All sustainable and proven theories need evidence otherwise they crumble. Theories arn't sustained by hopes and dreams. No evidence, no theory. And what is the absolute proof that an animal, for example, doesn't exist? Right, but theories require testable evidence in order for the theory to withstand scientific scrutiny which is how the theory of evolution, for example, still stands strong. But in our discussion evidence, nevermind proof, doesn't exist. As I said in my previous post and I'll quote myself, "The absense of proof or evidence to suggest existence is proof that a certain thing doesn't exist untill either evidence suggests otherwise or proof proves otherwise." No proof. No evidence. No scientific basis. Only faith.
^^I agree w/ p3ps1c0la, I personally think that it's impossible to prove or disprove that god exist; just as its impossible to prove or disprove that life exist after death. The hardest thing that I believe to change in a person is their conviction because whether a person is atheist or believes in god, their belief is based on faith which cannot be proven.
@dann lol. sure, I agree to a stallmate. but i do have a point to bring up before you depart from this thread/topic -- Imo, to be necessary is to be absolute. it is necessary for us to eat in order to live. differ from your example - it is not necessary for us to eat healthy, if we do not value the essence of "good health". however, to live - it is necessary to eat (whether it be healthy or not). so, in the basic form of necessity, there exist its absoluteness i think that is the essence of Descartes' writings. in the first two works of Mediations, he arises the skepticism of God - but there is an absolute that he confirms from the very beginning and that absolute will always remain. His thoughts. if he is able to think, that he is able to exist. therefore, though he may be skeptic of the inputs given to him from the external world - he does not question his ability to think (or doubt). that is the necessity he speak of in Meditation III - he want to find out where does his thoughts come from and he resolves in the confirmation of God. therefore, since he values the his thoughts to be necessary to his existence and his concludes with his thoughts originating from God - then the necessity of God is true to his very existence and is necessary for him to exist. so, i view that -- since his thoughts are tied to his existence that is absolute and his thoughts are not of his originality; then the original author of his thoughts (God) is absolute. now, Descartes is brilliant in that, he reverses his thinking to justified and confirm whether this logical structure is true. if God is not absolute, then what He gives to Descartes as thoughts would also not be absolute and therefore, if Descartes is to concluded that his thought were in any form absolute and necessary to his existence would be false. therefore, proposing that he is able to exist other than his ability to think - which is to Descartes, a crude and very false accusation. therefore, in reversing the reasoning - Descartes is again able to prove the existence of God. @p3ps1c0la that is not true. Albert Einstein's theory of relativity was composed in 1919 - however, its empirical evidences/data were not explored and confirmed until 1959. so, from 1919 to 1959, those 40 years - was Einstein's theory not a theory, simply b/c it did not have "evidences" to back it up? The "absolute" proof of proving the non-existence of any animal is finding all the animals in the world and through classification of all animals - eliminating the possibility of the proposed animal in question. however, this "absolute" proof is nearly impossible to achieve - even tho the scientific community strives very hard to achieve it. But, to state that an animal does not exist, simply because we have find it yet - does not equate to its non-existence. take for example this scenario; I hide a pencil in a room. and i tell you to search for that pencil in that room. if you do not find that pencil; is it correct to state "the pencil does not exist"? no (to an extent). like i explained before in my last post to you - from your timeline, you searched and did not find the pencil. so to you (i cannot stress this enough) the pencil is non-existent. however, from the pencil's timeline (which is reality) - it is and still is in existence (whether you find it or not). so from your own perception, the pencil does not exist. however, that perception is lying to you (for the moment) and until you correct your perception (when you finally find that pencil) then will your view on the situation be changed and be in-sync with reality.
i would again argue what you said there, but theres really no point for me to continue on because what you addressed there still doesnt address the points that i was trying to highlight. all im trying to ask is "COULD you be wrong?" by supporting it with some facts, but you keep on avoiding the question and use the same facts against me, by just highlighting some relevant evidence to support your own. the only question i was trying to get an answer for ever since my involvement in this thread is, "is it POSSIBLE for you to be mistaken?" i am not claiming you are wrong, nor do i claim you are right, i merely want to know if it could be possible for you to be mistaken. that is all.
@apollon since you believe that to be necessary is to be absolute and that thoughts originate from god, isn't evil a necessity to distinguish the difference between good and evil? do u believe that evil or, thoughts of evil originate from god since Descartes stated that no thought is original and all thoughts must be absolute (from god); so are you saying that God has thoughts of evil??? If so, how can God be good and evil at the same time??? (sorry for the wording, 1:30 in the morning too tired to word my argument correctly).
Einstein's theory had evidence to back it up from as early as 1919 I believe when light from distant stars were deflected by the suns gravity during an eclipes and confirmed his theory. But the theory has not been absolutely proven, yet. http://www.wired.com/science/space/news/2004/08/64505 Also remember, the word "theory" has different meanings. Not just 'it' as in the animal itself but the lack of all and any evidence that suggests that this animals exists is, as I've said, evidence in itself that the animal doesn't exist. If I made a claim that flying fire breathing dragons still exist or even once existed without any sort of evidence, never mind proof, would you say that dragons don't and never did existed because there are no skeletons to prove it and no valid testable evidence to suggest the existence of dragons past or present or would you say otherwise? You believe that there's a chance 'it' could exist simply because we don't know everything. The lack of any and all evidence, however, points to the nonexistence untill evidence exists that suggests otherwise, as I've said. In science, it's that simple. But the reality, atleast in our discussion, is that evidence, nevermind proof, doesn't exist. My argument is based on evidence or the lack there of. Not belief in the unknown. If science had a personality it'd be a skeptical one. Prove it or show me evidence otherwise its existence has no factual basis and there for nonexistent. Emotions need not apply.
Can you say God doesn't exist, just because you haven't find him yet? Maybe he is under my bed, maybe he is on Mars, who knows? I don't think we can ever know enough to say for certain that God does not exist.
why do you people argue about does god exist or not? Does it really have any meaning? Why don't ya spend sometime and think about what's happening in your parts of the world.
^ why do you come here with a post that has nothing to do with the OP's question?, was you expecting this post to result in the closing down of the religious section?, if you dont like this section then its best you dont come here, while you wrote that post you could have been outside doing neighbourhood watch or something. to each his own..
Just because you dont think there is meaning to this question doesn't mean others dont. Whether God exists or not is important to the understanding of our world and what responsibilities us as individuals have. tbh you could say nothing has meaning, or you could say everything has meaning it all depends on yourself. Clearly you personally dont like to consider this question and find it unmeaningful but to others it mite be a way for them to understand the world they are living in and i believe there is meaning to understanding this (whether you agree or not is entirely your choice of course)
because some of us find this entertaining, food for thought, elaborate our knowledge, and brain work out. thats simply it. if you dont like our ways, gtfo. and we do think about our parts of the world too.
If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to Then He is not omnipotent. If He is able, but not willing Then He is malevolent. If He is both able and willing Then whence cometh evil? If He is neither able nor willing Then why call Him God?
Firstly, How do you know that God is not omnipotent? Have you ever considered that there is so much knowledge out there that we have not yet concieved of, or acknowledged yet? There are many things that we postualate to have a solution or answer to, like the how the universe began or even simpler, an example of trying to solve a math puzzle. Sometimes we know there is an answer, yet we are only in the middle of exploration and in midst of solving the problem. Just because we haven't reached the answer yet, doesn't mean it doesn't exist right? Maybe there are answers too all your questions, like your fire example. It could be true that in this lifetime we never comprehend the answers, yet it could also be presupposed that these answers exist in another realm of reality that we can not or not yet have knowledge of. Secondly, I have also noticed similarites between the Egyptian Cosmologies, it could be questioned that the story was forged, i'm assuming you are talking about the Christian religion and doubting the christian classical theism God right? Again, you could suppose the Christian Religion is one big ass conspiracy, but just because the Christian God doesn't exist, are you then saying that the Egyptian Gods exist? If so, then isn't the Christian Religion just 'forged' from the Egyptian Mythologies? If so, then surely the Gods from both sides are likely to be similar? Again, here you are basing your assumptions on the law of physics, are you sure we have obtained all knowledge of the law of physics? Maybe the answer does not lie in Physics, but this may be hard for you to get your head around since i am basing this statement on the assumption that you are an empiricist and believe in only empircal evidence of what you observe. But then again, why would an empricist want to believe in a transcendant, unmutable figure that consists of no matter? xD You say spirits are made of neither matter or engery... what are you basing this statement on? Have you examined a spirit or have solid proof to back up this statement you are proposing? Well, of course not, if you have you wouldn't be doubting the existence of spirits, right? >_< Damn. Your following statement again falls under the same fallacy as the previous one. You are clearly an empirical thinker, and only believe what is true to be in agreement of (what we know of NOW) of the law of physics. By the way, just for you interest, just because i critiqued your theory, it doesn't mean I am trying to go against you to prove the existence of God, I have no knowledge whatsoever to solidly prove God's existence, I am merely discussing this issue and sowing a few thoughts to consider. I can tell you now, I am not a Christian. :]
religion serves by giving people hope and belief, however it is not certain that god does or doesn't exist. This debate can go endless cause their no accurate evidences. All you got is a theory. Even if religion is fake, it provides people hope etc..they like it, i think XD What are you going to say and feel when you are all alone in the dark? Some how the word " God " will come in lols. My perspective.
Now, there wouldn't be any problem if religion (or specifically, "God-advocates") does not come barging in to say science is heresy or whatnot, obstructing the advancement of human enlightenment. Plus, a discussion doesn't always need to prove (or disprove) anything, sometimes the discussion is an experience in itself. There's few things in life that are absolute, if we only talk about things which are facts, we cease to be interesting.
No one can exactly say god exist as no one has seen god. However Christian believe that they do feel the present of God. This question no one can give an accurate answer cause it's a never ending process. If someone can actually die and come back to this world and tell us, then i'm sure most of the questions which remains as a mystery can be solved. Sadly, no one did come back alive after dead and tell us. Using science to explain things that happen in this world, is not entirely accurate. Some things in this world can be explain and some can't. Wat can u say about the existence of fate? or maybe as they say feelings? or maybe destiny? How the world or universe exist? Or how even a living things can be exist in this world? Or maybe how to explain some ppl actually change character that's like anoter person in a split second which wat most ppl say as being possessed by a spirit? Remember science, and law of physics exist due to human and that is way long after the whole world and so on has created. So law of physics are made by human which they assume that it is true and fix as it happens to be true everytime an incident (relating to that particular law) happen. One of the best law to see is the some of the chemistry law made. You can find afew which differ from a law made. Therefore, existence of God is a believe. You want to believe it or not, it's all up to human choice. Which is why, there are so many religions and some ppl even remain as free thinker.
I think if there was a god, God wud be beyond human understanding, doing things that are theoretically impossible for us humans to do
