want to happen? It's extreme, but plausible. You're just going to get a nasty selfish old world for your troubles. Just because you don't believe in God, don't throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water.

[otseng]

The only reason we bother with you is because we care where your sorry soul ends up.

Careful here. I understand where you're coming from. But, the wording here could be a little more... diplomatic. Thanks.

[otseng]

Furthermore, you and others like you should not support separation of Church and State without a clue about the future consequences.

There's a thread on Separation of Church and State for discussion on that topic. Please post there for that. Thanks.

[pbaylis1964]

The only reason we bother with you is because we care where your sorry soul ends up.

Careful here. I understand where you're coming from. But, the wording here could be a little more... diplomatic. Thanks.

To others Christians afraid to say something a little to harshly to an atheist:

Have you ever been the only Christian in an atheist forum? You learn the language they give and need to receive in equal dose. Don't be afraid to use slightly harsh language. I don't think it is to be taken lightly that atheists are in danger of losing their chance for Heaven. I personally actually care that they don't lose their souls.

Diplomacy tends to lull them into gentle apathy. Jesus came not to bring peace but division. He also angrily overturned the moneychangers table. How many martyrs died because they said something hurtful to a pagan?

OK this is a nice cosy forum and life seems good here, but what are we actually doing to save souls? Come on man, are you walking the walk or just having a nice discussion here and there about fossils and black holes?

[otseng]

Have you ever been the only Christian in an atheist forum?

I am not unfamiliar with debating atheists online. I have participated in several other online debate forums before starting this one.

You learn the language they give and need to receive in equal dose.

However, the goal of this forum is to be a civil forum. There are plenty of other forums where harsh language is tolerated. Here, harsh language directly at anybody will not be tolerated, irregardless of the belief system of the poster.

I don't think it is to be taken lightly that atheists are in danger of losing their chance for Heaven. I personally actually care that they don't lose their souls.

I don't think it's to be lightly taken either. And I'm sure we both care equally about lost souls.

He also angrily overturned the moneychangers table.

True, but the money changers were believers, not atheists.

OK this is a nice cosy forum and life seems good here.

From from it. The discussions here are as intellectually intense as I've seen anywhere.

But what are we actually doing to save souls? Come on man, are you walking the walk or just having a nice discussion here and there about fossils and black holes?

The purpose of this forum is not to directly save souls. There are plenty of evangelistic sites out there. I'm attempting to fill a small niche with this forum. The goal is to have civil and intellectual discussions on Christianity between people of all beliefs. Of course my end hope would be that people would embrace Christianity. But my tactic is through respectful discussions. Those who cannot comply with this are encouraged to seek other alternative sites.

[perspective]

pbaylis1964,

You claim that:

There is far more that points to the existence of God than to an invisible monkey inhabiting your inner ear.

I asked you to outline this "far more that points to the existence of God". After all, this thread is debating the existence of god.
Then you claim:

Christians don't have to prove a darn thing to you. The bible came first.

Forgive me if I can't take your word for it. If you don't want to participate in the debate topic of this particular thread, that's fine. But if you make claims like "far more points to the existence of god than to an invisible monkey inhabiting your inner ear", then I need to know what the evidence is that points to the greater likelihood of one over the other. How else can we debate?

Thanks, Osteng, for keeping the civility.

[Corvus]

There is far more that points to the existence of God than to an invisible monkey inhabiting your inner ear.

I'd love to see solid evidence that points to the existence of God. Otherwise, what's to say that some ancient clerics who wrote about the invisible monkey in my ear weren't telling the truth? Why shouldn't I believe them? You believe that the texts they wrote are proof enough that a God exists. What if they wrote about invisible monkeys in people's ears?

Christians don't have to prove a darn thing to you. You go and disprove it. The bible came first.

This is exactly why I'm a polytheist who believes in every pantheon which has ever existed before my birth, and never doubt the truth of cold war propaganda on communists.

Oh, wait, I don't.

Furthermore, you and others like you should not support separation of Church and State without a clue about the future consequences. At worst, having prayers in schools will make people nicer and keep a conscience where there would otherwise be none. I'd rather have a Christian doing my accounts and handling my cash. But what's the worst case if people totally forget about God? How about these examples:

1) People no longer care about the consequences of their actions because they think there is no God to answer to. Stealing, lying, murder...and every other action would become just as easy in people's minds as walking across the street. People will think "I'm sweet as long as I don't get caught"

2) If you crash your car and are stuck inside the burning wreck, no-one will care about you. Soul and spirituality and care for one's neighbours will slowly disappear. "There is no Heaven after death" they will say to themselves, "so why should I risk my precious life on that guy"

Is this what you want to happen? It's extreme, but plausible. You're just going to get a nasty selfish old world for your troubles. Just because you don't believe in God, don't throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water.

I have always said that a white lie is wort a thousand truths, but I'm still disturbed by the notion of keeping a belief system simply because it's good for people, like Santa Claus.

1) If this was true, one would expect the prisons to be filled with atheists. This is not true. On a study (http://www.adherents.com/misc/adh_prison.html) done on religious belief in prisons, an overwhelming number identify as baptists, catholics and protestants. Note I say "identify", meaning they may not necessarily have been practicing theists.

The study had this to say:

A person's philosophical position about the existence of God is distinct from that person's ethical behavior. A person's position on this single point is not a predictor of ethical or criminal behavior, any more than a person's preference for country vs. rock music. Atheism does not necessarily equate to criminal or unethical behavior, just as a professed belief in God does not necessarily preclude criminal or unethical behavior.

One problem faced by some religious writers as well as some atheist writers who have tried to equate religious belief or atheism with criminal behavior (and probably a major reason why there is no empirical data to support either contention) is that a person's philosophical position on this one point is not the major factor in determining criminal behavior. Factors such as level of income, employment/non-employment, level of education, race, geographical region, age, sex, etc. are all tracked by the government and other organizations. All of these characteristics correlate more readily to criminal behavior.

2) I believe empathy is something that must be taught, but I doubt the motivation for even most Christians for helping people is not the brownie points one receives in the next life.

[Archangel__7]

Some of the more powerful forms of reasoning for the existence of God take an indirect approach. For example, C.S. Lewis once penned in one of his writings that God is much like the sun... We cannot look directly at God, but without Him we could not see anything else. The underlying principle behind Lewis' words is this: Everyone at some point or other eventually confronts two fundamental questions (there are others, however these ones are more relevant to the topic):

1) Is there a God?
2) What is His nature?

Whether the effort to formulate an answer is made formally or informally, the conduct of our behavior offers an indication as to which answer we are likely to agree with. So in effect, taking a completely neutral stance in our thoughts and actions is next to impossible, as either way, we're going to live as though there is a God or there's not. (Note however, this is more autobiographical in nature and tells us nothing of whether or not the philosophy claimed corresponds with reality. For our purposes, we'll be examining the logical outworkings of our choices at this stage of development.)

Acknowledging the deist might well take issue with the assumption smuggled in (2), let me note the traditional gender-specific reference is made purely for argument's sake, and that the answer to even that conflict falls within the scope of the question: Is it within God's nature that we should call God a "He"? Yet the broader answer the question seeks to elicit is: based on our response, how should we align our lives accordingly?

And our responses to those two questions will form the basis for every important decision we make in life. Yet it has an even more profound effect. It dictates what we might consider qualified as "knowledge".

There are varying theories of "knowledge". And it is precisely for this reason why I believe many atheists, agnostics, and theists have a difficult time communicating with one another.... not necessarily because neither have done their homework, rather they can't decide which homework is worth doing. Lewis' words underscore a chief characteristic of the Christian worldview: that God is the very point of reference from which all else is accounted for, without which life becomes a big question mark. The atheist however, must pull himself by his metaphysical bootstraps and decide his own destiny, draw his own boundaries, conjure up a meaning for life and suffering, and then perhaps try to gain an enduring sense of purpose from everyday living. In this light, the rejection of God doesn't seem as liberating as many in years gone by have toted non-belief to be. There's no real authority to turn to for the answers. When prodded to turn from God in the midst of suffering, G.K. Chesterton asked the pivotal question: "Fine... but in heaven's name, TO WHAT?"

From this perspective, we might well argue that for the Christian, although the peripheral questions haven't been given an immediate answer, all the root ones have been addressed. Yet, the skeptic seems to be in a different battle, for while all the periphery impulses have been indulged, the core of what really matters remains a big mystery. Humanism has a long legacy telling of this never-ending battle with nihilism. Nihilism is like a philosophical cancer poisoning the mind of a thinker to conclude that "Life is meaningless", and as such any "meaning" we can confer to life is equally meaningless. As with the Kurt Cobains of our generation, misery becomes not just a moment, but a way of life. So what's that to say of the problem of death? "What's preventing me from suicide," as Jean Paul Sartre once pondered. Albert Camus echoed the same sentiment.

Centuries worth of heavyweight thinking --through and beyond the enlightenment--- have brought us to a nihilistic age... an age where such deep-rooted questions are considered expressions of weakness... And the faithful are derided as lesser mortals falling prey to that weakness. The strong would move beyond any primitive notions of some imaginary God-parent taking care of humanity despite the massive amount of suffering present in our world. We would pull ourselves by sheer will and make our own purpose, our own meaning, and never dare to think about what will happen in the hereafter. Such lower-level questioning is reflective of a genetic inferiority destined to perish with the dinosaurs, but until then, secular society "puts up with" the masses living under the intoxication of superstitious belief. One day, the sobering realization of the death of God will become agonizingly clear in cataclysmic epiphany... and for a time, society will descend into madness and bloodshed. But such things must come if we are to liberate ourselves from the shackles of religion and finally build a utopian society where man can finally be his own God, ruler of his universe.

These were the prognostications of Fredreich Nietzsche, German philosopher who was extremely acidic in his disposition against Christendom. A giant among atheists, this nineteenth century thinker was perhaps one of the more honest and insightful individuals on the consequential effects of God's eviction from the moral consciousness of an entire people. So what happens when an entire generation is raised in a culture where the very atmosphere is tangible with this cloud of pessimism? Arrogantly, we'd bloody ourselves against the goads of life, determined to find our own way, never looking heavenwards for the answer... and why? Out of a sheer antipathy for the supernatural? What an awesome responsibility! To play God in our lives and in someone else's life -- doesn't that strike us as in the least bit as terrifying? When life is meaningless, then any behavior from that foundation of reality is equally meaningless and inconsequential. What moral obligation then do we have to be kind or even tolerant of our neighbor if life has no purpose? In a world where there is no such thing as a way "things ought to be", can we really trust ourselves and one another to live peaceably?

One may interject and say, "These are all theories, aren't they?" No sir. Nietzsches prognostications were correct.... In fact, by some accounts, more blood has indeed been spilled in the 20th century alone than the other nineteen put together, mostly the result of a will that would not bend a knee to Christ's teachings. As C.S. Lewis once cogently remarked, in the end, either we will bend our knee and say,"Thy will be done", or He will turn to us and declare,"Alright then... YOUR will be done!"


Let me summarize this with some final thoughts...

Firstly, this is an all-important question, and so to hide behind a mask of facetiousness and laughter is to miss the gravity of the ramifications. I think most people in here understand this, and so I'll move on quickly...

Secondly, when we broach the issues at hand, we do so from the basis of our presuppositions. Some forms of argumentation will be very convincing to one set of individuals because it comports to how their rules of reasoning dictates one comes to reliable knowledge. However, to the opposing encampment, there is a sense that an incomplete or otherwise false premise has led to an incomplete or false conclusion. I think we'll begin here first to point out how popular methods of reasoning between both groups are ineffective, and will bring us to a point of arbitrariness. So we might begin by asking what kind of evidence does the skeptic have in mind?

Lastly, a concession that none of this constitutes that God necessarily exists. However, it may explain the preliminary reasons why many come to trust God for their answers. All too often though, this is hastily dismissed as a result of gullibility or irrational emotionalism -- a sign of a weak temperament. However, these are matters EVERY worldview must deal with, and dismissing them as non-important really doesn't provide an explanation... that's just explaining away. Apprehending the struggles of life warrants a style of reasoning not bound by the rigors of cold logic. Sheer unaided reason alone cannot lead one to an ultimate understanding of reality anymore than a computer can explain love, truth, or beauty. We must go beyond that and take into account the deeper questions that stalk every individual. It is no wonder that many life-long philosophies in our youth-culture have been molded and refined not by the famous intellectual heavyweights of years gone by, but by popular artists! And lets face it, they tend to be more honest in their lyrics about their struggles than you and I are with one another when delving into logical discourse. As one Scottish philosopher once quipped, "Let me write the songs of a nation, and I don't care who writes its laws!" There is a real existential struggle behind the question at hand... lets not run from that.

[Corvus]

Lastly, a concession that none of this constitutes that God necessarily exists. However, it may explain the preliminary reasons why many come to trust God for their answers. All too often though, this is hastily dismissed as a result of gullibility or irrational emotionalism -- a sign of weakness of temperament. However, these are matters EVERY worldview must deal with, and dismissing them as non-important really doesn't provide an explanation... that's just explaining away. Apprehending the struggles of life warrants a style of reasoning not bound by the rigors of cold logic. Sheer unaided reason alone cannot lead one to an ultimate understanding of reality anymore than a computer can explain love, truth, or beauty. We must go beyond that and take into account the deeper questions that stalk every individual. It is no wonder that many life-long philosophies in our youth-culture have been molded and refined not by the famous intellectual heavyweights of years gone by, but by popular artists! And lets face it, they tend to be more honest in their lyrics about their struggles than you and I are with one another when delving into logical discourse. As one Scottish philosopher once quipped, "Let me write the songs of a nation, and I don't care who writes its laws!" There is a real existential struggle behind the question at hand... lets not run from that.

As well as being a deist, I am also an epicurean. Quite simply I don't care, and never will, if God truly exists. My stance as a deist is one of emotion and tradition. What I do care about is pleasure. Not expensive pleasures or morally precarious thrills, but simple pleasures. Literature, art, my writing, the feel of an ice cube in one's mouth while enjoying a hot bath, a drop of aniseed essence in one's tea. Those sorts of pleasures. I have wholly embraced the idea that existence is defined by seeking pleasure and avoiding pain, and by savouring every moment, and denying pain a hold in my existence, - by making the mere act of survival a pleasure - I add meaning to my life. Some people prove God by the love they feel for Him. For that reason, I call everything I have loved "God", and why I have determined to love everything.

To me, since pleasure is the highest form of good, the deprivation of pleasure and the infliction, or affliction, of pain is the worst form of evil. This is why I have any consideration for others. That, and disharmony is the greatest threat to pleasure than all else. All people succumb, to some extent, to the need for personal gratification. This forum is a testimony to that. If we were all entirely selfless, we wouldn't be indulging ourselves with intelligent discourse, but spending the money that goes into the luxury of internet access on a noble cause, like the dollar-a-day charities.

Liberty without purpose is both terrifying and thrilling. Imagine a world of complete noncomformity! Fascination turmoil! As beautiful as the chance meeting on the dissecting table of a sewing machine and an umbrella! But understand that adding meaning to my life usually isn't a priority to common folk - even educated ones. Most people are content to be a coin-shaped cog in a system where the greatest measure of success is money. And this will continue indefinitely. Unlike Rousseau before he reneged, who thought man is an animal that will only become better and better as time creeps along, I believe man doesn't necessarily gravitate to nobility, but towards systems - usually of increasing efficiency. For that reason, I do not expect an atheistic populace to tumble into chaos. Basically because what is foremost in most people's mind, regardless of belief, is self-preservation tinged with desire.

Enough of this. I would love to debate this further, and if someone wishes to, don't hesitate to make a separate thread somewhere, and I will visit. What suddenly occurred to me - brilliantly finding a way to correlate human meaning and purpose to the scope of thnis discussion - is that if the existence of a creature (specifically a self-aware creature with the capacity to ruminate on its own existence) requires some sort of purpose or direction to guide its every action, what purpose or direction does an infinite being possess? And can God actually attach to Himself a purpose in which He cannot deviate from in the least without sacrificing His omnipotence? If existence requires purpose, isn't God no more a puppet to this higher power than humans are to God? Possibly, though he would have a far greater clarity of vision.