Does God Exist?

[Stevesie60]

people will always believe what they want to believe.

You've done this before, I think. It's a very lazy/blissfully unaware stance.

Find me an atheist who reads books like "Case For Christ" or "Reason For God" or a theist who reads "The God Delusion" or "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" and I'll concede your point. Protip: it doesn't happen. They only read books that confirm what they believe. There are very few examples in which people read both sides to see which one makes the most sense.

I will look for these people and get back to you. I bet there's lots of people who have read both types. Heck, I'd start with Pete.

Find anyone yet?

[michigancat]

people will always believe what they want to believe.

You've done this before, I think. It's a very lazy/blissfully unaware stance.

Find me an atheist who reads books like "Case For Christ" or "Reason For God" or a theist who reads "The God Delusion" or "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" and I'll concede your point. Protip: it doesn't happen. They only read books that confirm what they believe. There are very few examples in which people read both sides to see which one makes the most sense.

I will look for these people and get back to you. I bet there's lots of people who have read both types. Heck, I'd start with Pete.

Find anyone yet?

OH crap I FORGOT!

But here's an example of someone who read the God Delusion and reaffirmed their Christianity:

http://findingtruthtoday.typepad.com/finding-truth-today/2012/06/the-god-delusion-changed-my-life-part-1.html

more:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120622222837AA8Qpzk

I don't know anyone personally who has read both (PETE!!!!) but I generally don't talk to people about religion in real life.

[CNS]

Guys, quarter-life crises aren't a thing.

Also, I am not religious but the argument interests me a lot.  I mean, what other subject can people devote so much time and energy to and be no further to explaining away a line of questions that a 5yr can come up with and can be repeated until the other person ends in exhaustion and short of an answer?

 "what came before that?"

"What started that?"

I mean, it's fascinating.

[HeinBallz]

Most religious people have no real faith - only a strong desire to cling to something they feel helpless with.  They believe in god only with hope of being "saved" - regardless of what it is they're being saved from.  Faithful people have no need to convert others or be offended by non-believers.

What is the purpose of religion?  Does every religious person here believe in hell?  How do you define god?  Would it matter to you if Jesus was no different than Krishna, Mithra,  etc? Do you believe morality only exist through secular belief structures?  Is Penn Gillette not entertaining?

[steve dave]

This isn't a Christian god thread, this is a god thread

[Stevesie60]

people will always believe what they want to believe.

You've done this before, I think. It's a very lazy/blissfully unaware stance.

Find me an atheist who reads books like "Case For Christ" or "Reason For God" or a theist who reads "The God Delusion" or "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" and I'll concede your point. Protip: it doesn't happen. They only read books that confirm what they believe. There are very few examples in which people read both sides to see which one makes the most sense.

I will look for these people and get back to you. I bet there's lots of people who have read both types. Heck, I'd start with Pete.

Find anyone yet?

OH crap I FORGOT!

But here's an example of someone who read the God Delusion and reaffirmed their Christianity:

http://findingtruthtoday.typepad.com/finding-truth-today/2012/06/the-god-delusion-changed-my-life-part-1.html

more:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120622222837AA8Qpzk

I don't know anyone personally who has read both (PETE!!!!) but I generally don't talk to people about religion in real life.

Like I said, very few people read both. Lots of people in this thread have read my post by now, only one has said they've read literature on both sides.

[HeinBallz]

This isn't a Christian god thread, this is a god thread

I'd wager most of the people here that are religious, are likely Christians.  If I am incorrect on this assumption, I apologize for my ignorance. 

My assertions on faith would hold true for any deity based religion that allows the existence of god to be up for debate however.

[chum1]

Also, I am not religious but the argument interests me a lot.  I mean, what other subject can people devote so much time and energy to and be no further to explaining away a line of questions that a 5yr can come up with and can be repeated until the other person ends in exhaustion and short of an answer?

 "what came before that?"

"What started that?"

I mean, it's fascinating.

That's not unique to religion, right?

[star seed 7]

I don't read literature on anything.

[bubbles4ksu]

Like I said, very few people read both. Lots of people in this thread have read my post by now, only one has said they've read literature on both sides.

i read "the case for christ" and "more than a carpenter" when i was having doubts about my faith. i was insulted by the circular reasoning in them. those two books did a lot to show me that there was no evidence for the christian god.

[EllRobersonisInnocent]

I really wanted to believe when I was reading Da Vinci Code

[michigancat]

Like I said, very few people read both. Lots of people in this thread have read my post by now, only one has said they've read literature on both sides.

very few people read either.

But my main point is that I don't like the notion that this shouldn't be discussed because everyone has already made up their mind here:

people will always believe what they want to believe.

It's the equivalent of plugging your ears and going "LA LA LA" because you don't want to hear something you don't like. People can be swayed (both ways) by having discussions like this.

[Stevesie60]

Like I said, very few people read both. Lots of people in this thread have read my post by now, only one has said they've read literature on both sides.

very few people read either.

But my main point is that I don't like the notion that this shouldn't be discussed because everyone has already made up their mind here:

people will always believe what they want to believe.

It's the equivalent of plugging your ears and going "LA LA LA" because you don't want to hear something you don't like. People can be swayed (both ways) by having discussions like this.

Nobody on this board is going to change their mind because of this thread. But you know this.

[Kat Kid]

I really like St. Francis of Assisi.  What should I read?  I tried reading the part of Matthew that apparently caused St. Francis to take on a life of poverty.  It had a couple good parts, but then it was just a bunch of boring and kind of prickish advice from Jesus to his apostles.  Like, if someone doesn't help you, wipe all the dust off your feet and I'll take care of them Sodom and Gomorrah style later.  That part wasn't very inspiring.

[michigancat]

Nobody on this board is going to change their mind because of this thread. But you know this.

You can't say that with any certainty. While I agree that this thread and this thread alone could change someone's mind, that doesn't mean it isn't a discussion worth having. It could definitely plant a seed that inspires someone to learn more. Perhaps someone will read one of the books you mentioned or ask someone they respect about their relationship with God. Who knows?

[CHONGS]

Name of the Rose

[Stevesie60]

Like I said, very few people read both. Lots of people in this thread have read my post by now, only one has said they've read literature on both sides.

i read "the case for christ" and "more than a carpenter" when i was having doubts about my faith. i was insulted by the circular reasoning in them. those two books did a lot to show me that there was no evidence for the christian god.

I am sorry to hear that. I know a lot of those types of books (on both sides) do have circular reasoning. I thought "Case for Christ" was a good one, but I haven't read it in a while. I've more recently read "The Reason for God" thought it was better at making points. No idea on "More than a Carpenter."

[Stevesie60]

Nobody on this board is going to change their mind because of this thread. But you know this.

You can't say that with any certainty. While I agree that this thread and this thread alone could change someone's mind, that doesn't mean it isn't a discussion worth having. It could definitely plant a seed that inspires someone to learn more. Perhaps someone will read one of the books you mentioned or ask someone they respect about their relationship with God. Who knows?

Possibly!

[HeinBallz]

Devils advocate:  how do the local Christians feel about the arguments that early Christianity was sun worshipping and a lot of the stories about Jesus can be tied to astrological events.  These same events also being the basis for why so many other gods/saviors were: "being born to a virgin on December 25th" or "their birth being accompanied by a star in the east that lead three kings to the place of birth"  "significance of having 12 apostles" or a "resurrection shortly after spring equinox after being dead for 3 days" etc etc?

[sys]

I really like St. Francis of Assisi.  What should I read?  I tried reading the part of Matthew that apparently caused St. Francis to take on a life of poverty.  It had a couple good parts, but then it was just a bunch of boring and kind of prickish advice from Jesus to his apostles.  Like, if someone doesn't help you, wipe all the dust off your feet and I'll take care of them Sodom and Gomorrah style later.  That part wasn't very inspiring.

they didn't have many good books back then, kat kid.  you can bet that if the game of thrones had been around, francis would have been nose deep in that instead reading about dusty feet.

[sys]

i forgot that he's also part lamb.  lion, man, god and lamb.

[ksucrcoop]

croop, your argument rests on defining free will in a way that no one has ever defined it.  except maybe cs lewis, don't know because i slept through most of those movies.

guess im just original
 

It's just such a blatant idiot's ploy.  "If you don't believe in god then you don't believe in free will!"---->"If you don't agree with the president then you're un-American!" or "If you're for gay marriage then you're against families!" 

You set it up by associating it with something most people don't want to be labeled as.  It's a tactic geared toward swaying the simple-minded.  "I don't want to be that thing that he said so I'd better agree with him!"

no ploy here, bread... but since you've reverted to basically using the exact tactic your accusing me of against me, I'll try and explain better or maybe it's just a misunderstanding of defining the terms upfront.

Free will - the freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention (commonly viewed as having a soul/conscience)
Atheist - a rejection of belief in the existence of god/deities. Which I'm assuming they don't believe in life after death or that people have a soul.
 
So here are the two main view points about free will:
1.) All things, current and future, are the result of prior events and therefore anything that will happen has already been preordained and cannot be changed.
    A.) both deity believing and atheist people can technically believe this - I associated my argument with a christian god definition (which does not allow this viewpoint), but I guess someone could believe in a god that has their entire life planned for them and there is nothing they can do to change it.

1.1) (since someone brought up quantum phsyics)  All things, current and future, are the result of prior events, but through the inherent 'random' nature of quantum level interactions, there are an infinite number of possibilities that can result  - random is quoted since we/me don't really understand how something can truly be random.
     A.) Again, both deity believing and atheist people can technically believe this - but it still does not allow for free will to exist, only infinite randomness. So, our lives are not preordained, but we do not possess the ability to freely choose our own path. This one is tricky though...

2.) All things, current and future, are the result of prior events or randomness at the quantum level, but through free will people make choices to direct their path in life.
   A.)  I don't see how an atheist can believe this and have their view on life hold up (help me if I'm wrong). In order for us to have the ability to freely choose (make a choice that is not determined by prior causes) what is right/wrong/good/bad/etc. there has to be something that exists outside of the physical world that influences us. The prior two view points rely upon either prior cause or random interaction (but still physical or material interaction) to determine future events, so they leave no room for the existence free will. Therefore, if intervention beyond the physical world (i.e. metaphysical) is necessary for free will to exist, then how can someone who does not believe in the existence of a soul (again, I'm assuming atheist don't believe in souls/consciences) hold that free will exists and there is no god?

not saying any of the above ways are better than the other, just trying to make logical arguments...

[Goldbrick]

I've never understood why people don't start with the basics regarding questions of gods, afterlifes, etc

Well first we have to ask what consciousness is? No one seems to have a freaking clue other than that you know its there because of your personal experience. Its impossible to deny you are a conscious being. Try it.

So that one seems overly difficult. How about the next question. Mainstream scientists operate under a mechanistic view of the brain and believe that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. In other words, consciousness is dependent on the brain and when your brain dies, your consciousness dies with it. So the question is, is there any evidence that suggests that consciousness is more than a byproduct of the brain?

And yes there is:

Extremely comprehensive but kind of expensive. They made a crucial mistake in my opinion with the title by using the term 'irreducible' and that makes people think its a book from intelligent design people. Its not.

http://www.amazon.com/Irreducible-Mind-Toward-Psychology-Century/dp/1442202068/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1364863247&sr=8-1&keywords=irreducible+mind

I recommend this one. Its smaller, less comprehensive, but gives a good overview of the types of studies being done and why they are serious, statistically significant results. He has an hour and half long talk on youtube that summarizes some points of the book but moreover explains the taboo of any subject labeled parapsychology:

http://www.amazon.com/Entangled-Minds-Extrasensory-Experiences-Quantum/dp/1416516778/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1364863400&sr=1-1&keywords=entangled+minds

There are other books but those are the ones I recommend most often.

So if you're with me so far and agree with the material or at the very least agree its all worth some more serious study, the idea that the mind can operate outside the body is of serious consideration. So the concept of an afterlife seems not so remote. That doesn't mean a god exists but it makes it more likely in my opinion. But lets take it further.

A shitload of people experience something called a Near Death Experience. These people across all cultures and backgrounds have an experience with very similar but not always the same results. If you're catholic you'll often see 'jesus' whereas an atheist won't. But there are a lot of similarities. They almost always report these same activities.... they float outside of their body with a degree of vision different than the peripheral vision of having eyes, they feel 'realer than real' as in its not a vague dreamlike state, they see a giant being of light that gives them nothing but unconditional love(god?), they experience the interactions they had with people over their lives and in those experiences they feel the joy, terror, pain etc that they caused in other people.

Not everybody has a near death experience they recall when resuscitated but last I heard it was around 20% of people do. Even mainstream science admits this is happening but from a reductive, materialist perspective they say its a powerful dream and nothing more. Given the information I already outlined, and interesting cases where the person outside their body recalls events happening usually in hospitals while out cold and well outside of their bodily physical senses range, there is reason to believe its an actual experience of something real.

So is God real? Don't know, I think so though. I think that so many civilizations and cultures thought there was both some sort of intelligent god thing and afterlife is interesting. Also, this doesn't get into the anthropic principle material which is only countered by positing a multiverse, both explanations being absurdly exotic.

[puniraptor]

Basically, he is saying that without the spirit realm, our entire existence is nothing but a cosmic Rube Goldberg machine.

Kinda fun both ways!

[PoetWarrior]

For the most part, religion is a crutch for the morally weak.

Weird statement.