Does God Exist?

[Demagog]

If god exists, he is either has one of the two sets of traits.

Benevolent, but not powerful and not able to interfere on Earth.

Powerful and knowing, but not benevolent (in fact, sadistic).


The world is full of pain, suffering, and completely lacks fairness.  This is more or less by design, in the natural world it is survival of the fittest, those who kill and hurt others the best are the ones who prosper.  Many denizens of the Earth must murder and consume others simply to live.  If god actually played a major role in designing this world, he/she/it has little concern for fairness or pain inflicted on the innocent.

Humans continue that legacy, their natural tendency is to make others suffer for their own good, and are self-centered towards their own needs and wants.  It is only through intellect and perspective that people overcome their cruel nature (and after thousands of years they are still far off).  Again, if God played a role in designing humans, he failed miserably, lacking expertise or ability, or he designed them with no concern to the joys and pains of humans.

Beyond that, there is no inherent fairness in the world.  The worst people can live long, healthy lives, while saintly people and children will die horrible, painful deaths.  Natural disasters strike indiscriminately (despite the bible and some religious people saying that  God uses natural disasters to strike down the immoral).


This is just one part of the argument that shows that a benevolent, powerful God has not had a significant role on this Earth.  Any God that does exist, is out of touch with our lives, and irrelevant in our path to happiness and enlightenment.

Perhaps he/she employs laissez-faire?

Anyway, discussing the "personality" of a god doesn't answer the question.

[Levgre]

Well it does argue against certain gods existing, like the Christian God, Islamic God, so on.
And I wasn't analyzing his personality really, but his nature (good vs. neutral vs. evil), and power/capabilities.

So I was arguing mostly against the archetypal God, that is powerful and benevolent.  He/she/it is either benevolent but does not impact us and did not design the world, or is powerful and has little to no concern for pain, suffering, or fairness.

Sure, there may be some essence out there that randomly created the universe in a chaotic manner.  But then why even call it a God?  It's more just a driving force that has no concern for us and knows little about us.  It has more in common with an Earthquake or Tsunami than it does with us.

It's basically impossible to disprove there is any God out there at all.  But you can argue against 'certain' Gods existing.   You can argue against the Gods humans claim as real, and argue that whatever God exists, it does not have certain traits. 

[PuppyChow]

Too bad no one informed god of this "strictly against killing" policy when he wiped out EVERY FIRSTBORN in Egypt.  Or the several other times he either murdered on a massive scale or approved of it.

Since you like links so much, knock yourself out: http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm

Key: Every single one of those save for one is from the old testament. And the one that isn't is God being just.

As I've said before, the Old Testament was before Jesus came and died on the cross for our sins. Once he came, he showed love to everybody. To quote Jmizzle,

You are trying to take the levitical law of the Old Testament to supplant the New Testament doctrine. The Bible actually explains in other passages of scripture that God loves a repentant heart more than any burnt offering. It is the origin of intent of our actions combined with our actions themselves that are pleasing to God. If you recall, Jesus sat with, ate with, and spent most of his time with the people that were rejected or shunned by society. He showed love to everyone he came in contact with, and rebuked those who were puffed up and corrupted by their own pride and power.

A "true Christian" is someone who is truly Christ-like, and within the confines of our own bodies and human nature, this is impossible because everyone is a sinner. The fact that some choose to constantly dwell on the sinful nature of others while ignoring their own (i.e. the first pic that SG posted) is not an example of the love that Christ shared.

While it doesn't strictly apply to this debate, the concept is there: Jesus usurped *some, maybe many* of the Old Testament laws.

[PuppyChow]

1) Scientific beliefs are constantly changing as theories are supported then disproven due to some form of evidence that is found that does not match with the theory. The evidence is then analysed and a reason is usually found after enough inspection, resulting in either an addition to the old theory, a new theory, or a conclusion that the evidence was actually due to some form of human error or mistake in procedure. On the other hand, belief in a god or higher power has fluctuated greatly over the years for no apparent reason. There is no real evidence that suggests why the christian god is more real than the Ancient Greek gods, or the Egyptian gods. The existence of a god is often put into question and the way religious people answer answer is that 'god made it that way' or 'that's just how it is'. Due to this, science is constantly becoming more accurate, or at least has less obvious flaws than it did in the past, whereas religion is no more accurate nowadays than it was many thousands of years ago.

That's why I don't quote the Bible in science essay questions. It isn't science. It's a belief system.

2) Many things that the various gods in the past have been 'known' to do, have later been discovered as natural occurences or have some scientific explanation, meaning that the religious belief at the time was very likely wrong at least to an extent. An example of this is the inundation of the Nile river for the ancient Egyptians. The Egyptians believed that a drought occured when a god was angry at them, so they shuld make more sacrifices. The scientific explanation is that due to weather conditions further up the river, the Nile would flood differently at different times. This means that either ancient Egyptian beliefs were wrong, or modern science and weather is wrong. I don't know about you, but I see more evidence on the side of modern science and weather.

Or God made modern science and weather to be that way . Same with parting of the Red Sea: it's possible given certain conditions in real life. Maybe God made those conditions happen.

3) The 'beginning of time'. Sure, modern science doesn't explain where the super-dense ball of mass or large amount of energy came from originally, but I myself find it easier to believe that a highly compacted ball of mass appeared from nowhere than to believe that a super-powerful being appeared out of nowhere, created a large number of stars and planets, then decided that it would create life on one particular planet of no apparent distinguishing features (that is until he created them). It's not the largest plannet, it's not the smallest either. It doesn't have the largest or smallest star that it is orbiting around, it's not the closest or furthest away from the sun either and it's not exactly in between. If a god did decide to do this, and did choose earth then why choose humans? Sure, humans have a large brain compared to that of other animals, but humans have no thick covering of fur to insulate them, no superior strength, no superior speed or agility, no talons or wings or camouflage. Why is it that god's most treasured possesion is so disadvantaged in this regard. Sure, humans have opposable thumbs and can walk on two legs, but there are so many other things that humans lack.

Or, God created that super dense ball then manipulated evolution on Earth for us to evolve and...

God created science .

Just saying that science doesn't disprove God.

Oh and another thing is that even religious people have different interpretations of their own religion to other religious people who base their religion off the same god, the same people, the same book. Puppychow believes in the ideal christian world, and I have no problem with that. It quite possibly helps him/her to make morally correct choices and such, but at the same time, there are others of the same religion who use their religion as a reason for killing, stereotypes and discrimination against minority religions. Now both puppy and the other man would consider themselves (christian?) but the other man may consider himself a stronger christian believer than puppy and puppy might not even consider this man a true christian due to his morals and reasons for being a christian.

You're exactly right. Islamic terrorists believe that they are truly following Islamic law, but they choose to believe certain scriptures and disregard others. Same with me. I disregard much of the Old Testament; I just read it as I would a history book.

Here's the thing with Christianity: The New Testament contradicts the Old Testament. You can be called out on no matter what you do by some sect or branch of Christianity. Does this mean the Bible is screwed up and wrong? No. It just means that Jesus, the son of God, overrides some Old Testament laws.

[PhuzzY LogiK]

Key: Every single one of those save for one is from the old testament. And the one that isn't is God being just.

As I've said before, the Old Testament was before Jesus came and died on the cross for our sins. Once he came, he showed love to everybody.

The problem I have with this, is we're talking about things god said and did.  Even if you want to argue that Jesus nullified the Old Testament (including the ten commandments, I guess?), god should not change between testaments.

If god was okay with rape and murder in the old testament, and god doesn't change, then god must still be okay with rape and murder in the new testament, despite Jesus' words.

[PuppyChow]

The problem I have with this, is we're talking about things god said and did.  Even if you want to argue that Jesus nullified the Old Testament (including the ten commandments, I guess?), god should not change between testaments.

If god was okay with rape and murder in the old testament, and god doesn't change, then god must still be okay with rape and murder in the new testament, despite Jesus' words.

For all of the first section, those are Old Testament laws that became obsolete when Jesus died for us. It still may be a sin to do any of those things, but you no longer should be put to death for it.

And the second section must all be taken with a grain of salt. First, notice the source: evilbible.com. Seems a rather biased source. Second, let's take the first one off of that second section you posted:

From there Elisha went up to Bethel.  While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him.  "Go up baldhead," they shouted, "go up baldhead!"  The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord.  Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces.

Now read this, skim it if you want: http://bibliahebraica.blogspot.com/2009/08/bizarre-bible-stories-2-kings-223-24.html

All of those quotes must be taken into context. I could make a case that all are simply misinterpretations caused by lack of knowledge... to quote myself (I love quotes),

Let's say a piano teacher is teaching a (girl) student to play a hard piano piece. The student cries out "Oh my god, this thing is so hard!"

And I quote her:

Oh my god, this thing is so hard!

Now, if you didn't know the background, what would you think that's implying? That's what quoting many verses of the Bible are like: without analyzing the word choice, allowing for translation problems, understanding the setting, understanding the time period, and such, you can come out with an entirely different meaning than intended. Granted, some verses can stand alone, but many DO require more knowledge to get the full meaning out of.

[Demagog]

I've found the answer! http://www.explosm.net/comics/1778/

That sums up everything quite nicely :-p Not really though.

[bojengles77]

    Let's say a piano teacher is teaching a (girl) student to play a hard piano piece. The student cries out "Oh my god, this thing is so hard!"

    And I quote her:

    Quote

        Oh my god, this thing is so hard!



    Now, if you didn't know the background, what would you think that's implying? That's what quoting many verses of the Bible are like: without analyzing the word choice, allowing for translation problems, understanding the setting, understanding the time period, and such, you can come out with an entirely different meaning than intended. Granted, some verses can stand alone, but many DO require more knowledge to get the full meaning out of.

I don't want to be entwined in a 16 page long conversation about religion and god, but i do agree with the aspect of context and translation elements being important. After having read Vergil's Aeneid in Latin and translating a good portion of it into my own english version, the difference is amazing. There is a huge alteration in meaning and feeling of phrases when translated literally, giving a huge amount of interpretation to the translator that can greatly change the meaning of any given passage. This is true for many religious texts considering language of origin and trade - offs between modern lanuages, as religion is universal.

[Kael Hate]

Today I was practicing Shinto and the Net Kami called to me and showed me the outbursts of those Ignorant (Unacquainted with; unconscious or unaware) of actualism.

God is a word representing a belief therefore, God exists as simply as the word exists.

As for my beliefs. I'm Agnostic to a sense, It cannot be defined that there is an entity representing the belief of a God or gods because a God is to be uncomprehensible.

aka If god exists he don't give a shit about me in particular and if he does it doesn't matter that I give a shit about him or not.

PS: Nihilism for the Win even above all gods and Infinitum

[BluePriest]

Key: Every single one of those save for one is from the old testament. And the one that isn't is God being just.

As I've said before, the Old Testament was before Jesus came and died on the cross for our sins. Once he came, he showed love to everybody.

The problem I have with this, is we're talking about things god said and did.  Even if you want to argue that Jesus nullified the Old Testament (including the ten commandments, I guess?), god should not change between testaments.

If god was okay with rape and murder in the old testament, and god doesn't change, then god must still be okay with rape and murder in the new testament, despite Jesus' words.

I had often pondered this statement.  About if this unchanging God that I grew up and learned about, really did change. Then I realized something. God didnt send Jesus to change the old testament, he came to fulfill it. Also, where does it say the bible is ok with Rape? Without references then it means nothing. Youre ok with Rape. Why? Because I say you are. Dont get me wrong, I no you have some type of reference for it, but please post that reference, otherwise as far as anyone else is concerned, you really dont know how it is, and you are just saying it for arguments sake.

[Kurohami]

This thread is still alive? Amazing.
But why only talk about god in Christianity?

[BluePriest]

This thread is still alive? Amazing.
But why only talk about God in Christianity?

Fixed

And Thats the only one people are focusing on, and the only one that is recieving any type of real defense